Stuck in the middle: men experience countervailing reactions to discussions about misogyny and violence against women.

Across three pre-registered studies (total N = 1344), we sought to understand how men react to discussions about violence against women. Initially, we expected that highly identified men would react defensively. That is, exposure to anti-violence advocacy would lead highly identified men to engage in outgroup derogation (i.e., minimise the prevalence of violence against women, exaggerate women’s gender-based privilege), ingroup favouritism (i.e., subtype perpetrators of violence, support men’s rights activism); and reduce their willingness to engage in collection action to end violence against women. We further expected that these reactions would be explained by social identity threat over concerns that men were being unfairly derided and negatively stereotyped. However, the findings revealed a more complex pattern of responding. On the one hand, exposure to these discussions (versus a control message) elicited social identity threat which, in turn, predicted higher outgroup derogation and ingroup favouring responses (Studies 1-3) and lower action intentions (Studies 2 and 3). But exposure also elicited collective guilt (Studies 2 and 3) and perceived injustice regarding women’s disadvantage (Study 3), which predicted lower outgroup derogation and ingroup favouritism, and higher action intentions. These opposing reactions fully offset each other and were not moderated by ingroup identification. These findings uncover a paradox in the fight for gender parity by showing that, in the face of messages that highlight inequality, men exhibit countervailing motivations to both protect their group’s interests and better women’s treatment. We discuss the implications of these findings for involving men in gender equality efforts