Precarious manhood theory posits a double standard in gender rules such that prescriptions (“shoulds”) and proscriptions (“should nots”) are endorsed more strongly for men than for women. Here, we tested this hypothesis by asking whether people view agency as more desirable in men than communion is in women, and weakness as less desirable in men than dominance is in women. Data from college undergraduates in 62 countries (N = 27,343) indicated that: (1) measures of agency, communion, weakness, and dominance are psychometrically comparable across countries; (2) prescriptions (agency for men, communion for women) are variable across countries, whereas proscriptions (weakness for men, dominance for women) appear universal; (3) double standards in prescriptions (men’s agency as more desirable than women’s communion) are larger in countries lower in gender equality and human development, whereas double standards in proscriptions (men’s weakness as less desirable than women’s dominance) do not covary with country-level factors; and (4) these patterns are moderated by participant gender in nuanced ways, and are robust to control by individual-level gender beliefs. Discussion considers the theoretical and practical significance of these findings for understanding how young adults – as cultural agents of gender socialization – hold men to asymmetrically rigid gender rules.

不稳定的男子气概理论在性别规则中设定了双重标准，因此男性比女性更强烈地认可处方（“应该”）和禁令（“不应该”）。在这里，我们通过询问人们是否认为男性的能动性比女性的交流更可取，以及男性的弱点是否不如女性的支配力来验证这一假设。来自62个国家的大学本科生数据（N = 27,343) 表明：(1) 代理、共融、弱点和支配地位的测量在不同国家之间具有心理测量可比性；（2）处方（男性代理，女性圣餐）在各国之间存在差异，而禁令（男性弱点，女性主导）似乎普遍；(3) 处方的双重标准（男性的能动性比女性的共融更可取）在性别平等和人类发展水平较低的国家中更大，而禁止的双重标准（男性的弱点不如女性的主导地位）并不随国家而变化——水平因素；(4) 这些模式由参与者性别以微妙的方式调节，并且可以通过个人层面的性别信念来控制。