An Exploration of the Link Between Masculinity and Endorsement of IPV Myths in American Men

Abstract

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.

Effectiveness of a multi-level intervention to reduce men’s perpetration of intimate partner violence: a cluster randomised controlled trial

“…By contrast, since the intervention seeks to change men's attitudes and beliefs about gender equality in order to bring about a change in gendered social norms, it is therefore unsurprising that the most violent, anti-social and hypermasculine men who have entrenched gender role ideologies, enacted through sexual behaviours such as having multiple partners as well as controlling their sexual partners, are less susceptible to change through this kind of intervention. Literature suggests that men who adhere more rigidly to traditional masculinity that endorses dominance are more likely to have gender inequitable attitudes and beliefs and more likely to use IPV and believe that it is justified [38][39][40][41].…”

Impacts of Male Intimate Partner Violence on Women: A Life Course Perspective

“…Consistent with the characteristics of abusive men across all age groups [48], the women described their partner as domineering, demanding, entitled, "manipulative" (WWG005), "a misogynist" (WMG078), and "restrictive and controlling" (WWG067). Men's endorsement of traditional masculine ideology and gendered role expectations are consistently associated with male partner violence against women [49,50].…”

‘A veteran space’: A Military Integrated Nested Ecological Model to understand offending

“…Violence can be both an action or symbolic display of power and authority which can establish or maintain hierarchy and order among men, with the dominant or hegemonic form of masculinity promoted and revered, with other forms of masculinity, subjugated and repressed (see Connell, 2005). Indeed, concepts of patriarchy and expectations around masculinity and femininity are relevant at the macrosystem level with respect to IPV within the general population, with perceptions developed or ingrained at this level influencing subsequent levels of the ecosystem (Gage and Lease, 2018; Heise, 1998).…”