BACKGROUND Male Ally or Foe: Men’s Confrontation of Sexism as a Function of Masculine Role Beliefs Jessica J. Good 1, Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, & Diana T. Sanchez 3 1 Davidson College, 2 Skidmore College, 3 Rutgers University Costs & Benefits of Confronting Sexism:  Women weigh costs (e.g., social sanction) against benefits (e.g., making a difference) when deciding whether to confront sexism (Good, Moss-Racusin, & Sanchez, 2012)  Men experience fewer costs than women when they confront discrimination (Eliezer & Major, 2012) Impact of Male Allies:  Non-target confrontations may be more effective than target confrontations (Rasinski & Czopp, 2010)  Confronting on behalf of women however, may reinforce sexist beliefs about women’s weakness (Glick, 2014), and reduce their agency (Drury & Kaiser, 2014) Motivation to Confront – Research Questions:  To what extent are men motivated to confront sexism by the same cost/benefit analysis as women?  Does men’s motivation to confront differ depending on intimate relationship status with the target of sexism?  Men’s belief in role as protector should predict greater confrontation for socially close women than distant women METHOD Participants:  157 undergraduate men  Mean age = 19.30, SD = 2.01  60.5%, 93.0% Heterosexual Procedure:  Online survey using Qualtrics  Participants recruited from Intro Psych Participant Pool, received 1 research credit for participation Masculine Protector Role:  5 items, 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much)  α =.82  Ex. “Do you think it is men’s duty to take care of women?” Frequency Observe Sexism:  9 items, 1 (never) to 7 (every day)  α =.86  Ex. “How often have you heard a woman being insulted or called a name because of her gender? Motivation to Confront:  Social Rejection  12 items (α =.96) – ex. “Were you concerned that people might make fun of you?”  Social Reward  4 items (α =.83) – ex. “Did you think your friends or family would be proud of you?”  Make a Difference  4 items (α =.76) – ex. “Did you think you would stop the person from acting sexist in the future?” 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) Frequency Confront Sexism:  “In general when you have confronted sexism on behalf of the women in your life, how frequently have you confronted for:”  Close: “your girlfriend, your mother sister, other family member, your friend”  Distant: “an acquaintance, a stranger”  1 (never) to 7 (every time) RESULTS Men’s endorsement of a masculine protector role motivated confronting for socially close, but not distant women. A belief that the confrontation would make a difference predicted confronting for both types of women. Model Fit: χ 2 = 12.12, df = 8, CFI =.98, NFI =.95, NNFI =.96, AIC = Standardized coefficients are presented. All paths are significant (p <.05) unless otherwise noted. C = the two paths from this variable were constrained to equal Frequency Confront for Close Women Frequency Confront for Distant Women Social Rejection c Social Reward c Make a Difference Masculine Protector Role Frequency Observe Sexism -.06, ns.01, ns , ns.24.10, ns CONCLUSIONS ]  Men were not motivated by social sanction or reward, but instead by belief that confronting would make a difference  Men were partially motivated to confront on behalf of social close women (girlfriends, mothers, friends) due to a belief in men’s duty to protect women.  Ongoing question: To what extent do male allies, though well-intentioned, reinforce benevolent sexist ideology through confrontation on behalf of women? REFERENCES Drury, B. J., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70, doi: /josi Eliezer, D., & Major, B. (2012). It’s not your fault: The social costs of claiming discrimination on behalf of someone else. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15I, doi: / Glick, P. (2014). Commentary: Encouraging confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 70, doi: /josi Good, J. J., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Sanchez, D. T. (2012). When do we confront? Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, doi: / Rasinski, H. M., & Czopp, A. M. (2010). The effect of target status on witnesses’ reactions to confrontations of bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, doi: / (90)90052-N