Are Men Seen as ‘More American’ Than Women?

Women make up 50.8 percent of the U.S. population and have equal voting rights, yet are politically underrepresented. The country has never had a female president or vice president. Only 3.5 percent of Supreme Court justices have been women, and women make up only 20 percent of Congress.

Studies have shown that within a country, groups with more power often feel greater ownership over it. Because they control actual resources, like money, and symbolic resources, like writing history, they’re better able to shape the culture in their image. For example, because Christianity is the most prominent religion in the United States, Christmas is a federal holiday.

Because men hold more power than women in the United States, we wanted to explore a simple question: Would people tend to think of men as “more American” than women? And, if so, how does this influence the way American women identify with their country?

A masculine national ethos

We tested these questions in two studies.

First, we looked at the connection between national identity and gender-specific traits, asking 382 American adults the extent to which they thought of certain traits as “American.” Among these traits, some were stereotypically feminine (helpful, friendly) while others were stereotypically masculine (outgoing, ambitious). (We used results from previous studies to designate certain traits as “masculine” or “feminine.”)

We found that both men and women rated masculine traits – like “independent” and “competitive” – as significantly more American than feminine ones.

Because attaching gender stereotypes to certain traits can be relatively subjective, we also asked our subjects to simply tell us how central they thought masculinity and femininity were to American identity. Sure enough, people thought masculinity was more important than femininity.

Finally, participants listed five people they considered examples of Americans. They could include anyone, from celebrities (Oprah) to historical figures (George Washington) to family members (my dad). The participants were seven times more likely to list a man than a woman.

Building on the results of our first study, we asked participants questions about their identity: how important their gender was to them, and how important they felt it was to be an American.

Their answers revealed that the more men identified with their gender, the more they identified as American. This association wasn’t as strong for women.

A roadblock to political power

Our research suggests that group memberships – in this case, gender – play a big role in determining who is viewed as a “true” American. Yes, all citizens technically have equal standing under the law. But because the nation’s identity seems to elevate masculinity, the interests of women – even though they’re numerically equal with men – might not be adequately represented or addressed.

And because women identify with the nation less if they think they don’t fit a masculine representation of a U.S. citizen, it also might help explain why they’re more hesitant to run for political office.

Meanwhile, the country’s preference for masculine traits could explain why the female candidates who do run face an uphill battle. In order to demonstrate patriotism, women might feel the need to act masculine. But this creates a Catch-22, with female candidates risking backlash for acting in ways that violate stereotypical expectations.

Can this change?

One reason men might be viewed as more American is because we see male political leaders representing the country in domestic and foreign affairs. For citizens, this exposure connects “male” with “America.” But if more women appear as representatives of American policy and interests, ideas of national identity might accordingly shift.

Studies have shown that female politicians in the U.S. receive less media coverage than their male counterparts; those that do appear tend to be described and depicted through the lens of gender stereotypes: weak and emotional, with an emphasis on their role as a wife or mother and on their appearance. Rarely do they appear as independent, strong leaders.

A national ethos that incorporates the positive traits that tend to be associated with each gender could create a stronger society, in which the needs of men and women are voiced, valued and addressed equally.

The ConversationWe’re already starting to see more female candidates throw their hats into the ring. If more win – which will increase the visibility of women in the public sphere – masculinity’s grip on national identity might loosen.


Written by Laura Van Berkel, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of CologneLudwin Molina, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Kansas, and Sahana Mukherjee, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Gettysburg College

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Collective Narcissism Among Nations

We think of narcissism as an individual trait, but it can be relevant to groups too. The rise of national populism has brought an increase in the use of rhetoric that reveals a collective version of narcissism. "Make America Great Again" or Putin's accusations that the West seeks to humiliate Russia are examples of this rhetoric. It often involves calls for a greater recognition of the exceptionalism of one's nation.

We refer to such sentiments as national narcissism—a belief that one's nation is exceptional but is seemingly undervalued by others. National narcissism can be measured by asking respondents to indicate to what degree they agree with statements such as "My nation deserves special treatment" or "I will never be satisfied until my nation gets the recognition it deserves." These are similar to statements personality psychologists ask to assess individual narcissism, but in this case they refer to one's group (here, one's nation) rather than the self.

Studies in many countries show that national narcissism is associated with potentially problematic social outcomes. It has been linked to hostility towards other nations, violent extremism, engagement with conspiracy theories, support for national populism, as well as for anti-science and anti-environmental policies. For example, those who are narcissistic about their nation are more likely to take part in nationalist demonstrations, such as the far-right Independence March in Poland. National narcissists are also prone to believe in and disseminate conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic, and support COVID-19 policies that might be harmful for their compatriots.

It is then important to understand why people living in certain societies might on average show higher national narcissism than others. Each nation operates within a broader system that determines how it relates to other nations. Examples include the international systems of trade or supranational organizations, such as the EU. These systems have different effects on their members, creating contextual variation in group outcomes.

We long suspected that nations' experiences in the international arena, and citizens' perceptions of those experiences, would be reflected in citizens' national narcissism.  However, this has been very difficult to test because explaining cross-national variation in levels of national narcissism requires large-scale data from many countries. This changed in 2020 when a team of over 200 researchers from across the globe, led by Jay van Bavel, Aleksandra Cichocka, and Paulo Boggio, launched the International Collaboration on the Social & Moral Psychology of COVID-19 to examine psychological factors (including national narcissism) underlying the attitudes and behavioral intentions related to COVID-19 in 69 countries. This gave us data from 56 countries, with 50,757 participants in total.

We found that citizens' levels of national narcissism were lower in countries that were more globalized, meaning more integrated into international networks of trade, culture, technology, and governance. Importantly, this was true even once we considered other factors such as national wealth, inequality, military strength, or engagement in conflicts. A lower level of globalization, which implies that one's nation is more isolated, seems to be accompanied by a nation's citizens wanting to boost the nation's image by signaling that others simply do not recognize its exceptionalism. This might be a way to explain why one's country is being overlooked in international processes. A belief that one's nation is great but simply underappreciated might also help alleviate negative feelings caused by believing that being excluded might be legitimate or justified.

Thus, relations between countries might shape national sentiments within countries. Perhaps international cooperation is therefore a potential buffer against narcissistic versions of national identity, which can be harmful to social cohesion and democratic processes. But it is also important to stress that not all types of national identity are problematic. National narcissism should be distinguished from a more secure attachment to one's nation, including feelings of national pride and strong ties to compatriots. Such positive national sentiments can lead to desirable social outcomes such as greater loyalty, cohesion, and tolerance.


For Further Reading

Cichocka, A., Sengupta, N., Cislak, A., Gronfeldt, B., Azevedo, F., & Boggio, P. S. (2022). Globalization is associated with lower levels of national narcissism: Evidence from 56 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221103326  

Cichocka, A., & Cislak, A. (2020). Nationalism as collective narcissism. Current Opinion in Behavioural Sciences, 34, 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.12.013   


Aleksandra Cichocka is a Professor of Political Psychology at the University of Kent, UK. Her research focuses on personality, intergroup relations, political ideology, and political behavior.

Nikhil Sengupta is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Kent, UK. His research focuses on how social and political attitudes develop and change over time, and how they affect the social structure.