The Undergraduate Research Journal


This research aimed to study the effects of ‘anti-sexist’ shaming on men and how they would, as a result, regulate their behavior in future cross-sex interactions. The research hypothesized that each of the behaviors listed in the literature on shame (hostility, pro-sociality, and passing) is linked to different sexist attitudes, as per Glick and Fiske’s (1996) Ambivalent Sexism Theory. More specifically, it was hypothesized that hostile sexists would likely select aggressive responses in the questionnaire, benevolent sexists would likely employ passing, and non-sexists would be the most likely to engage in prosocial behavior. In this research, a double-blind, post-test only control group experimental design in the form of a survey-experiment was employed. The questionnaire was handed out via a random recruitment of an all-male sample on The American University in Cairo’s (AUC) New Cairo campus. Independent T-tests, reliability, correlational, and linear regression analyses were performed on the collected data. The hypotheses could not be accepted within the context of the data collected. This research managed to introduce a causal link between passing and shame in the literature as a viable response to shame, and secondly to bolster Gausel et al.’s (2012) conceptualization and differentiation of shame from felt inferiority. Adjusting the methodological flaws of this study and expanding it might prove to bridge the gaps and mend some of the contradictions in the psychological literature on shame.

Document Type

Research Article


Psychology Department

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

Not necessary for this item