Per a study at the University of Montreal, “macho” men are dangerous drivers, in comparison to their less-“masculine” gender counterparts, at least in terms of taking unnecessary risks behind the wheel.
While I have a few questions about the study (for example – the use of a “driving simulator” – i.e. “video game” – is going to generally encourage more risk in general, though I suppose that could be accounted for across the entire study sample), I’m not particularly surprised at the results given my experience. From the linked article:
“Some men develop a passion for driving that can verge on the obsessive,” says Langlois. “They consider cars to be an extension of themselves and they become extremely aggressive if they are honked at or cut off.”
What I found most interesting here, though, is the fact that somebody came up with a system for objectively measuring “masculinity” (at least objective enough that someone else felt confident using the tool); and that the definition of “hypermasculinity” isn’t particularly different than the commonly-understood definition of “sexist fratboy/libertarian asshole”.
The Auburn Differential Masculinity Scale (link is to an abstract describing validation methodology of the scale) is a questionaire designed to gauge someone’s affinity for stereotypical “masculine” attitudes though a series of “agree/disagree” statements, covering things such as self-esteem, socially desirable traits, hostility, and empathy.
From the original article’s discussion of the ADMS’s methodology:
It comprised 60 statements such as “men who cry are weak,” or “generally speaking, men are more intelligent than women.”
Men whose scores correlated highly with “Masculinity” (brash, risk-taking, non-emapthetic champions of antisocial behavior and prone to violent outbursts), were, in this study, more likely to take unnecessary risks in achieving goals (the goal in this case was “catch that car!”) in the driving simulator, while those who scored lower were less likely drive dangerously.
Consider this conjecture on my part, but I’d bet that the primary difference between the high scorers and low scorers is one of empathy and consideration for others. The “macho” subjects were primarily concerned with achieving the goal without regard to how their behavior affected others – the needs and safety of others didn’t register as important*; the less macho subjects considered the impact of their actions on those around them, and as a result, achieved the goal, but balanced the values of “shortest time” and “not acting in ways that endanger others” a bit more equally.
One could make all sorts of comparisons between the results of this study and the dynamics of interaction in all sorts of other areas of society – particularly politics, and how one’s “masculinity” rating would correlate with how supportive one would be of certain positions.
But that discussion’s probably for another time. In the meantime, try not to get in the car when a guy who’s overly concerned with blowing shit up and demeaning the role of women is behind the wheel if you care much for your own safety.
______________________
* I’m confident I’d correlate as reasonably non-masculine according to these standards; Even in “no consequences” arenas like Grand Theft Auto games, I feel guilty running red lights and gunning down innocent pedestrians. Personally, aiming for the “bad karma” trophies in Bethesda and Bioware RPGs is really difficult; I have a hard time playing the selfish asshole, even in video games. Hell, my Dragon Age character was entirely monogamous because the thought of cheating on Leliana felt wrong, even though there were no in-game consequences for making time with the other “romance” targets as well.
