{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0220949263502455, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.369791666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reactions to anti-male sexism claims: The moderating roles of status-legitimizing belief endorsement and group identification

Men increasingly identify as victims of gender discrimination, but it is unclear how people react to men who claim to be victims of gender bias. We examined how status-legitimizing belief endorsement (SLBs) and gender identification (GID) moderated men and women’s reactions to a man who claimed to have lost a promotion because of anti-male sexism or another cause. Consistent with theory that claiming bias against high-status groups reinforces the status hierarchy, SLB endorsement was associated with more positive reactions toward an anti-male bias claimant for both men and women. Group identification, in contrast, affects group-specific concerns and thus differentially predicted male and female participants’ reactions. Men evaluated the claimant more positively the more strongly they identified with their gender. The more women identified with their gender, the more negatively they evaluated the male claimant. We also demonstrated that SLBs and GID moderated the extent to which the claimant was perceived as sexist. We discuss how these reactions may perpetuate gender inequality.