Article Review EMERGENCY Organization

Psychology of Men & Masculinities Female and Male Coworkers: Masculinity, Sexism, and Interpersonal Competence at Work Suzanne H. Lease, Whitney A. Shuman, and Alida N. Gage Online First Publication, May 16, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000218

CITATION Lease, S. H., Shuman, W. A., & Gage, A. N. (2019, May 16). Female and Male Coworkers: Masculinity, Sexism, and Interpersonal Competence at Work. Psychology of Men & Masculinities. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000218

Female and Male Coworkers: Masculinity, Sexism, and Interpersonal Competence at Work

Suzanne H. Lease and Whitney A. Shuman The University of Memphis

Alida N. Gage Memphis, Tennessee

Historically, adherence to traditional cultural expectations of masculinity in the workplace, displayed via competitive, aggressive, or controlling behaviors, has been rewarded with increased social influence and perceptions of professional capabilities. However, changing work environments increasingly emphasize teams that require competence in interpersonal interactions. Men who strongly endorse traditional masculinity ideology might perceive themselves as less competent in these interpersonal domains; furthermore, the relationships between men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and their perceived interpersonal competence with work colleagues might vary based on the gender of those colleagues. The relationships between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and perceived interpersonal competence might also be mediated by specific benevolent sexist beliefs. The current study examined how the endorsement of traditional masculinity directly and indirectly (via sexist beliefs) relates to perceived interpersonal competencies with coworkers and whether the gender of the coworker moderates those relationships. In a sample of 194 employed men (175 who self-reported as White; 166 who reported as heterosexual), coworker gender moderated the relationship between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and competence in negative assertion, but not managing conflict or providing emotional support. Moderated mediation analyses indicated that coworker gender moderated the indirect relationship between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and emotional support and conflict management. Men who more strongly endorsed a traditional masculinity ideology perceived they were more interpersonally competent with female coworkers/less competent with male coworkers. Limitations and implications for addressing gendered role norms in the workplace are discussed.

Public Significance Statement Men who more strongly endorse traditional masculine role norms are more likely to hold sexist beliefs toward women and were likely to perceive that they were more interpersonally competent with their female work colleagues than their male colleagues in providing emotional support, but less competent in managing conflict with their male colleagues. Interpersonal communication and interaction skills are now seen as key professional competencies, and men, particularly White and heterosexual men who adhere to a traditional masculinity ideology, may struggle with these skills.

Keywords: masculinity ideology, interpersonal competence, benevolent sexist beliefs, work

Levant (2011) suggested that traditional masculinity ideology informs the expectations for boys and men to conform to socially sanctioned male role norms while avoiding those that are pro- scribed. The dominant masculinity ideology serves to affirm male power and status (Levant, 2011) in interpersonal interactions, including workplace interactions. Hegemonic masculinity in the workplace is characterized by competition, aggressive interactions,

and exercising control over less powerful workers (Oliffe & Han, 2014). For men, adherence to traditional cultural expectations of masculinity (e.g., an assertive, agentic, dominating, and task- oriented interaction style) has been associated with positions of leadership and increased social influence and perceptions of pro- fessional capabilities (Carli, 1989, 2006; Deaux, 1985; Duehr & Bono, 2006; Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011; Simpson, 2006; Still, 2006).

However, changing workplaces suggest that interpersonal com- munication styles and behaviors that were rewarded for men in previous generations have become less desirable in an economy that is shifting to a postindustrial service economy utilizing work- place teams (Carnevale & Smith, 2013). This is particularly true in work settings in which there are greater requirements for emo- tional labor (Nixon, 2009), and the number of female coworkers and supervisors is increasing (Zuga, 2009). Emotional labor is the managing of one’s expression of emotions in occupational settings

Suzanne H. Lease and Whitney A. Shuman, Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research, The University of Memphis; Alida N. Gage, Independent Practice, Memphis, Tennessee.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Suzanne H. Lease, Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Re- search, The University of Memphis, 100 Ball Hall, Memphis, TN 38152. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

Psychology of Men & Masculinities © 2019 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 1, No. 999, 000 1524-9220/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/men0000218

1

to fulfill the emotional expectations of the job (Hochschild, 1983) and is increasingly common in a service economy. Recent surveys of employment recruiters and human resources departments rate interpersonal communication and interaction skills as key profes- sional competencies (Center for Professional Excellence at York College of Pennsylvania, 2012; Hynes, 2012). However, endorse- ment of traditional masculinity ideology has been related to lower openness to communication and quality of communication (Kara- kis & Levant, 2012; McGraw, 2001), suggesting that the changing workplace requires men to display interpersonal behaviors that challenge traditional masculine role norms. This discrepancy might result in lower self-perceptions of behavioral competency in those interpersonal domains.

The current study examined the relationships between men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and perceptions of their interpersonal competencies with male and female work col- leagues. Interpersonal competence is viewed as multifaceted and potentially varying across differing task domains (Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, & Reis, 1988). We examined the domains of negative assertion (i.e., asserting personal rights and expressing displeasure with the other person in the interaction), emotional support, and conflict management. Competence in providing emo- tional support is seen as crucial to leader development and effec- tiveness (Riggio & Lee, 2007), whereas conflict with coworkers may lead to low productivity or low overall morale (Frone, 2000), highlighting the importance of competence in managing interper- sonal conflict. Although it might be expected that stronger en- dorsements of masculinity ideology would be related to greater competence in negative assertion or conflict management, all the interpersonal domains require communication of emotional reac- tions (e.g., telling a coworker that he or she has done something that made you angry) or emotional management (refraining from saying something that might cause a disagreement to escalate). Men who strongly endorse a traditional masculinity ideology might perceive themselves as less competent in these interpersonal domains.

Of particular interest in the current study is how the relation- ships between men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ide- ology and their perceived interpersonal competence with work colleagues might vary based on the gender of that colleague. Deaux and Major (1987) suggested that men and women display gender-related behaviors as a function of their own beliefs about gender, the characteristics of the other person (target) in the interaction, and the characteristics of the interaction situation. For example, men generally interrupt women more frequently than other men in conversation, dominate conversations, issue direc- tives, and ignore the communications of others (Carli, 2006). Although Buhrmester et al. (1988) reported that men and women differed in their levels of perceived competence based on the specific interpersonal domain and the gender of the partner in the interaction, no studies have examined associations between en- dorsed masculinity ideology and competence in interpersonal do- mains, dependent on gender of the interaction partner.

Thus, the literature suggests that men who more strongly en- dorse traditional masculinity ideology might rate themselves lower on interpersonal competence in domains that require recognizing others’ perspectives and sharing emotional reactions in the here and now. Further, the relationship between endorsement of tradi- tional masculinity and interpersonal competence might differ based

on the gender of the communication target. For example, men who more strongly endorse traditional masculinity ideology might view female coworkers as less powerful, whereas male coworkers could be perceived as competitors who present a greater threat (Lewis, 1978; O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986), leading them to perceive greater competence in managing conflict or expressing dis- pleasure with their female coworkers compared with male coworkers. Similarly, men who endorse higher levels of traditional masculinity ideology may generally rate themselves lower on interpersonal com- petence in the domain of emotional support and perceive that they have even less competence in providing emotional support to a male coworker owing to concerns about how being emotionally open with another male could be perceived (fear of having one’s masculinity or sexual orientation questioned).

Hypothesis 1: We hypothesized that masculinity would be negatively associated with the three outcome variables of perceived interpersonal competencies in domains of negative assertion, conflict management, and emotional support.

Hypothesis 2: We hypothesized that the relationships between endorsement of masculinity norms and interpersonal compe- tencies would be conditional on the gender of the coworker (see Figure 1 for the conceptual model) such that endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology would be more strongly related to greater perceived competence in emotional support, negative assertion, and conflict management when the co- worker was female and, conversely, related to lower perceived competence when the coworker was male.

Ambivalent Sexism

Another focus of the study is the possible mediating role that sexist beliefs play in the relationships between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and interpersonal competence. The devaluation of the feminine is considered to be an integral component of Western traditional masculine socialization (Levant et al., 2007; Mahalik et al., 2003). Traditional hegemonic mascu- linity is partly characterized by a power imbalance between men and women, rooted in patriarchy and the avoidance of the feminine (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). The more an individual en- dorses traditional masculine norms, the more likely the person is to describe men and women as inherently different and, to a certain extent, unequal (Levant & Richmond, 2008). Thus, hegemonic masculinity sets the stage for sexist beliefs.

Glick and Fiske (1996) defined sexism as “a special case of prejudice marked by a deep ambivalence, rather than a uniform

Figure 1. Conceptual model of coworker gender moderating male role norm adherence and perceived interpersonal competence link.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

2 LEASE, SHUMAN, AND GAGE

antipathy, towards women” (p. 491). Glick and Fiske conceptual- ized ambivalent sexism as encompassing both hostile and benev- olent feelings toward women that stem from faulty generalizations about women as a group. Hostile sexism is the more overtly negative, prejudicial view of women as a group, such as the belief that women tease men sexually or that feminists are making unreasonable demands. Benevolent sexism, on the other hand, can be conceptualized as subjectively positive, though patronizing, attitudes toward women that are still harmful because they view women stereotypically, unequally, and in restricted roles, such as the belief that women are purer than men (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Both hostile sexism and benevolent sexism reinforce men’s struc- tural power and undercut women’s status; however, there is evi- dence to suggest that benevolent sexism is uniquely harmful to women’s performance while appearing benign (Vescio, Gervais, Snyder, & Hoover, 2005). The current study focused on benevo- lent sexism.

Research indicates that stronger endorsements of the traditional masculinity ideology are associated with greater levels of sexism (Gage & Lease, 2018; Leaper & Van, 2008; Pek & Leong, 2003). A higher level of endorsement of benevolent sexism among men has been associated with a preference for giving women, but not men, dependency-oriented assistance rather than tools for autono- mous coping (Shnabel, Bar-Anan, Kende, Bareket, & Lazar, 2016); expressing less opposition to affirmative actions for female employees; and perceiving women as likely having lower status (Delacollette, Dumont, Sarlet, & Dardenne, 2013; Fraser, Osborne, & Sibley, 2015).

Attitudes of benevolent sexism have potential to mediate the associations between masculinity ideology and interpersonal com- petence with male or female coworkers. Men who more strongly endorse traditional male role norms are more likely to endorse a higher level of benevolent sexism that leads them to regard their female coworkers as less threatening and in need of assistance in the workplace. Thus, they may be more confident in their inter- personal competence with female coworkers than with male co- workers.

Hypothesis 3: We hypothesized a series of moderated medi- ation models such that benevolent sexism would mediate the relationships between adherence to male role norms and the three outcome variables, but that the indirect effect would be conditional on coworker gender (see Figure 2 for the concep- tual moderated mediation model). Because men who endorse benevolent sexism view women more positively (albeit not equally), the relationships between benevolent sexism and perceived interpersonal competence are likely to be positive and stronger when coworkers are female rather than male.

Method

Participants

Complete data sets were available for 194 male participants between the ages of 18 and 80 years (Mage � 39.2, SD � 14.4). In all, 175 men self-reported as Caucasian/White, eight as African American/Black, two as Asian American, three as Latino American/ Hispanic American, and four as biracial/multiracial. One partici- pant defined as other and one did not respond. In terms of educa- tional level, 71 (36.6%) had a 4-year degree, whereas another 87 (44.9%) had some graduate work or a graduate degree. More than 83% (n � 162) were currently employed either part- or full-time, and the remaining 32 had been employed in the past. Data were not collected on type of work. The majority (77.3%) identified as “mostly O.K. financially” to “mostly well-off.” The majority (n � 166, 85.6%) identified as heterosexual/straight.

Instruments

Male-Role Norms Inventory–Revised. Endorsement of tra- ditional masculinity ideology was assessed by the 53-item Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R; Levant et al., 2007). The MRNI-R can be scored as seven separate subscales (Avoid- ance of Femininity, Negativity Toward Sexual Minorities, Self- Reliance, Aggression, Dominance, Nonrelational Sexuality, and Restrictive Emotionality) or as a total score representing the gen- eral construct of traditional masculinity ideology.

Participants respond to each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Subscale scores are computed by taking the average of the items designated for the subscale. The total scale score is obtained by calculating the average of responses to all the items. A high score indicates stronger endorsement of traditional masculine ideology. Levant, Rankin, Williams, Hasan, and Smalley (2010) reported an � reli- ability of .96 for total scale internal consistency in a sample of 593 undergraduates. The reliabilities for the subscales ranged from .75 to .92; no test–retest reliability has been reported. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the MRNI-R with other mea- sures of male gender role norms. Coefficients were reported as .33 with the Male Role Attitude Scale (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1993) and .60 with the Conformity to Male Norms Inventory (Mahalik et al., 2003). In the current sample, the � coefficient for the total scale score was .96.

Ambivalent sexism. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) consists of 22 items on two subscales of Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism (11 items on each scale). The Hostile Sexism subscale represents the belief that women are dangerous, manipulative, and contentious toward males, containing such items as “Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually puts him on a tight leash.” The Benevolent Sexism subscale represents the belief that women are in need of protection and deserve to be cherished and revered for their special moral virtue. An item example is “Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.” Only scores from the Benevolent Sexism subscale were used in the analyses. Respondents rate each item on a scale ranging from 0 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). Higher scores indicated higher levels of sexism. Internal consistency estimates on the measure have yielded � values from .80 to .92 for the Hostile Sexism subscale and from .73Figure 2. Conceptual model of moderated mediation.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

3MASCULINITY AND INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE AT WORK

to .85 for the Benevolent Sexism subscale (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Correlations with scales assessing attitudes toward women and rape myths provided evidence of construct validity (Gage & Lease, 2018). In the current study, the Cronbach’s � was .82 for the Benevolent Sexism subscale.

The Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire. The 40-item Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ; Buhrmester et al., 1988) measures perceived interpersonal competence in five specific relationship domains (initiating relationships, asserting displeasure with another’s behavior [negative assertion], self-disclosure, provid- ing emotional support, and managing interpersonal conflict) and was chosen for its assessment of competence in interpersonal interactions rather than a list of competencies (e.g., I stand up for my rights. I am comfortable in social situations; Rubin & Martin, 1994) used in other measures. Common interpersonal situations (e.g., “telling a romantic partner that he or she has done something that made you angry”) are presented to respondents who then respond using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (poor at handling this situation) to 5 (extremely good at this, could handle this situation). Higher scores suggest perceptions of greater competency in interpersonal situations.

Wording on the ICQ was modified to reflect interpersonal competence in work relationships by substituting the word “co- worker” for “romantic partner” in the items. Buhrmester et al. (1988) demonstrated that the wording on the ICQ could be mod- ified to assess interpersonal competency in a variety of social situations as well as with varied targets (e.g., roommate, same-sex friend, opposite sex romantic partner, general interaction partner, person they had just met). Confirmatory factor analysis conducted on the adapted ICQ indicated good fit: all factor loadings were significant and ranging between .54 and .83, �2 � 387.44 (df � 228), p � .01, comparative fix index � .94, root mean square error of approximation � .06, 90% confidence interval (CI) [.05, .07].

Interpersonal competence in work situations was assessed on the subscales of Negative Assertion, Emotional Support, and Conflict Management. The Relationship Initiation and Disclosure subscales were not used for work colleagues because they assess situations that are less relevant for workplace interactions. The subscale Negative Assertion assesses perceived competence with limit-setting and ex- pressing displeasure with a coworker. Emotional Support assesses competence in helping a coworker reduce distress or overcome per- sonal obstacles. Conflict Management assesses competence in taking the other’s perspective and modulating one’s own responses so as to not exacerbate a disagreement with a coworker. Sample items include “Turning down a request by a coworker that is unreasonable” (Neg- ative Assertion), “Being a good and sensitive listener for a coworker

who is upset” (Emotional Support), and “Refraining from saying things that might cause a disagreement to build into a big fight” (Conflict Management). In the current sample, � coefficients ranged between .87 and .91 for the coworker subscales.

Procedure

Following approval from the institutional review board, the investigators contacted electronic listservs, newsletters, and mes- sage boards that are tailored to men’s interests (e.g., men’s health, gay and bisexual men, and divorced men) and solicited participants via social networking sites (e.g., veterans Facebook page and friend networks). The survey was available on a secure online server (surveygizmo.com). Responses were anonymous, and re- spondents were not required to enter any identifying information. Once participants accessed the survey, they were randomly as- signed (via a survey feature) to either the male or female coworker condition and asked to think of a male (or female) colleague with whom they worked daily or almost daily and respond to the interpersonal competency questions based on their interactions with that colleague. Upon completion of the survey, participants noted whether the coworker they had referenced was a peer of equal status, a supervisor, or a subordinate. Almost 64% responded based on a peer. In total, 103 participants responded to the male target condition and 91 responded to the female target condition. If participants had never worked (n � 2) or had not worked with a colleague of the assigned gender, they were directed to the end of the online survey (eight were in the male target condition but had not worked with a male colleague and 15 were in the female target condition but had not worked with a female colleague). Thirty-one participants were removed from the original data set of 250 re- spondents owing to incomplete data (27 owing to an error in the randomizing logic of the online survey).

Results

We were interested in examining relationships between endorse- ment of a traditional masculinity ideology and three interpersonal competencies (emotional support, negative assertion, and conflict management) with coworkers and whether the total and indirect (via benevolent sexism) relationships between masculinity and interpersonal competencies were moderated by the gender of the target coworker. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among study variables. Masculinity scores were highly and positively correlated with benevolent sexism and

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study Variables

Variable M SD Range 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. MRNI-R 2.95 .97 1–5.85 1 2. Hostile sexism 2.09 .92 0–5 .58�� 1 3. Benevolent sexism 2.47 .88 0–4.45 .42�� .23�� 1 4. Conflict management 3.74 .64 1.25–5 �.16� �.08 �.10 1 5. Emotional support 3.94 .66 1–5 �.25�� �.10 �.06 .72�� 1 6. Negative assertion 3.40 .79 1.25–5 .05 .05 �.01 .43�� .29�� 1

Note. MRNI-R � Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised total score. � p � .05. �� p � .01.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

4 LEASE, SHUMAN, AND GAGE

negatively correlated with interpersonal competencies of conflict management and emotional support. The endorsement of mascu- linity was not related to perceived interpersonal competence in negative assertion. Hypothesis 1 that the endorsement of tradi- tional masculinity ideology would be related to lower perceived interpersonal competence in the three domains was partially sup- ported.

Preliminary analyses indicated that there were no differences on MRNI-R total scores by gender of target coworker, F(1, 192) � .162, p � .05, �2 � .001, nor was there a difference in scores on the Benevolent Sexism subscale, F(1, 192) � .09, p � .05, �2 � .000. One-way analyses of variance indicated that responses for male coworkers differed from those for female coworkers on emotional support, M � 4.05 (SD � .59), M � 3.81 (SD � .71), respectively, F(1, 192) � 2.63, p � .05, �2 � .03, and negative assertion, M � 3.55 (SD � .70), M � 3.24 (SD � .85), respec- tively, F(1, 192) � 7.48, p � .01, �2 � .04. Responses to the conflict management competence scale did not differ by target coworker gender, M � 3.78 (SD � .59) for male coworkers, M � 3.69 (SD � .69) for female coworkers, F(1, 192) � .96, p � .05, �2 � .005.

Using the PROCESS add-on macro for SPSS (Models 1 and 14; Hayes, 2013), we estimated the conditional effects of masculinity ideology on the three interpersonal competency variables (Model 1, simple moderation) and the conditional indirect effects of mas- culinity on perceived interpersonal competencies through benev- olent sexist beliefs (Model 14, moderated mediation). Gender of the target coworker was the moderating variable. Moderation effects were measured at 0 for male coworkers and 1 for female coworkers; indirect effects were analyzed using 5,000 bias- corrected bootstrapping samples to calculate means for the indirect effects and provide CIs. A 95% CI indicates significance at the .05 level when the interval does not include 0. When the moderator is dichotomous as it is in this analysis, the index of moderated mediation produced by the PROCESS analysis is a test of whether the conditional indirect effects are equal in the two groups.

Conditional Effects of Masculinity Ideology on Interpersonal Competence Domains

In regard to Hypothesis 2, we tested whether the relationships between adherence to male norms and the three outcome variables were conditional on coworker gender. For each of the three inter-

personal competence domains, the total score from the MRNI-R, gender of the coworker, and the interaction term between male role adherence scores and coworker gender were entered into the regression equations. The models accounted for 7%, 10%, and 3% of the variance in negative assertion, emotional support, and con- flict management, respectively. There was a significant interaction between endorsement of male role norms and coworker gender in the negative assertion domain. The relationship between endorse- ment of male role norms and competence in negative assertion was conditional on coworker gender such that endorsing male role norms was related to negative assertion competence when the coworker condition was female (effect � .18, SE � .08, 95% CI [.02, .35]) but not when the coworker condition was male (ef- fect � �.07, SE � .08, 95% CI [�.22, .08]). Thus, although the sample in general perceived higher interpersonal competence in the negative assertion domain with male coworkers, this relation- ship changed among those strongly endorsing traditional mascu- linity ideology. There was a significant negative relationship be- tween male role adherence and competence in providing emotional support. However, the interaction between masculinity ideology and coworker gender was not significant, indicating that the rela- tionship between masculinity and emotional support competence was not conditional on coworker gender. There was a significant relationship between male norm adherence and conflict manage- ment, but no significant interaction between coworker gender and male norm adherence and the overall model was not significant, F(3, 192) � 2.14, p � .05. Hypothesis 2 was only partially supported with a moderated effect between male role adherence and competence in the negative assertion domain. Results of the moderation analyses are presented in Table 2.

Conditional Indirect Effects via Benevolent Sexism

The first moderated mediation model tested the role of benev- olent sexism in mediating the relationship between endorsement of masculinity and interpersonal competence in negative assertion with coworker gender moderating the benevolent sexism and neg- ative assertion competence link. As shown in Table 3, masculinity was significantly related to benevolent sexism (the mediator model, F(1, 192) � 41.33, p � .001, R2 � 18%), but benevolent sexism was not significantly related to negative assertion and the Benevolent Sexism Coworker Gender interaction term was not significant (overall model R2 � .05, F(4, 189) � 2.34, p � .05).

Table 2 Moderation Analyses for Endorsement of Masculinity Ideology, Coworker Gender, and Perceived Interpersonal Competencies

Variable

Negative assertion Emotional support Conflict management

B SE B t B SE B t B SE B t

Masculinity .05 .06 .84 �.17 .05 �3.57��� �.10 .05 �2.18�

Coworker gender �.31 .11 �2.79�� �.22 .09 �2.48� �.08 .09 �.93 Masculinity Coworker gender .26 .11 2.26� .14 .09 1.47 .08 .09 .81

Effect SE 95% CI Effect SE 95% CI Effect SE 95% CI

Male �.07 .08 [�.22, .08] �.23 .06 [�.36, �.11] �.14 .06 [�.26, �.01] Female .18 .08 [.02, .35] �.09 .07 [�.23, .04] �.06 .07 [�.20, .07]

Note. CI � confidence interval; male � responded to male target coworker; female � responded to female target coworker. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

5MASCULINITY AND INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE AT WORK

The indirect effect was not significant in either the male coworker condition (mean indirect effect � �.035, SE � .03, 95% CI [�.11, .02]) or the female coworker condition (mean indirect effect � .015, SE � .05, 95% CI [�.08, .11]), and the index of moderated mediation was not significant (index � .05, SE � .05, 95% CI [�.05, .17]). Hypothesis 3 of moderated mediation was not sup- ported for competence in the negative assertion interpersonal do- main.

The same analysis of moderated mediation as described ear- lier was conducted to examine perceived competence in pro- viding emotional support. The effect from benevolent sexism to emotional support was not significant, but the Benevolent Sex- ism Coworker Gender interaction term was significant. The full model accounted for 13% of the variance. The indirect effect was significant in the female coworker condition (mean indirect effect � .08, SE � .03, 95% CI [.02, .15]) but not in the male coworker condition (mean indirect effect � �.03, SE � .03, 95% CI [�.09, .02]). The moderated mediation index was significant (index � .10, SE � .04, 95% CI [.03, .20]). En- dorsement of male role norms was related to greater perceived competence in providing emotional support through benevolent sexism only when the work colleague was female. This finding supports Hypothesis 3.

The final moderated mediation model indicated that the effect from benevolent sexism to conflict management was not signifi- cant, but the Benevolent Sexism Coworker Gender interaction term was significant. The full model accounted for 6% of the variance in conflict management scores. The indirect effect was significant in the male coworker condition (mean indirect ef- fect � �.05, SE � .03, 95% CI [�.11, �.004]) but not in the female coworker condition (mean indirect effect � .04, SE � .03, 95% CI [�.01, .12]). The moderated mediation index was signif- icant (index � .09, SE � .04, 95% CI [.02, .19]). Endorsement of male role norms was related to lower perceived competence in managing conflict only when the work colleague was male. This finding supports Hypothesis 3.

Discussion

The main goals of the present study were to investigate the conditional total and mediated relationships (via benevolent sex- ism) between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and three domains of perceived interpersonal competence. Although bivariate correlations indicated that endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology was negatively related to interpersonal com- petence in providing emotional support and managing conflict, but not related to negative assertion, our results from the moderation analyses indicated that endorsement of traditional masculinity ide- ology was related to higher self-perceived interpersonal compe- tence in negative assertion with female coworkers. It may be that men, particularly the White, well-educated men predominantly comprising this sample, who more strongly endorsed traditional masculinity ideology viewed their female coworkers as having lower status or power such that the interaction of expressing displeasure with them was less challenging (O’Neil et al., 1986), and they perceived they were more interpersonally competent in this domain. The same negative assertion interactions with male coworkers may elicit negative reactions for men who more strongly endorse traditional masculinity norms owing to other men being viewed as competition or threats (Levant, 1996; Lewis, 1978). In addition, although negative assertion would appear to be something that would be easier for men higher in masculinity, it still entails open communication about one’s reactions, which might be perceived as easier to do with women (Barrett, Robin, Pietromonaco, & Eyssell, 1998; Maccoby, 1990).

Endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology was related to lower self-perceived interpersonal competence in providing emo- tional support in general and was not conditional on the gender of the target coworker. Emotional restraint is a hallmark of traditional masculine ideology, so we expected to find this relationship; however, we were surprised that the men who more strongly endorsed tradi- tional masculinity ideology did not perceive they would have greater competence in being emotionally supportive to women. We had expected that being emotionally supportive to their male coworkers

Table 3 Moderated Mediation Analyses for Endorsement of Masculinity Ideology, Benevolent Sexism, Coworker Gender, and Perceived Interpersonal Competencies

Variable

Mediator– benevolent sexism Outcome–negative assertion Outcome– emotional support Outcome– conflict management

B SE B t B SE B t B SE B t B SE B t

Masculinity .38 .06 6.43��� .06 .06 .93 �.19 .05 �3.69��� �.09 .05 �1.86 Benevolent sexism — — — �.03 .07 �.43 .06 .06 1.04 �.01 .06 �.26 Coworker gender — — — �.31 .11 �2.75�� �.23 .09 �2.52� �.08 .09 �.94 Benevolent sexism

Coworker gender — — — .13 .13 1.02 .27 .10 2.66�� .24 .10 2.34�

Boot indirect effect/index Boot SE 95% CI

Boot indirect effect/index Boot SE 95% CI

Boot indirect effect/index Boot SE 95% CI

Male �.03 .03 [�.11, .02] �.03 .03 [�.09, .02] �.05 .03 [�.11, �.00] Female .01 .05 [�.08, .11] .08 .03 [.02, .15] .04 .03 [�.01, .12] Index of moderated

mediation .05 .05 [�.05, .17] .10 .04 [.03, .20] .09 .04 [.02, .19]

Note. CI � confidence interval; male � responded to male target coworker; female � responded to female target coworker. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

6 LEASE, SHUMAN, AND GAGE

would be more incongruent with their definition of masculinity and might even evoke concerns about appearing effeminate. Kimmel (2004) noted that masculinity is essentially a show not for women, but a “hedge against being revealed as a fraud” (Kimmel, 2004, p. 88) to other men who have the potential to dominate and therefore produce shame.

As expected in the moderated mediation analyses, endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology was strongly related to benev- olent sexism, which supports existing research (Danube, Vescio, & Davis, 2014; Levant & Richmond, 2008). Endorsement of tradi- tional masculinity ideology was also indirectly related to some of the interpersonal competence domains via benevolent sexism, but those effects were conditional on target coworker gender. Endorse- ment of traditional masculinity ideology was positively related to more perceived competence in providing emotional support (via benevolent sexism) to female coworkers, but not to male coworkers. Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) suggests that men (and women) act in accordance with their social roles, which often means confirming gender stereotypes. Providing emotional support to women might be viewed as a normative interaction of men supporting women who are perceived as weaker (Shnabel et al., 2016) or that having conversa- tions with women that center on emotional experiences is consistent with gender expectations (Burda & Vaux, 1987) and, as noted earlier, does not challenge traditional masculinity in the same way emotional conversations with other men might (Burleson, Holmstrom, & Gil- strap, 2005; Kimmel, 2004).

Although there was no moderation of the total effect between masculinity ideology and conflict management, there was a con- ditional indirect effect via benevolent sexism such that stronger endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology was related to lower perceived competence in conflict management with male coworkers. The view of women as incompetent (and in need of men’s assistance) that underlies benevolent sexism (Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007) might have attenuated the relationship between masculinity ideology and conflict management compe- tence for female coworkers but not male coworkers. In addition, conflict management entails honest and open communication that might be seen as displaying weakness or vulnerability with other men (Kimmel, 2004).

Implications

The literature identifies the increasing need for interpersonal competence and communication skills for all workers. McDowell, Rootham, and Hardgrove (2014) noted that service employment demands a feminized approach (“service with a smile”) that could disadvantage working-class men or men who adhere to more traditionally masculine norms (Levant et al., 2003). Deming (2015) argued that high-paying jobs increasingly require social skills and that the fastest growing high-skilled occupations require significant amounts of interpersonal interactions and, one would assume, inter- personal competence. The results from the present study suggest that endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology was generally asso- ciated with lower perceived interpersonal competence in conflict management and emotional support, but that men who endorsed traditional masculinity ideology often perceived that they were more interpersonally competent with their female coworkers, but not nec- essarily their male coworkers.

Conflict management skills are particularly relevant in a work environment, at both an interpersonal and business/company level, and a lack of conflict management skills can negatively affect the work environment overall (De Dreu, 1997). As the current study found that men who endorsed higher levels of traditional mascu- linity ideology perceived themselves to be less competent in con- flict management, especially with male colleagues, it could be beneficial to provide opportunities for men to explore societal messages about masculinity and identify the positive and negative aspects of masculinity (Seymour, Smith, & Torres, 2014).

In addition, stronger endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology correlated was related to benevolent sexism. Experienc- ing sexism, and particularly benevolent sexism, has been associ- ated with decreased performance by women in a job selection task (Dardenne et al., 2007) and with increased memories of self- incompetence (Dumont, Sarlet, & Dardenne, 2010), suggesting the need to address these attitudes and their consequences with men in the workplace.

Limitations

There are several limitations to keep in mind when considering the results of this study. First, the instruments assessed the partic- ipants’ perceived competencies in interpersonal interactions and not actual behaviors themselves. Male participants tend to overrate their skills and abilities, including abilities in stereotypically female-oriented tasks (Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Van Velsor, Taylor, & Leslie, 1993). In addition, the accuracy of a participant’s response may have depended on whether he was reflecting on an actual interpersonal experience with a coworker or considering a potential experience with the target coworker, which was not determined in this study. Self-perceived competence in a hypo- thetical situation might be rated more positively than a response to an actual interpersonal exchange.

The cross-sectional and self-report design did not permit causal conclusions and introduced shared method variance as well as the possibility of socially desirable responses to measures of sexism and interpersonal competence. However, benevolent sexist atti- tudes are often seen as benign and may not have activated a socially desirable response set. The type of work environment was not controlled; work environments that emphasize communication and interpersonal skills as integral to the position could affect self-perceived interpersonal competence differently when com- pared with work environments that demand little interpersonal communication among colleagues. Participants who work in en- vironments with frequent interpersonal interactions may rate them- selves higher on self-perceived interpersonal competencies be- cause they have had more practice in this area (and their skills have improved) or because they believe that they are better at commu- nication simply because they engage with others frequently. Fi- nally, the sampling methodology, while allowing for anonymity for the participants with the goal of obtaining candid responses, was not random and men who had an interest in participating in research on work relationships might have been more open to examining those work relationships and confident in their work interactions. Although the range of participants’ ages was repre- sentative of the employed population, the sample was predomi- nantly White, heterosexual, and well-educated, and the findings should be replicated in more diverse samples.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

7MASCULINITY AND INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE AT WORK

Future Research

The design allowed participants to choose the coworker they were referencing (only requiring the coworker be male or female depending on their assigned condition) and asked whether the coworker was of equal status, a supervisor, or a subordinate. The large majority indicated that they were answering based on inter- actions with a coworker of equal status, and it is likely that the status of the coworker would also be an important moderating variable (Duehr & Bono, 2006; Rudman & Kilianski, 2000). Men who strongly endorse a traditional masculine ideology may view female supervisors (in contrast to equal-status colleagues) as more threatening to their masculinity (Netchaeva, Kouchaki, & Shep- pard, 2015), and sexism is often directed at women who challenge men’s status or power (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Future research should look at how both status and gender of coworker moderate the relationships between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and interpersonal competence. Other research might in- clude qualitative interviews with male workers that explore their experiences communicating with male and female coworkers and supervisors in a variety of situations, as well as exploring how the intersectionality of race/ethnicity and sexual orientation/gender identity of men impact their experiences. Such data might reveal discomfort or difficulty that is not assessed by interpersonal com- petence measurements.

References

Barrett, L. F., Robin, L., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Eyssell, K. M. (1998). Are women the “more emotional” sex? Evidence from emotional experi- ences in social context. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 555–578. http://dx .doi.org/10.1080/026999398379565

Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 991–1008. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0022-3514.55.6.991

Burda, P. C., & Vaux, A. C. (1987). The social support process in men: Overcoming sex-role obstacles. Human Relations, 40, 31– 44. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/001872678704000103

Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2005). “Guys can’t say that to guys”: Four experiments assessing the normative motivation account for deficiencies in the emotional support provided by men. Communication Monographs, 72, 468 –501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 03637750500322636

Carli, L. L. (1989). Gender differences in interaction style and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565–576.

Carli, L. L. (2006). Gender issues in workplace groups: Effects of gender and communication style on social influence. In M. Barrett & M. J. Davidson (Eds.), Gender and communication at work (pp. 69 – 83). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Carnevale, A. P., & Smith, N. (2013). Workplace basics: The skills employees need and employers want. Human Resource Development International, 16, 491–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2013.821267

Center for Professional Excellence at York College of Pennsylvania. (2012). Professionalism in the workplace study. Retrieved from https://www.ycp .edu/media/york-website/student-success/2012-Professionalism-in-the- Workplace-Study.pdf

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829 – 859. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/0891243205278639

Danube, C. L., Vescio, T. K., & Davis, K. C. (2014). Male role norm endorsement and sexism predict heterosexual college men’s attitudes

toward casual sex, intoxicated sexual contact, and casual sex. Sex Roles, 71, 219 –232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0394-4

Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764 –779. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/0022-3514.93.5.764

Deaux, K. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49 – 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.36.020185.000405

Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369 –389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.369

De Dreu, C. K. W. (1997). Productive conflict: The importance of conflict management and conflict issue. In C. De Dreu & E. V. de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 9 –22). London, United Kingdom: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446217016.n2

Delacollette, N., Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., & Dardenne, B. (2013). Benev- olent sexism, men’s advantages and the prescription of warmth to women. Sex Roles, 68, 296 –310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012- 0232-5

Deming, D. J. (2015). The growing importance of social skills in the labor market. Working Paper 21473. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/ w21473.pdf

Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59, 815– 846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00055.x

Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., & Dardenne, B. (2010). Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel incompetent: Benevolent sexism shifts self-construal and autobiographical memories toward incompetence. Sex Roles, 62, 545– 553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9582-4

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fraser, G., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). “We want you in the workplace, but only in a skirt!” Social dominance orientation, gender- based affirmative action and the moderating role of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 73, 231–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0515-8

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young workers. Journal of Occupa- tional Health Psychology, 5, 246 –255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076- 8998.5.2.246

Gage, A. N., & Lease, S. H. (2018). An exploration of the link between masculinity and endorsement of IPV myths in American men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/0886260518818430

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benev- olent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. Amer- ican Psychologist, 56, 109 –118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2 .109

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.70.3.491

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and condi- tional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Hynes, G. E. (2012). Improving employees’ interpersonal communication competencies: A qualitative study. Business Communication Quarterly, 75, 466 – 475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080569912458965

Karakis, E. N., & Levant, R. F. (2012). Is normative male alexithymia associated with relationship satisfaction, fear of intimacy and commu- nication quality among men in relationships? The Journal of Men’s Studies, 20, 179 –186. http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.2003.179

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

8 LEASE, SHUMAN, AND GAGE

Kimmel, M. S. (2004). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In P. S. Rothenburg (Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study (6th ed., pp. 81–93). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research para- digms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616 – 642. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0023557

Leaper, C., & Van, S. R. (2008). Masculinity ideology, covert sexism, and perceived gender typicality in relation to young men’s academic moti- vation and choices in college. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 9, 139 –153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.139

Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 259 –265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028 .27.3.259

Levant, R. F. (2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity using the gender role strain paradigm as a framework. American Psy- chologist, 66, 765–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025034

Levant, R. F., Rankin, T. J., Williams, C. M., Hasan, N. T., & Smalley, K. B. (2010). Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of scores on the Male Role Norms Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R). Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 11, 25–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017637

Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2008). A review of research on masculinity ideologies using the Male Role Norms Inventory. Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, 130 –146. http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.1502.130

Levant, R. F., Richmond, K., Majors, R. G., Inclan, J. E., Rossello, J. M., Heesacker, M., . . . Sellers, A. (2003). A multicultural investigation of masculinity ideology and alexithymia. Psychology of Men and Mascu- linity, 4, 91–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.2.91

Levant, R. F., Smalley, K. B., Aupont, M., House, A., Richmond, K., & Noronha, D. (2007). Initial validation of the Male Role Norms Inven- tory–Revised. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, 85–100. http://dx.doi .org/10.3149/jms.1501.83

Lewis, R. A. (1978). Emotional intimacy among men. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 108 –121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1978.tb02543.x

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships. A developmental ac- count. American Psychologist, 45, 513–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0003-066X.45.4.513

Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., 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

McDowell, L., Rootham, E., & Hardgrove, A. (2014). Precarious work, protest masculinity and communal regulation: South Asian young men in Luton, U. K. Work, Employment and Society, 28, 847– 864. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/0950017013510757

McGraw, S. L. (2001). Masculinity ideologies, men’s relationship behav- ior, and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couple relationships (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (Or- der No. 3009237).

Netchaeva, E., Kouchaki, M., & Sheppard, L. D. (2015). A man’s (pre- carious) place: Men’s experienced threat and self-assertive reactions to female superiors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1247– 1259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167215593491

Nixon, D. (2009). ‘I can’t put a smiley face on’: Working-class masculin- ity, emotional labour and service work in the ‘new economy’. Gender, Work and Organization, 16, 300 –322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0432.2009.00446.x

Oliffe, J. L., & Han, C. S. E. (2014). Beyond workers’ compensation: Men’s mental health in and out of work. American Journal of Men’s Health, 8, 45–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1557988313490786

O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender-Role Conflict Scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00287583

Pek, J. C., & Leong, F. T. (2003). Sex-related self-concepts, cognitive styles and cultural values of traditionality–modernity as predictors of general and domain-specific sexism. Asian Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, 6, 31– 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.t01-1-00008

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). Gender differences in measured and self-estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex Roles, 42, 449 – 461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007006523133

Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1993). Masculinity ideology: Its impact on adolescent males’ heterosexual relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 11–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01166.x

Riggio, R. E., & Lee, J. (2007). Emotional and interpersonal competencies and leader development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 418 – 426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.008

Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11, 33– 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099409359938

Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263001

Seymour, W., Smith, R., & Torres, H. (2014). Building a better man: A blueprint for decreasing violence and increasing prosocial behavior in men. New York, NY: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/97813158 86152

Shnabel, N., Bar-Anan, Y., Kende, A., Bareket, O., & Lazar, Y. (2016). Help to perpetuate traditional gender roles: Benevolent sexism increases engage- ment in dependency-oriented cross-gender helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 55–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000037

Simpson, R. (2006). Masculinity and management education: Feminizing the MBA. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5, 182– 193. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2006.21253782

Still, L. V. (2006). Gender, leadership, and communication. In M. Barrett & M. J. Davidson (Eds.), Gender and communication at work (pp. 183–194). England, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S., & Leslie, J. B. (1993). An examination of the relationships among self-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness. Human Resource Management, 32, 249 –263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930320205

Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. (2005). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behav- iors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in mascu- line domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 658 – 672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.658

Zuga, K. F. (2009). Redefining gender roles in the workforce. In R. MacLean & D. Wilson (Eds.), International handbook of education for the changing world of work: Bridging academic and vocational learning (Vol. 2, pp. 129 –145). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. http://dx .doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5281-1_8

Received August 30, 2018 Revision received April 18, 2019

Accepted April 22, 2019 �

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

9MASCULINITY AND INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE AT WORK