Current research has established a connection between men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and their perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) toward women. However, research has not yet identified the cognitive and affective pathways that link the endorsement of masculinity ideology and men’s beliefs about IPV. The current study examined men’s fear of intimacy, ambivalent (i.e., hostile and benevolent) sexism, and relationship dominance as potential mediating factors of the relationship between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and the acceptance of myths about male-to-female IPV in a community sample of 101 American men. Results supported the hypothesized relationship between men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and their support of myths minimizing the impact of male-to-female IPV or shifting the perceived responsibility for the offenses from the male perpetrators to the female victims. Multiple regression analyses indicated that while men’s hostile sexism and a preference for dominance in relationships did partially mediate the proposed relationship, fear of intimacy did not. The sample was largely homogeneous in terms of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and educational background, although heterogeneous in age. Implications for prevention of IPV include the importance of addressing and challenging the pervasiveness of societal support of IPV myths. Clinical implications include the need for male-centric therapeutic interventions that respect male viewpoints, struggles, and strengths, and that work with, rather than against, a client’s sense of masculinity.
Historically, adherence to traditional cultural expectations of masculinity in the workplace, displayed via competitive, aggressive, or controlling behaviors, has been rewarded with increased social influence and perceptions of professional capabilities. However, changing work environments increasingly emphasize teams that require competence in interpersonal interactions. Men who strongly endorse traditional masculinity ideology might perceive themselves as less competent in these interpersonal domains; furthermore, the relationships between men's endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and their perceived interpersonal competence with work colleagues might vary based on the gender of those colleagues. The relationships between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and perceived interpersonal competence might also be mediated by specific benevolent sexist beliefs. The current study examined how the endorsement of traditional masculinity directly and indirectly (via sexist beliefs) relates to perceived interpersonal competencies with coworkers and whether the gender of the coworker moderates those relationships. In a sample of 194 employed men (175 who self-reported as White; 166 who reported as heterosexual), coworker gender moderated the relationship between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and competence in negative assertion, but not managing conflict or providing emotional support. Moderated mediation analyses indicated that coworker gender moderated the indirect relationship between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and emotional support and conflict management. Men who more strongly endorsed a traditional masculinity ideology perceived they were more interpersonally competent with female coworkers/less competent with male coworkers. Limitations and implications for addressing gendered role norms in the workplace are discussed. Public Significance StatementMen who more strongly endorse traditional masculine role norms are more likely to hold sexist beliefs toward women and were likely to perceive that they were more interpersonally competent with their female work colleagues than their male colleagues in providing emotional support, but less competent in managing conflict with their male colleagues. Interpersonal communication and interaction skills are now seen as key professional competencies, and men, particularly White and heterosexual men who adhere to a traditional masculinity ideology, may struggle with these skills.
This study examined the inclusion of African American/Black and White men's endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology into health promotion models addressing behaviors of physical activity, stress management, and health responsibility. Participants' endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology had significant indirect, but not direct, effects on the performance of the three health behaviors. Self-efficacy, and to a lesser extent, outcome expectations, mediated the effect of the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology on the health behaviors. Multigroup analysis was used to compare the fit of the models for White (n ϭ 194) and African American/Black (n ϭ 158) men. The physical activity model was not invariant for White and African American/Black men. Relationships between self-efficacy and outcome expectations and health behaviors were significant for both groups, but were stronger for White men. There was a significant indirect effect between endorsement of traditional masculinity and physical activity behaviors via outcome expectations (perceived barriers and benefits) for Black/African American men, but not for White men. We discuss implications of the findings for addressing selfefficacies, outcome expectations, and the positive elements of traditional masculinity ideology as they relate to health behaviors of African American/Black and White men.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.