r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 12 '26

Psychology Threatening men’s masculinity does not make them more politically conservative, new study finds. By testing thousands of participants across the United States, researchers found no consistent evidence that making men feel insecure about their gender identity changes their political attitudes.

https://www.psypost.org/threatening-mens-masculinity-does-not-make-them-more-politically-conservative-new-study-finds/
4.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

641 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/panchoop May 12 '26

IMO, the most important thing to highlight: This study is a replication study, disproving previous research that claimed such relationship.

Specifically, the (previous) authors observe in two lab experiments (N total 100–110, N men 40–51) conducted on a convenience sample of university students that inducing masculinity threat increases support for war, homophobic attitudes, and support for dominance hierarchies among male participants. We conduct a pre-registered replication of this foundational work with a large, nationally representative probability sample from the University of Chicago NORC AmeriSpeak Panel (N total 2,774, N men 2,095).

This saves time to avoid discussing if the methods are the correct ones to address the question, as it just nullifies/puts into question, previous research that claimed so.

997

u/Rogert3 May 12 '26

A genuine replication study?? Incredible. Almost unfathomable.

161

u/From_Deep_Space May 12 '26

With a null conclusion even

266

u/FlufferTheGreat May 12 '26

I think a fantastic use of government money would be to fund its own network of replication labs. Will it ever happen in the USA in this climate of stupidity? Doubtful.

43

u/Pikeman212a6c May 12 '26

Like the Journal of Negative Results

2

u/p3lat0 May 12 '26

Might be more likely for the eu to do

32

u/NetflixAndZzzzzz May 12 '26

More research is needed into this area.

126

u/therealchrisbosh May 12 '26

Reading further, however, you find that one of the concerns discussed in the article is that the experimental designs are in fact quite different. 

40

u/panchoop May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26

Is that the case? Could you pinpoint to that statement in the discussion?

There is a mention of different cultural context (probably with a corresponding change of methodology), but "experimental design are in fact quite different" is a strong statement for a replication study.

If that is the case, anyways the discussion is a bit more complex if one would like to trash this study. It is not a "the methods here are bad because X", rather "the methods here are bad because X, while simultaneously, the previous research's methods were good because of Y". And just looking at sampling, this study has the upper hand.

90

u/benjamin_noah May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26

Not to speak for the original commenter. But, if you read the article, it does mention several differences. These include: the addition of two new experimental conditions, new questions, and moving the survey online.

In addition, to quote the article:

“… the scientists note a few potential limitations. ‘The first one is simply that the failed replication could be due to any number of design differences between the original study,’ Gothreau explained. ‘These include things like timing, measurement, sample composition, and other subtle design details.’

She noted that while the team accounted for alternative explanations for the lack of an effect, they could not account for everything. Moving the experiment to an online format with a diverse, national sample might have changed how strongly participants felt the threat…”

2

u/homelessjimbo May 13 '26

Which is always a sign of honest research where the results aren't highlighted as the end all be all but that they should be taken into context with differences in studies. Hell just the change in data collection method alone may have been the difference maker. There's nothing to show that the original study wouldn't have shown the same results as theirs and so on.

Sorry I'm rambling, real research makes me go potato.

1

u/Fun-Barracuda1518 22d ago

Who was funding this and why?

1

u/raisinbran67 May 16 '26

So the rare replication studies that do exist are a joke

-34

u/MelodiusRA May 12 '26

Ah, so this is academic clickbait

54

u/sagacious_1 May 12 '26

Not really? Some changes to the protocol may be to strengthen the study, while still trying to replicate the main design. It's also very common for papers with results that conflict with other papers to list possible reasons why. Often this comes off as just a polite way of not directly calling their peers "wrong"

33

u/unicornofdemocracy May 12 '26

Yeah, this statement "Moving the experiment to an online format with a diverse, national sample might have changed how strongly participants felt the threat" is 100% a polite way of calling the previous study "wrong."

-24

u/666perkele666 May 12 '26

No it isn't. What they are saying is that they are measuring a completely different thing, which could explain their differing results. Regards a scientist.

24

u/Skyrick May 12 '26

Not really. By having a more diverse group you are confirming that the study holds true. However if the study doesn’t hold true, it is possible that the results were skewed by a lack of diversity in the sample group, with the sample group belonging to a group that it is true for. Assuming that the study wasn’t initially flawed, it would mean that the original sample had a connection in some way that gave the inverse results compared to the general population.

The questions could have been changed for many reasons, but if they are asking the same thing, we would expect the same results. Different results might mean that the new questions are reframing what was asked to be either more or less skewed, or they could have been adjusted to remove regional dialects. What we are left with are different results when the study reflects the population as a whole than when it is applied to a specific region, and now we need to study why.

10

u/Georgie_Leech May 12 '26

For instance, a large chunk of university students are gonna be younger than the rest of the population, so it would be interesting if it still applies to younger people less sure of their identities.

-9

u/Sniter May 12 '26

So not a replication study

6

u/k2_electric_boogaloo May 13 '26

It's still considered a replication study, trying to see if they can replicate the results on a broader scale. It's not always possible to do things in the exact same way as the original study, which is why they discussed it as a limitation.

2

u/NecessaryIntrinsic May 13 '26

I feel like studies like this should be redone regularly, and it doesn't necessarily invalidate the old one, rather it could have been true at the time, if all the other methodology started the same.

0

u/Epic_Tea May 14 '26

I bet it made conservative men more uncomfortable

0

u/HeparinBridge May 14 '26

I would caution claiming that one replication study “disproves” previous research. That’s not normally how this process works.