Protecting Manhood: Race,Class,and Masculinity in Men’s Attraction to Guns and Aggression

Introduction

In the United States, gun homicide rates are 25 times higher than the rates of other high-income nations (Grinshteyn and Hemenway 2019). Gun violence is widespread in the United States: nearly all Americans have at least one person in their social network who has been injured or killed by a gun (Kalesan et al. 2016). Access to guns either through purchase or military service doubles the risk of homicide deaths, triples the risk of death by suicide, and makes domestic violence homicide five times more likely—up to 1 million American women today have been injured or killed by a male partner with a gun (Anglemyer Horvath, and Rutherford, 2014; Sorenson and Schut 2018). Gun violence is considered a significant public health problem by national health and educational organizations (e.g., the American Medical Association and the National Education Association). This issue has been championed on the national stage by grassroots organizations (Moms Demand Action), students (March for Our Lives), and Democratic presidential candidates (e.g., Lopez 2019; Sanchez 2016).

On the opposing side of the issue, the thousands of gun rights activists who marched on state capitol grounds in 2020 (e.g., Dodge 2020) and the rhetoric of interest groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) reflect the politicized and masculine nature of gun control discourses. The NRA promotes certain ideal masculinity associated with patriotism and protectionism that gives male gun owners a means to display their manhood (Carlson 2015a, 2015b). Though men and women are equally likely to be members of the NRA, they differ in other important ways: men are more likely to own guns, participate in gun-related activities, and watch gun-oriented television (Horowitz 2017). Men are more likely to be injured or killed by firearm; the most common gender-dyad for homicide is a man killing another man by gun (Fridel and Fox 2019). While women engage in more suicidal ideation than do men, men have higher suicide mortality rates (see Schrijvers Bollen, and Sabbe 2012). This is due in part to their more common use of firearms, and because surviving attempted suicide may be seen as threatening or embarrassing to one’s masculinity (Canetto 1997). Guns offer men a tool to bolster their masculinity, even in death.

Social identity threat provides an explanation for men’s gun violence (Bridges and Tober 2019). When an individual feels that their group is being threatened by outside forces or that their standing within the group is in jeopardy, they commonly “hyperconform” to the attitudes and ideologies of the threatened group (Blumer 1958; Branscombe et al. 1999). Threats to masculinity have been empirically linked to numerous violent attitudes and outcomes, such as gun sales, mass shootings, homophobia, endorsement of war, and excusing perpetrators of sexual assault (e.g., Bridges and Tober 2018; Cassino and Besen-Cassino 2020; Munsch and Willer 2012; Willer, et al. 2013). Given the masculine nature of gun control discourses and clear gender differences in the use of guns, we ask: Are men who believe the status of traditional masculinity is threatened or who exhibit stress in their gender role more attracted to guns? Are they more likely to respond to disrespect with aggression?

Concerns about gun violence center not only on gender processes, but gun violence affects men differently depending on their other identities. The intersection of race and class is notable in that homicide is the leading cause of death of Black men under the age of 25 years, with a majority (89.1%) involving firearms (National Center for Health Statistics 2011), and white men make up nearly three-quarters of firearm suicide deaths (Miniño, Heron, and Smith 2006). Following many others who use intersectional approaches in masculinities research (e.g., Collins 2004; Doull et al. 2013; Jackson 2018; Pyke 1996), we explore how position in other social hierarchies—primarily, one’s race and class—modifies the relationship between threat and attitudes about violence. We ask: Does holding a dominant or subordinate position in race or class hierarchies exacerbate the effect of masculinity threat on attraction to guns and aggression?

Group Position, Threat, and Hyperconformity

Social psychological theories of group position and identity provide a deeper understanding of the links among masculinity, guns, and violence (Bridges and Tober 2019). Blumer’s (1958) group position theory states that if a group perceives their privileges and resources to be in jeopardy, they will feel threatened. More specifically, Blumer (1958, 5) argues that challenges to the authority of dominant groups result in a defensive reaction to “preserve the integrity and the position of the dominant group.” Thus, group positions are relative, including certain people (those at the top of racial, class, and gendered hierarchies) and excluding others (those at the bottom of these hierarchies). Members of upper-class, dominant groups may believe they are inherently superior and embrace their privilege, fearing that subordinate groups will seek to redistribute that privilege.

Feelings of threat on the part of the dominant group can be experienced in a multitude of ways. Status threat is the sense that the group’s value is undermined by outside sources, such as a dominant economic class or racial group facing perceived downward mobility in status (Branscombe et al. 1999). When members feel their group is threatened by social change or outgroups, they may respond by emphasizing their position as members of the more privileged and powerful ingroup (e.g., men). Sensing a status threat to their group, they “hyperconform” to ingroup traits (Branscombe et al. 1999, 55). For example, even if a white man has low status within his group (e.g., due to his economic standing), he can still feel superior to those in subordinate groups (e.g., women and people of color). Conformity to masculine norms in the face of threat has been associated with a range of negative attitudes and behaviors such as homophobia, misogyny, competition in sports, lack of empathy, internet trolling, and supporting war (Bird 1996; Mantilla 2013; Willer et al. 2013).

While status threat refers to reacting to a perceived outside threat to the group, acceptance threat is a threat to one’s position within the group. When members of a dominant ingroup feel their membership or standing in that group is questioned, some respond with defensive hyperconformity. Various scholars have tested these processes experimentally, finding that men presented with a threat to their masculinity use hegemonic masculine norms like aggression and violence to re-establish their identities as men and associate themselves with their dominant group position (e.g., Bosson and Vandello 2011; Maass et al. 2003; Vandello et al. 2008). In self-report and experimental settings, threats can translate into excusing sexual violence against women, fantasies of violence, and even aggressive behavior (Munsch and Willer 2012; Scaptura and Boyle 2020; Vandello et al. 2008).

Masculinity, Aggression, and Guns

While group position and social identity perspectives explain why threatened members of dominant groups hyperconform to the norms of that group, masculinities research tell us what those norms are for men—and documents the consequences of said hyperconformity. Gender socialization teaches boys and men to be “strong,” “tough,” and “in control” from an early age. To dominate others, men are trained to rely on “masculine resources” like aggression, bullying, fighting, or sexually overpowering women, especially in the face of disrespect or status challenges (e.g., Bosson et al. 2009; Campbell 1993; Messerschmidt 2019, 12). For instance, some gun-owning men believe stricter gun laws, immigration policies, feminism, and so on are to blame for societal decline, ultimately threatening the traditional moral values tied to their masculine identities (Cassino and Besen-Cassino 2020; Petrin 2018; Warner 2020). In the face of such status threats, gun ownership offers a sense of “identity, morality, and patriotism,” of power and control (Mencken and Froese 2019, 24).

Social class—and its intersection with race—is key to understanding how men perceive and respond to such threats. As working-class or low-income white men do not possess power through class status, they may affirm their feelings of dominance through emphasis on racial superiority (Blumer 1958; Bobo 1999). This is corroborated by Filindra et al. (2020) who suggest white racial resentment is strongly associated with gun ownership, indicating that racial bias against people of color is intertwined with gun expression for white Americans. By casting men of color as “criminals,” white male gun owners subordinate and “other” people unlike themselves and reembrace their dominant status as “protectors” of their families and their communities as a whole (Carlson 2015a). In this way, white male gun owners affirm Blumer’s (1958) conceptualization of group position by hyperconforming to a group identity while simultaneously distancing themselves from “subordinate” groups (women and men of color) and “protect” their resources (families and communities).

One potential threat to white men’s group position is the insecurity of the labor market where men are no longer able to fulfill the male breadwinner role. Carlson (2015a) documents the “status anxiety” of downwardly mobile middle-class white men who perceive their position to be vulnerable to economic and symbolic threats like the erosion of American traditionalism, particularly blaming men of color. Status anxiety among white men makes them feel vulnerable to perceived threats to their positions in gender, racial, and class hierarchies. Knight and Mehta (2017) argue that this stress on high-status individuals (often white, middle- and upper-class men) may be highest during times of social instability, leading stressed individuals to reassert control by any means necessary. Thus, not only are white men who face economic losses susceptible to threats, but white men who are economically privileged may have high levels of stress when hierarchies are seen as unstable.

Men, particularly male gun owners, mitigate class or instability anxieties by invoking the threat of violence with their families to bolster their own sense of utility. This insecurity is reflected in the finding that men’s increase in unemployment rates is correlated with higher gun sales (Cassino and Besen-Cassino 2020). When men are unable to fulfill the “male breadwinner” expectation by providing for their families economically, they may turn to other means in order to do so, particularly if men endorse stereotypical masculine ideals (Warner et al. 2021). Male gun owners state that guns offer “protection” for themselves and their families, drawing on this frame to increase their feelings of male dominance and empowerment (Carlson 2015a, 2015b; Stroud 2012; Warner et al. 2021). This frame allows men to see themselves as “heroes” or “protectors” and to reclaim (masculine) control after economic hardship or job loss. Even those who feel they no longer fulfill the traditional breadwinning role can use perceived threats of violence in this way, as justifications to arm themselves to protect their family.

Hypotheses

The above literature highlights the destructive nature of group dominance in relation to masculinity, gun violence, and aggression. Group position theory and masculinities research offer an explanation for hyperconformity and violence in response to threat. We explore how perceived threats to men as a group (status threat) and threats to one’s own masculinity (acceptance threat) shape attitudes about guns and aggression. We expect to find:

H1: Men who report greater acceptance threat (a) are more likely to endorse aggressive reactions to disrespect and (b) are more attracted to guns.

These effects likely interact. In times of stable hierarchy, high-status individuals tend to be less stressed and exhibit greater well-being than low-status individuals. When the hierarchy is unstable, high-status individuals exhibit greater stress than do low-status individuals, as they struggle to maintain their position, power, and control (Knight and Mehta 2017, 78). We suspect that if men perceive their group to be under threat—that the gender hierarchy has been disrupted by social change—they may be more stressed in their own gendered interactions. We include a two-way interaction term between these two types of threat. We expect:

H3: The effects of acceptance threat on (a) aggression and (b) attraction to guns are more pronounced among men who also report greater status threat.

Thus far, our analyses assume that individual men will respond similarly when their group or their standing among other men is challenged, regardless of their race or class. This approach ignores the intersectional nature of privilege and oppression and that multiple masculinities exist (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Pascoe 2003). Depending on their race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and beyond, men exist in dominant and subordinated spheres of masculinity, which may shape their responses to threat (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005; Messerschmidt 2019). According to Madfis (2014), the intersectional privilege white men hold leaves them feeling vulnerable to perceived threats by subordinate groups, like racial minorities and women, and they may react to economic losses with deadly violence. We expect the aforementioned effects to be more pronounced among white men due to their dominant location in gender and racial hierarchies:

H4: The effects of the interaction between acceptance threat and status threat on (a) aggression and (b) attraction to guns are more pronounced among white men.

Further, we expect that white men who are more economically privileged—those in a higher position in the gender, race, and class hierarchy with even more to lose—will be more strongly impacted by acceptance threats.

H5: The effects of acceptance threat on (a) aggression and (b) attraction to guns are more pronounced among higher-income white men.

In sum, we assess not only the relationship between threats to masculinity and favorable attitudes toward guns and aggression (H1 and H2) but also examine how men respond differently to these processes given their perceptions of gender hierarchies (H3) and their location in racial (H4 and H5) and economic dominance hierarchies (H5). We test these hypotheses in a series of OLS regressions, examining both direct effects and interaction effects.

Methods

This study’s sample consists of a convenience sample of men aged 18 to 30 years in the United States This sample was chosen because young men are more likely to engage in violent crime (Arrests by Sex, 2012) and more likely to engage in mass shootings than other age demographics (Brown and Goodin, 2018). We collected data using Centiment, which recruits pools of survey-takers via social media (e.g., Facebook) and sends notifications to users who fit the inclusion criteria of a study. Thus, Centiment sent a notification to male users aged 18 to 30 years in their pool. This notification only contained a payment amount and estimated time of completion (15 min), and did not contain a survey description or title. Interested recipients clicked the link, which brought them to Qualtrics. They read the consent form for the “Personality, Stress, and Attitudes Survey.” In the consent form, we indicated the survey would be focused on “personality, experiences with stress, and your attitudes and beliefs about society,” which was the focus of our measures. We also acknowledged the potential discomfort that sensitive questions may create and provided our contact information and a hotline for emotional distress and mental health.

If recipients chose to participate, they provided informed consent and started the survey. Upon completion, Centiment paid respondents and shared the data with researchers. Centiment does not provide information on how many potential respondents are contacted or how many open the email or Qualtrics link. After eliminating 16 respondents due to failure of attention checks and 12 others due to failure to complete dependent measures, 620 respondents comprised the final sample.

Independent Variables

Acceptance Threat

The Masculine Gender Role Stress composite (Eisler and Skidmore 1987) measures the stress elicited by men’s inability to meet socially constructed expectations of masculinity. Respondents are presented with 15 items in the abbreviated composite (Swartout et al. 2015) and asked to indicate how stressful each situation would be (from “not at all stressful” to “extremely stressful”). The MGRS covers five areas: physical inadequacy (e.g., “being perceived as having feminine traits”), emotional inexpressiveness (e.g., “admitting you are afraid of something”), subordination to women (e.g., “being outperformed at work by a woman”), intellectual inferiority (e.g., “having people say you are indecisive”), and performance failure (e.g., “getting passed over for a promotion”). STATA’s “predict” command weights each of the 15 items by factor loading and then sums the items to create a weighted index for acceptance threat (alpha = 0.91).

Status Threat

We use the same item Willer et al. (2013) used to measure status threat: “Recent changes in our society often disadvantage men.” The response options are a four-point scale from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (4).

Race/Ethnicity

Most respondents are white (68.1%), 12.6% are Black, 8.1% are Asian or Pacific Islander, less than 1% are Native American or American Indian, and 2.1% identified as multiracial or selected more than one race (Table 1). 8.1% of respondents chose only Hispanic/Latino and 3.2% chose Hispanic/Latino along with one or more racial categories. Compared to the U.S. population, white men and Hispanic men are underrepresented in our sample, while other racial groups are represented more accurately to the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Due to the smaller relative number of men of color in the sample and the fact that our hypotheses focus on white men, we present dichotomized frequencies of white non-Hispanic men (66%) and men of color (34%).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	n	%
Race and ethnicity
White	422	68.1
Black	78	12.6
Asian	50	8.1
Native American	5	<1
Hispanic	72	11.6
Multiracial	13	2.1
Degree attainment
Less than high school diploma	22	3.6
High school diploma or GED	139	22.4
Some college, but no degree	172	27.7
Associate’s degree	63	10.2
Bachelor’s degree	162	26.1
Master’s degree	41	6.6
Professional degree	9	1.5
Doctorate degree	12	1.9
Employment
Full-time employment	359	57.9
Part-time or self-employed	124	20.0
Not employed, looking for work	63	10.2
Not employed, not looking for work	47	7.6
Full-time student	27	4.4
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual/straight	550	88.7
Gay, bisexual, asexual, or not listed	70	11.3
	Mean	SD	Min.	Max.	Alpha
Acceptance threat	0.00	0.96	−1.39	3.53	0.91
Status threat	2.48	0.87	1	4
Social dominance	0.00	0.74	1.30	1.30	0.70
Sexist attitudes	0.00	0.96	−2.71	2.53	0.83
AGVQ	1.79	0.39	1	3	0.86
Aggressive reaction to disrespect	1.59	0.59	1	3	0.88
Attraction to guns	1.52	0.59	1	3	0.84
Comfort with guns	2.08	0.44	1	3	0.78
Political ideology (more conservative)	3.92	1.74	1	7
Political party (more Republican)	3.78	1.87	1	7
Income (individual, pre-tax for previous year)	4.95	3.00	1	11
Age	24.93	3.86	18	30

Notes. N = 620. SD = Standard deviation. Alpha = Cronbach’s alpha.

Income

Respondents reported their pre-tax personal income for the year 2018. They chose one of 11 categories in increments of 10,000 from $0 to $100,000+. The most common responses were less than $9,999 (17%), followed by $30–39,000 (16%) (M = 4.95, SD = 3.00).

Results

Threat, Attraction to Guns, and Aggression

Model 1 in Table 2 shows support for Hypothesis 1. Men who report greater acceptance threat are more likely to endorse aggressive reactions to disrespect (B = 0.303, p < .001) and are more attracted to guns (B = 0.212, p < .001). The results also support Hypothesis 2. The effect of status threat is significant and positive for aggression (B = 0.077, p < .05) and attraction to guns (B = 0.139, p < .01). We also find support for Hypothesis 3: status threat amplifies the effect of acceptance threat on aggression (B = 0.210, p < .05) and attraction to guns (B = 0.272, p < .05).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Attraction to Guns and Endorsement of Aggression Regressed on Threat, Race, and Class.

	Aggressive Reaction to Disrespect			Attraction to Guns			Comfort with Guns
Model 1: Hypotheses 1 & 2	B (SE)			B (SE)			B (SE)
Acceptance threat	0.303	0.022	***	0.212	0.025	***	0.190	0.019	***
Status threat	0.077	0.026	*	0.139	0.029	**	−0.039	0.023
White non-Hispanic men	−0.177	0.042	***	−0.065	0.046		−0.147	0.036	***
Income	0.103	0.008	**	0.039	0.008		−0.028	0.007
Degree attainment	−0.051	0.015		−0.043	0.016		0.107	0.013	*
Full-time employment	−0.012	0.046		0.073	0.050		−0.094	0.040	*
Social dominance orientation	0.245	0.030	***	0.235	0.033	***	0.013	0.026
Sexist attitudes	0.118	0.025	**	0.042	0.028		0.052	0.022
More conservative	−0.031	0.016		-0.015	0.017		−0.152	0.014	**
More republican	−0.113	0.015	*	0.110	0.016	*	−0.165	0.013	**
Age	0.069	0.006		0.042	0.006		−0.037	0.005
Heterosexual/straight	−0.014	0.062		−0.052	0.068		−0.070	0.054
Region
North	0.008	0.053		−0.046	0.059		0.074	0.046
Midwest	−0.036	0.050		−0.019	0.055		0.000	0.043
West	−0.073	0.052	*	−0.022	0.057		0.001	0.045
Constant	1.550	0.161	***	1.156	0.177	***	2.656	0.140	***
R2	0.391			0.254			0.198
Model 2: Hypothesis 3
Acceptance × status threat	0.210	0.022	*	0.271	0.024	*	0.191	0.019
Model 3: Hypothesis 4
Acceptance × status threat × race	0.497	0.046	**	0.206	0.050		−0.114	0.040
Model 4: Hypothesis 5
Acceptance threat × income × race	0.294	0.013	*	0.327	0.014	*	−0.034	0.011

Notes. B=Standardized beta coefficient. SE=Standard error.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; two-tailed tests. N = 620.

All models contain all the models listed in Model 1. Full results available upon request.

Aside from threats, the other significant predictors of aggression are a stronger SDO (B = 0.245, p < .001), more sexist attitudes (B = 0.118, p < .01), and leaning less Republican (B = −0.113, p < .05). Conversely, respondents who lean more Republican (B = 0.110, p < .05), along with a stronger SDO (B = 0.235, p < .001), are associated with greater attraction to guns. Only one regional difference emerged: men living in the western United States were less likely to endorse aggression compared to men living in the south (B = −0.073, p < .05). Below, we discuss the effects of race and income.

Threat, Race, and Income

Men of color (B = −0.177, p < .001) and men with higher incomes (B = 0.103, p < .01) were more likely to endorse aggression than white men and men with lower incomes. Yet although white men overall were less likely than men of color to endorse aggression, they appear to be more reactive to threat. First, the interaction between both threats and race in Model 3 is significant for aggression (B = 0.497, p < .01), providing support for Hypothesis 4a. As shown in Figure 1, as white men feel greater status threat, they are more profoundly impacted by acceptance threat. White men who strongly disagree that social changes disadvantage men seem unaffected by stress in their own gender role. However, among men of color, acceptance threat is positive regardless of its interaction with status threat.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Three-Way Interaction between Acceptance Threat, Status Threat, and Race.

Second, the interaction between acceptance threat, income, and race is significant for aggression (B = 0.294, p < .05), in support of Hypothesis 5a. There is no direct observed relationship between race and attraction to guns, nor does race interact with both types of threat (H4b). However, the interaction between race, acceptance threat, and income does predict attraction to guns (H5b). These patterns are shown in Figure 2. As income increases among white men, acceptance threat has a more pronounced effect on attraction to guns and aggression. Among men of color, the opposite pattern emerges. Men of color most affected by acceptance threat are those at the lowest income levels.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Three-Way Interaction between Acceptance Threat, Income, and Race.

Discussion

Drawing on narratives of “stand-your-ground” masculinities allows men to perpetuate images of strength and self-sufficiency in an era of threats from more progressive masculinities and women’s and civil rights movements (Melzer 2012). When confronted with a challenge to their masculinity, men experience a range of emotions including anger, shame, and humiliation—and guns are “masculine resources” that help overcome that challenge (Messerschmidt 2019; Moore and Stuart 2004; Willer et al. 2013). Guns enable men to re-establish themselves as dominant figures and “protectors” of women and children (Carlson 2015b; Young 2003). Utilizing group position and social identity perspectives (Blumer 1958; Branscombe et al. 1999), this study connects feelings of masculinity threat to attraction to guns and endorsement of aggression.

We posit that men who feel insecure in their masculinity—who are more stressed by unfavorable comparisons to other men, subordination by women, physical failure, and so on—will feel pressure to hyperconform to masculine traits. We expected that men experiencing this type of acceptance threat would be more likely to react to disrespect with aggression and more attracted to guns. We found respondents who report greater acceptance threat score higher on all subscales of the AGVQ (Shapiro et al. 1997) than men who report lower levels of acceptance threat. Men who agree that social changes disadvantage men as a group—status threat—are more likely to endorse aggressive reactions to disrespect and feel more excited about guns. Importantly, these types of threats interact. For men who feel men as a group are at greater threat, the effects of acceptance threat on more positive attitudes toward guns and aggression are more pronounced.

Patterns of threat differed by respondents’ location in racial and economic dominance hierarchies: White men who feel vulnerable to perceived threats to their position in gender, racial, and class hierarchies ultimately heighten their propensity for violence in the face of threats. White men’s higher status leaves them—as Knight and Mehta’s (2017) study would suggest—vulnerable to stress at times of social instability as they try to maintain control. Thus, we expected to find especially pronounced effects of acceptance threat on attraction to guns and aggression among white men who perceive social change as disadvantaging men as a group. We found that white non-Hispanic men who report greater acceptance and status threats were more likely to respond to disrespect with aggression. For white men who do not report status threat, endorsement of aggression was not impacted by acceptance threat. This indicates that white men who believe that their status—both within the male gender hierarchy and compared to minoritized groups—is vulnerable to social changes (e.g., #MeToo) may be more likely than other men to respond to masculinity stress with violence.

Regardless of race or income level, acceptance threat increases the endorsement of aggression. However, these effects are intensified among high-earning white men. White men in the highest income brackets are more susceptible to acceptance threat; they are more attracted to guns and more likely to endorse aggression than any other income group within their race. A recent illustration of this, from St. Louis in August 2020, is a now-(in)famous white couple who stood outside their mansion and pointed semi-automatic guns at Black Lives Matter protesters in “an angry and threatening manner” (Lussenhop 2020, para. 34). They were later charged with a felony for “daring to defend [their] home” (Lussenhop 2020). Through an attraction to guns and believing that threats should be responded to with aggression (e.g., drawing or using a firearm to defend one’s home), economically advantaged white people can maintain dominance and control in the face of racial and/or economic threat.

In general, men of color reported greater endorsement of aggressive reactions to disrespect than white men. However, this study’s findings challenge discourses that frame masculinity threat and an affinity for guns as phenomena only witnessed in lower-income communities, especially communities of color. In fact, men of color were no more attracted to guns than white men and they did not report greater threat (supplementary analyses available upon request). In fact, Black men reported significantly less acceptance threat than members of other racial groups. Despite the fact that our sample is drawn from nearly every state and white men are not statistically overrepresented, a larger sample than ours is necessary to more fully understand these relationships between race, threat, and aggression. Given the relationship between threats to masculinity, negative emotion, aggression, and even mass murder (Marganski 2019; Madfis 2014; Scaptura and Boyle 2020), we recommend future researchers examine how the intersection of race and socioeconomic status shapes individual, collective, and mass violence in reaction to masculinity threats in more diverse samples.

Limitations

Beyond the small proportion of men of color in our sample, this study has several other limitations. First, our sample’s focus on men aged 18 to 30 years old limits our findings’ applicability to all gun owners. We chose to focus on this age group as they are the population most responsible for violent crime (Arrests by Sex, 2012) and the AGVQ measure was developed to examine youth and young adults (up to age 29 years). Since the average American gun owner is over the age of 30 years (Parker et al. 2017), however, future research should examine attraction to guns and endorsement of aggression in this age group. Second, some survey measures contain dated language that may not be relevant to men younger than 30. The meanings of some terms have shifted since the AGVQ was developed in 1997 (e.g., the decline of the word “chump”), and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Masculine Gender Role Stress scales are more than 25 years old. Since our respondents are 18–30 years old, updated measures should be utilized in future research.

Future research would also benefit from using more items to operationalize key concepts. Following previous research (Willer et al. 2013), we used only one question to assess whether men feel their position in society is vulnerable. Future research should expand on this measure of status threat to build a fuller picture of men’s perceived threat in the gender order. Additionally, our measure of class is focused on individual income, as measures were not available for wealth, property, parental education, or occupation. Such measures, along with generational change in socioeconomic status and information about household size and income, would provide a more holistic picture of socioeconomic status. Finally, the use of cross-sectional data does not allow us to demonstrate causal ordering. Experimental manipulation of threat would help assure the direction of the link between threat and attraction to guns and aggression.

Conclusion

Conceptualizing how masculinity threat relates to aggressive attitudes is important to understanding a range of social issues. Threat can lead to overcompensation in the form of apathy, misogyny, and the justification of war, social inequalities, and violence against women (Bosson and Vandello 2011; Cohn, Seibert, and Zeichner 2009; Dahl et al. 2015; Eisler et al. 2000; Fugitt and Ham 2018; Munsch and Willer 2012; Willer et al. 2013). By hyperconforming to standards of American masculinity that emphasize dominance, competition, independence, risk-taking, and aggression, men who feel attacked can reclaim their dominant status (DiMuccio and Knowles 2020; Heinrich 2012; Reidy et al. 2014). This is not far from the (racialized) logic employed by the NRA that argues gun owners and the Second Amendment are “under attack” from others, who they see as taking away their rights (National Rifle Association, n.d.). Similar rhetoric was on display the day that Congress was meant to officially count the electoral votes of the 2020 Presidential election, in which Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden. At the “Save America” rally, then-President Trump, who falsely claimed his loss was fraudulent, told marchers at 1:10 pm: “We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue” (“Capitol riots timeline” 2021, para. 14). Within an hour and a half, protesters—some of them armed—had illegally stormed and entered the U.S. Capitol as members of Congress fled to safety (“Capitol riots timeline” 2021).

This study’s findings suggest a significant association between men’s feelings of threat and positive attitudes toward guns and aggressive reactions to disrespect and shame. Like Carlson (2015a) and Willer et al. (2013), we found that men turn to guns to reclaim masculinity they perceive to be threatened. Further, we find that both high-income white men and lower-income men of color have elevated attraction to guns not generally, but rather specifically when they are experiencing threat. This finding suggests that, among men, those highest in intersectional dominance and oppression may be more attuned to threats to group position and more primed to react, demonstrating the importance of examining the intersections of privilege and oppression in threat and masculinities research. Although there is more work to be done, this study draws a preliminary connection between threatened masculinity, position in racial and class hierarchies, and compensation by means of guns and aggression.