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.

Keywords

intimate partner violence domestic violence masculinity fear of intimacy ambivalent sexism hostile sexism benevolent sexism domestic violence myths

Introduction

Male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant health issue in the United States, with an estimated 7 million victimizations occurring among women each year (Black et al., 2011). IPV can be fatal or directly cause serious injury, and also is associated with long-term negative consequences for victims’ physical and psychological health, including increased rates of chronic health conditions such as asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic pain, and mental illnesses (Black et al., 2011).

Although it is common that female victims of IPV receive mental health counseling to address their traumatic experiences (Kress, Protivnak, & Sadlak, 2008), male perpetrators of IPV are also attending group, individual, and family counseling in growing numbers (Brown, 2004), voluntarily or in conjunction with legal judgments. Unfortunately, treated male IPV offenders have higher recidivism rates than those in the general offender population (Day, Chung, O’Leary, & Carson, 2009). The Duluth Model (Dutton & Corvo, 2007), a major, if not the prevailing, model of IPV offender treatment, has largely failed to target IPV offenders’ cognitive distortions, unhealthy expression of anger, and use of disinhibiting substances (Finkel & Eckhardt, 2013), potentially accounting for some of the poor treatment success rates. The problems with the Duluth Model suggest that research is needed to increase our understanding of attitudes that might lead to male-to-female interpersonal violence to effectively treat offenders and protect potential victims (Levesque, Velicer, Castle, & Greene, 2008). Research has already shown a link between males’ endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology, or the male “ideal,” and their perpetration of violence, specifically IPV (Schwartz, Waldo, & Daniel, 2005). However, the specific pathways between men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and their acceptance of violent behavior toward women in nonclinical populations are largely unexplained. The current study examined the relationship between endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and acceptance of male-to-female IPV myths as well as explored potential mediators of that relationship to contribute to better understanding and identification of IPV-supporting beliefs. This knowledge can be used to inform prevention and intervention efforts.

Traditional Masculinity and IPV

Traditional North American masculinity ideology represents a societal “male code” (Levant, 1992, p. 385) of behavior, abilities, and values that are transmitted to boys and men via multiple avenues and throughout the life span. Traditional masculinity ideology promotes the restriction of emotion, physical toughness and aggression, and avoidance of feminine behaviors and appearance as expected behavior for men (Levant, Rankin, Williams, Hasan, & Smalley, 2010) as well as the continuance of unequal power distribution between men and women (Wingood & DiClemente, 2000). Men who endorse gender norms that elevate men’s dominance over women may experience pressure to enact those male role norms through attitudes and behaviors that condone violence toward women.

Men who reported a high degree of endorsement of traditional male role norms have been shown to experience a number of relational difficulties with women, ranging in severity from poor functioning in coworker or intimate relationships to perpetration of IPV (Burn & Ward, 2005; Lease et al., 2013; Tager, Good, & Brammer, 2010). Furthermore, these men are seen by their female intimate partners to be lower in closeness and caregiving characteristics and higher in angry/aggressive and authority/dominant characteristics (McGraw, 2001). The endorsement of a high degree of adherence to traditional norms of masculinity was a strong predictor of endorsement of rape myths, belief in the adversarial nature of male–female sexual relations, and use of psychological violence against women (Good, Heppner, Hillenbrand-Gunn, & Wang, 1995). In addition, a high degree of endorsement of traditional male role norms combined with high levels of stress in meeting those ideals significantly predicted males’ aggression and violence toward their female partners (Jakupcak, Lisak, & Roemer, 2002).

Potential Mediators of the Masculinity—IPV Beliefs Relationship

Although men’s endorsement of traditional norms of masculinity is a strong predictor of their risk for perpetrating male-to-female IPV and should be incorporated into prevention and treatment efforts, it may also be useful to consider a constellation of beliefs and behaviors that derive from the traditional masculinity ideology and its influence on attitudes toward domestic violence. As the masculine socialization process starts early (Levant, 2005), it becomes a basic element in formation of identity, worldview, and belief systems that may be amenable for intervention in IPV treatment programs or counseling.

One of the most prominent characteristics of traditional masculinity ideology is the idea that expressing emotions other than anger is undesirable, feminine, and weak—the opposite of the masculine ideal of toughness and stoicism (Levant et al., 2010). The expectation of emotional expression and availability in an intimate relationship with a woman may lead highly masculine men to perceive themselves as weak and to act in ways that restore a view of self as in-control and invulnerable (Jennings & Murphy, 2000). Studies have supported the idea that the emotional restriction component of masculinity ideology (Levant, 1996) leads to men’s difficulty with the development of appropriate emotional regulation and potentially to the use of IPV as way to solve problems and alleviate stress as well as shield them from intimacy and vulnerability (Dutton, 2007). This study examined fear of intimacy as a mediator of the relationship between traditional masculinity ideology and acceptance of IPV beliefs.

Along with fear of intimacy, a need to dominate and control an intimate partner has been linked to both masculinity and to IPV (Tager et al., 2010). Beyond the general dominance characteristic that is valued in the traditional masculinity ideology, the need to dominate an intimate partner represents the selection and preference of a hierarchical and power-based approach to relationships and a need for control in intimate relationships (Hamby, 1996). IPV becomes a means for restoring dominance along gendered lines (Jakupcak, 2003). Thus, higher levels of relationship dominance may be related to both traditional masculinity ideology as well support of IPV myths.

Another line of inquiry regarding the connection between endorsement of traditional masculinity and domestic violence offenders relates to sexism. Sexism can be understood as “a special case of prejudice marked by a deep ambivalence, rather than a uniform antipathy, towards women” (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491). Glick and Fiske conceptualized ambivalent sexism as encompassing both hostile and benevolent feelings toward women that stem from faulty generalizations about women as a group. As the devaluation of the feminine is considered to be an integral component of North American traditional masculine socialization (Levant et al., 2007; Mahalik et al., 2003), it is likely that stronger endorsements of the traditional masculinity ideology are associated with greater levels of sexism. Indeed, sexism has been related to the endorsement of traditional masculinity (Leaper & Van, 2008) as well as the perpetration of IPV (Crossman, Stith, & Bender, 1990; Eades, 2003) and the acceptance of rape myths (Good et al., 1995). The combination of fear of intimacy, dominance, and sexism may be the pathway that connects men’s conformity to traditional male role norms and their beliefs about the acceptability of interpersonal violence.

Beliefs About Interpersonal Violence

Although IPV research often focuses on the actual commission of violent behaviors, beliefs about the acceptability of IPV are also important to examine. Radical feminist theory views male-to-female IPV as a socially sanctioned tactic men use to keep their partners vulnerable and as an outgrowth of broader societal beliefs or myths that serve to silence and blame women (Peters, 2008). This view of IPV as encompassing not only its direct perpetration but also the beliefs that support it broadens its study to nonclinical populations by accessing the general societal beliefs that produce IPV-conducive situations (Peters, 2008). Attitudes toward IPV have been linked to the actual perpetration of IPV (Guoping, Yalin, Yuping, Momartin, & Ming, 2010). Furthermore, beliefs that serve to deny, minimize, or justify IPV, such as “Women instigate most family violence,” (Peters, 2008, p. 21) may give women a false sense of security about being the potential victims of IPV. The acceptance of such myths on the part of men may help men blame female victims of IPV. Such beliefs are typically identified and challenged by IPV intervention programs, and it is important to understand the precursors to them.

In summary, research in the fields of masculinity and male-to-female IPV has established links between these two constructs through fear of intimacy and need for dominance in intimate relationships, as well as ambivalent sexism. These three constructs form a constellation of negative attitudes regarding women in general and one’s relationship partner specifically. No research to date has brought together these variables in a model that can explain how the relationships among these elements might work together to produce a relational context that is conducive to IPV. Thus, this study investigated possible mediating variables of the relationship between masculinity and myths about domestic violence targeting women. We hypothesized that (a) men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology would be positively related to their acceptance of male-to-female domestic violence myths and (b) that the relationship would be partially mediated by fear of intimacy, social dominance, and ambivalent sexism. As the association between experiencing family violence as a child and later perpetration of domestic violence is well-known (insert references), it is likely that witnessing parental violence is also related to beliefs about interpersonal violence. Because of this relationship, witnessing parental domestic violence as a child was included in the analyses as a statistical control.

Method

Procedure

Following approval from the university institutional review board (IRB), the primary investigator contacted men’s electronic mail listservs, newsletters, and message boards tailored to men’s interests and solicited participants via social networking sites. The link to the study’s online questionnaire was included in all electronic communications; clicking on the link directed participants to the survey. Participants were encouraged to pass on the survey link to male friends and colleagues (i.e., snowball sampling).

Participants

Participants were 101 men currently living in the United States. Participants ranged in age from 21 years to 71 years, (M = 41.78 years, SD = 13.93). Ninety five (94.1%) were Caucasian/White, one (1%) was African American/Black, two (2%) were Asian American, two (2%) were Latino American/Hispanic American, and one (1%) was biracial/multiracial. In terms of highest educational level, three men (3%) had received their high school diploma/GED, 10 (9.9%) had some college education, three (3%) had a vocational or associate (2 year) degree, 32 (31.7%) had a 4-year college degree, 18 (17.8%) had some graduate work, and 35 (34.7%) had a graduate degree. In terms of socioeconomic status background, 24 men (23.8%) identified as “often struggling with money,” 66 men (65.4%) identified as “mostly O.K. with money,” and 11 men (10.9%) identified as “mostly well-off.” Ninety men (89.1%) identified as heterosexual/straight, eight men (7.9%) identified as homosexual/gay, and three men (3%) identified as bisexual. Thirty men (29.7%) reported themselves as currently unpartnered/single, 11 men (10.9%) were partnered and living together, nine men (8.9%) were partnered and living separately, 46 men (45.5%) were married, four men (4%) were divorced, and one man (1%) was widowed. Seventeen men (16.8%) reported that they witnessed a primary caregiver (mother, father, etc.) use physical force (i.e., slap, push, hit, choke, use a gun or knife) against another primary caregiver. Fifteen men (14.9%) reported that they were injured from discipline used by their parents (e.g., bruises, cuts, broken bones, burns).

Previous research reported moderate effect sizes for the relationship between masculinity and IPV (Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2002). A minimum of 91 participants is needed to detect a moderate effect size at the alpha level of .05, (Soper, 2011). Effect sizes between the other study variables ranged from .05 (Thompson & Pleck, 1986) to .29 (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Based on estimated effects sizes, the sample size of 101 men was deemed appropriate for the proposed analyses.

Measures

Participants were asked to complete the following measures: a demographics questionnaire; the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R; Levant et al., 2007), the Fear of Intimacy Scale (FIS; Descutner & Thelen, 1991), the Dominance Scale (DS; Hamby, 1996), the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996), and the Domestic Violence Myths Acceptance Scale (DVMAS; Peters, 2008). The average time to complete all the measures was estimated by the web-based assessment tool to be approximately 27 min.

Demographic variables

Demographic information collected for each participant included age, gender, sexual orientation, relationship status, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and education level. Exposure to interparental violence in childhood and to child abuse was assessed by three items from the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996).

Endorsement of traditional male role norms

This construct was operationalized as the total score on the MRNI-R (Levant et al., 2010). The MRNI-R consists of 53 items assessing traditional male role norms of Western society, termed traditional masculinity ideology (Levant et al., 2010). The MNRI-R contains seven separate subscales (avoidance of femininity, negativity toward sexual minorities, self-reliance, aggression, dominance, nonrelational sexuality, and restrictive emotionality) that can be combined for the total score.

Participants responded to each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The total scale score was obtained by averaging the responses to all the items, with higher scores indicating stronger endorsement of traditional masculine ideology. Levant and colleagues (2010) reported an alpha reliability of .96 for total scale internal consistency in a sample of 593 undergraduates; however, no test–retest reliability has been reported. Validity was assessed by correlating the MRNI-R with other measures of male gender role norms; coefficients were reported as .33 with the Male Role Attitude Scale (MRAS; Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1994) and .60 with the Conformity to Male Norms Inventory (CMNI; Mahalik et al., 2003). In the current study, the alpha coefficient for the MRNI-R total score was .95.

Fear of intimacy

This construct was operationalized by the FIS (Descutner & Thelen, 1991). The FIS consisted of 35 items assessing the variance in the anxiety that individuals feel in close, intimate relationships. The fear of intimacy represents the degree to which an individual experiences difficulty or anxiety in exchanging personal information, expressing strong feelings, or experiencing vulnerability within a close, intimate relationship (Descutner & Thelen, 1991). The FIS-Part A, which measures men’s experience of fear of intimacy in past or present intimate relationships, was more strongly related to domestic violence myths than the FIS-Part B, which measures a man’s overall quality of standoffishness in all past relationships (including, but not limited to, intimate relationships). As the current study focused on intimate relationships, only the FIS-Part A was included in the analyses.

The FIS Part A includes 30 items and asks respondents to imagine they are in a close, dating relationship and to respond to the items based on that close relationship. Items were rated on a scale of 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me). The total score is computed by reversing the scoring on some items, then calculating the average of the total number of items. Higher scores indicated higher degrees of fear of intimacy. Reliability assessments have yielded alpha values from .92 with American college and middle-aged samples (Descutner & Thelen, 1991; Doi & Thelen, 1993), to .88 with a Chinese sample (Ingersoll, Norvilitis, Zhang, Jia, & Tetewsky, 2008), and test–retest reliability with a 1 month interval at r = .89 (Descutner & Thelen, 1991). In the current study, alpha coefficients were .71 for the FIS-Part A, .84 for the FIS-Part B, and .89 for the FIS total score. Correlations with the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (r = .48), the Jourard Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (JSDQ; Jourard, 1964; r = −.55), and the Miller Social Intimacy Scale (MSIS; Miller & Lefcourt, 1982; r = −.60) provided evidence of construct validity.

Dominance

The DS (Hamby, 1996) consists of 32 items that assess dominance or power over an intimate partner (Hamby, 1996). Hamby defined dominance as the degree to which an individual relates to his or her partner using authority (12 items), restrictiveness (9 items), and disparagement (11 items). In the current study, respondents were instructed to consider how they relate to their romantic partner and rate their agreement with each statement on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) scale. If the respondents were not currently in intimate relationships, they were asked to reflect on their last significant relationship.

Evidence for dominance as a construct has been obtained across samples and instruments (Hamby, 1996; Hoskins, 1990; Mudrack & Farrell, 1994). Correlation coefficients with the subscales of Conflict Tactics Scale, Revised (CTS-2; Straus et al., 1996) supported the construct validity of the DS. Hamby (1996) reported Cronbach’s alphas from .73 to .82 for the subscales with a sample of American undergraduates. In the current study, alpha for the DS total score was .85.

Ambivalent sexism

The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) consists of 22 items on two subscales of hostile sexism (11 items) and benevolent sexism (11 items). The hostile sexism subscale represents the belief that women are dangerous, manipulative, and contentious toward males, whereas the benevolent sexism subscale represents the belief that women deserve to be protected, cherished, and revered for their special moral virtue. Respondents rated each item on a scale ranging from 0 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The total score was computed by reversing the scoring on some items and averaging the responses. Higher scores indicated higher levels of benevolent and/or hostile sexism.

Internal consistency estimates for the hostile sexism subscale have ranged from .80 to .92 and from .73 to .85 for the benevolent sexism subscale. Cronbach’s alphas for the total scale ranged from .83 to .92 for various samples (Glick & Fiske, 1996). In the current study, alpha coefficients were .84 for the benevolent sexism subscale, .91 for the hostile sexism subscale, and .88 for the total score. Correlations with the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS; Spence & Helmreich, 1972; r = .63) and the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (RMA; Burt, 1980; r = .54) provided evidence of construct validity (Glick & Fiske, 1996). No test–retest data were reported.

IPV acceptance

This construct was operationalized as the total score on the Domestic Violence Myths Acceptance Scale (DVMAS; Peters, 2008). The DVMAS consists of 18 items that assess the degree to which individuals believe misconceptions regarding the prevalence, causes, responsibility, and severity of IPV (Peters, 2008). Acceptance of IPV myths differs from similar constructs assessed by other instruments (e.g., AWS; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1974) because the myths represent societal beliefs of false information that reduce support for victims and serve a defensive function for perpetrators (Peters, 2008). The DVMAS is comprised of four subscales: character blame of victim (seven items), behavior blame of victim (five items), minimization of the incidence of IPV (three items), and exoneration of the perpetrator (three items). Respondents rated each item on a scale ranging from 0 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). The total score, which was used in the current study, is computed by reversing the scoring on some items, then averaging the responses to all the items. Higher scores indicated greater acceptance of inaccurate beliefs (myths) pertaining to IPV. Peters (2008) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .88 with a university sample of 345 adults. In the current study, the alpha for the DVMAS was .85. Correlations with the AWS (Spence et al., 1974; r = .47) and the RMA (Burt, 1980; r = .65) provided evidence of construct validity (Peters, 2008).

Results

Preliminary analyses examined the correlations among the study variables. Correlations, means, and standard deviations for the study measures are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for the Study Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5
1. MRNI-R	1.00
2. FIS-A	.18	1.00
3. ASI	.66***	.07	1.00
4. DS	.39***	.33***	.42***	1.00
5. DVMAS	.56***	.28***	.53***	.51***	1.00
M	3.06	2.11	2.28	1.89	1.44
SD	.92	.49	.75	.27	.69

Note. MRNI-R = Masculine Role Norms Inventory—Revised; FIS-A = Fear of Intimacy Scale-Part A; ASI = Ambivalent Sexism Index; DS = Dominance Scale; DVMAS = Domestic Violence Myths Acceptance Scale.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

An examination of the zero-order correlations indicated that endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology, fear of intimacy, sexism, and dominance in relationships were all related to stronger acceptance of domestic violence myths. Masculinity was related to the mediating variables with the exception of FIS-A. All correlations were in the expected directions.

Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analyses were calculated to answer the primary research question of mediation of the masculinity—acceptance of IPV myths relation. Analyses were computed by entering data into SPSS statistical software with the add-on of the PROCESS macro syntax (Hayes, 2013) that allowed for the testing of parallel multiple mediators. As the hypothesized mediator variables are expected to form a constellation of attitudes around intimate relationships, it is more appropriate to test them simultaneously (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Combining several mediators in one model allows the researcher to compare the magnitude of the specific indirect effects through different mediators (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). It also reduces the likelihood of having the omitted variable issue that can result from testing separate simple mediation models for each mediation hypothesis (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) also constructs a bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effects.

It was hypothesized that participants with greater endorsement of traditional male role norms would endorse more acceptance of male-to-female IPV myths, and that this relationship would be mediated by their fear of intimacy, dominance of their partner, and sexism, while controlling for childhood exposure to interparental violence. Overall, the model was significant, adjusted R-square predicting DVMAS = .45; F(5, 95) = 17.37; p < .0001, indicating a substantial amount of the variance in the measure of domestic violence myths was explained by the variables. In the “a” paths of the model, or those from the independent variable (MRNI-R) to the mediators, all paths were significant or approached significance (MRNI-R to FIS-A had a p-value of .051), meaning that as endorsement of traditional masculinity increased, so did fear of intimacy, sexism, and dominance. In the “b” paths of the proposed model, or those from the mediators to the dependent variable (DVMAS), two of the three paths were significant, those from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (p < .001) and the DS (p < .001). As participants’ scores on measures of sexism and dominance increased, so did their support of IPV myths. Masculinity continued to have a significant relationship with domestic violence myth acceptance (p < .05; “c” path, b = .20) after entering the mediating variables into the analyses, indicating partial rather than full mediation. The witnessing of interparental violence in childhood on DVMAS scores was significant (p < .05). Examination of the bias corrected CIs indicated that there were significant indirect effects of endorsement of masculinity ideology on IPV myth acceptance through social dominance (indirect effect = .07; CI = [03, .17]) and sexist beliefs (indirect effect = .11; CI = [.03, .23]). The results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance, Controlling for Exposure to Interparental Violence (n = 101).

Variables	Mediator Variables									Dependent Variable
	FIS-A			ASI			DS			DVMAS
	Coefficient	SE	t	Coefficient	SE	t	Coefficient	SE	t	Coefficient	SE	t
MRNI-R	.11	.05	1.97	.55	.06	8.70***	.12	.03	4.06***	.19	.08	2.53*
FIS-A	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.19	.11	1.73
ASI	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.21	.09	2.21*
DS	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	.64	.22	2.97**
Parent violence										−.29	.14	−2.11*

Note. FIS-A = Fear of Intimacy Scale-Part A; ASI = Ambivalent Sexism Index; DS = Dominance Scale; DVMAS = Domestic Violence Myths Acceptance Scale; MRNI-R = Masculine Role Norms Inventory-Revised; Parent Violence = exposure to interparental violence.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The current study investigated the relationship between the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and the acceptance of myths supporting male-to-female IPV in a community sample of American men. Men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology emphasizing restricted emotionality, toughness, and avoidance of anything deemed feminine has consistently been linked to relationship dysfunction (Burn & Ward, 2005; Wade & Coughlin, 2012), including interpersonal violence in relationships (Copenhaver, Lash, & Eisler, 2000; Schwartz et al., 2005). However, less is known about the specific pathways through which masculinity influences intimate relationship attitudes or behaviors.

This study investigated three such pathways, fear of intimacy, ambivalent sexism, and dominance, and hypothesized that they would partially mediate the relationship between endorsement of masculinity and acceptance of male-to-female IPV myths. As hypothesized, level of endorsement of masculinity ideology accounted for a significant amount of variance in the acceptance of IPV myths. The hypothesized mediation was partially supported by the data, with relationship dominance and ambivalent sexism functioning as significant mediating variables showing strong mediating effects, while fear of intimacy did not. The effect of masculinity on IPV myth acceptance was substantially reduced in the presence of the mediators (beta coefficient reduced from .40 to .20). Therefore, we conclude that men’s higher levels of endorsement of masculinity ideology is a strong predictor of higher levels of IPV myth acceptance and that this relationship is partially mediated by a combination of sexist and relationship dominance attitudes.

The current study adds to the literature connecting masculinity ideology and male-to-female IPV by bringing greater understanding of some of the pathways between masculinity ideology and IPV. The direct effect of masculinity ideology on IPV myth acceptance suggests that socialized traditional masculine normative beliefs are associated with a minimization of the prevalence and severity of IPV and a tendency to exonerate the perpetrators of male-to-female IPV while blaming the victims. This finding is consistent with the existing literature documenting the link between masculinity ideology and other measures of IPV (Good et al., 1995; Jakupcak et al., 2002; Moore & Stuart, 2005). However, this study was the first to connect masculine ideology with the belief systems that support IPV (rather than the behavior) in a community sample while investigating mediators that may account for this link. This connection to beliefs or myths about IPV is important because it is essential to focus on the perpetration of IPV through treatment of perpetrators, but also to understand the widespread acceptance of the myths that perpetuate IPV. These beliefs both support/protect perpetrators and make it more difficult for victims to come forward for help. Identifying the precursors to these myths provides an early intervention/prevention point before the violence occurs.

In addition to the direct pathway between masculinity ideology and acceptance of IPV myths, the relationship between these two variables was partially explained by the proposed mediators of sexism and dominance. A man’s higher levels of endorsement of traditional masculinity reflects rigid views on what it means to be a man—views that value dominance, toughness, and devalue the feminine. As hypothesized, men’s sexist beliefs, operationally defined by their score on the Ambivalent Sexism Scale, partially mediated the masculinity–IPV myths connection. These findings suggest that adherence to rigidly defined traditional masculinity is associated with the acceptability of IPV, due to the acceptance of sexist beliefs that continue to be prevalent in our society. Although it is easy to identify beliefs supporting hostile views and behavior toward women as sexist, benevolent sexism also exists. These beliefs that elevate women as “good,” “moral,” and “valuable or precious” place them onto precariously high pedestals that make their fall even more precipitous when they inevitably stray from these impossibly high standards. The “fall” lands them squarely in the “bad,” “immoral/manipulative,” and “devalued” women category who are deserving of hostility. It makes sense that this simplistic way of viewing women would be associated with the acceptance of myths that make it acceptable to “discipline” women.

Relationship dominance, operationalized as scores on the DS (Hamby, 1996) involves individuals’ placing importance on gaining, maintaining, and proving the possession of power and control in intimate relationships. Again, these dominance attitudes follow from many of the major aspects of traditional masculinity ideology, and lay the foundation for partner restrictiveness, authority, and disparagement that increase the excusing and minimization of IPV.

Contrary to hypotheses, fear of intimacy was not a significant mediating variable. Multiple regression analysis with simultaneous entering of all three mediators showed that men’s endorsement of masculine role norms was only moderately related to their fears of intimacy. In contrast to previous work (Mahalik, Aldarondo, Gilbert-Gokhale, & Shore, 2005), masculinity was not strongly associated with what some conceptualize as a rejection of vulnerability. FIS scores are based on men’s self-reports of their emotional responses to intimate relationship situations (e.g., I would be afraid to take the risk of being hurt to establish a closer relationship with another). Levant, Allen, and Lien (2014) discussed normative male alexithymia, or men’s general lesser ability to read their own and others’ emotions when compared with women. In men with higher levels of alexithymia, self-report might not be adequate to access more emotional material like vulnerability. Future researchers may want to consider the best way to assess men’s emotional responses while accounting for alexithymia.

Limitations

The limitations of the current study include the self-report method of data collection. However, responses were collected via an online measure that minimized contact with the researchers and reduced the possibility of anyone being able to connect the participant with his responses. Therefore, participants who were more sensitive to potential identification might have been more willing to answer in an accurate manner.

Because the data were gathered at a single point in time, causal relations between variables cannot be inferred. The use of the nonprobability sampling technique or “snowball sampling” is another limitation of this study; without the use of random selection, the findings cannot be generalized beyond the sample of this study. Despite efforts to sample American men of diverse cultural, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds, the obtained sample was overwhelmingly White, middle-class, and college educated. These sample characteristics limit the generalizability of the study to racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse men. Within this community sample, the respondents displayed a wide age range.

Clinical Implications

The current study supports the connection between traditional masculine ideology and acceptance of male-to-female IPV myths, which is partially explained by sexist and relationship dominance attitudes. It follows that therapists working with partner-violent men benefit from understanding the constellation of these attitudes and how men are socialized to hold these beliefs as well as related sexist and dominant attitudes. The current data also point to the difficulty men may encounter with the vulnerable emotions they have been taught to hide. Consequently, therapists aiming to promote emotional healing in men may need to specifically target activities that help them access emotions in a safe space that respects a healthy masculinity (e.g., Levant, Halter, Hayden, & Williams, 2009).

Understanding the concepts of traditional masculinity ideology could help therapists to build rapport with clients who adhere to these belief systems, perhaps paving the way for discussion of the positive and negative aspects of the client’s definition of masculinity and behaviors associated with it. These exchanges could allow therapists to convey respect for a male client’s worldview while also challenging the aspects of it that may not be working in his life and relationships. For instance, Robertson and Williams (2010) described the application of gender aware therapy (Brooks & Good, 2005) in a multimodal treatment program for impaired male professionals. The structure of the program presents men with task-oriented and self-directed therapeutic assignments (e.g., genograms, bibliotherapy) that prime them for the content of the sessions, such as topics of father-wounds, sexism, and abuses of power—topics that would be particularly relevant for IPV perpetrators as well. Another application of Brooks and Good’s (2005) gender-aware therapy is the Emotional Competency psychoeducation group (Robertson & Williams, 2010) that discusses the role of masculine socialization processes in promoting emotional restriction, stress buildup, and negative ways of coping that might include abusive partner interactions. This approach also discusses the positive aspects of the gender socialization process. Men are encouraged to simultaneously appreciate how their socialization into masculine ideology, sexist beliefs, and hierarchical/dominant relationship behaviors originated and was adaptive at certain times, while accepting and becoming aware of the ways in which these qualities have harmed them and others. This awareness is combined with information on how they can change their attitudes and behaviors.

Kiselica and Englar-Carlson (2010) presented a framework for helping therapists work with, not against, the masculine socialization process in therapy. Their positive psychology/positive masculinity (PPPM) model proposes that rather than seeing the male clients’ deficits as barriers to their therapeutic success, therapists must learn to recognize their strengths that include active caring, self-reliance, providing, courage, and group orientation.

Good and Robertson (2010) gave another perspective on treating the traditional male that could benefit IPV perpetrators in treatment. The authors explain that men are reluctant to seek help for a variety of reasons (e.g., appearing weak, fear of consequences, feeling helpless). When a male client presents for therapy, therapists can focus on meeting clients where they are, normalizing their ambivalence, seeking to understand rather than direct and push, affirming strengths, and helping the men and boys anticipate and prepare for challenges in the therapeutic process. Through the establishment of therapeutic rapport and conveying respect for their masculinity, male clients will be able to tolerate the challenging, yet necessary, conversations about the destructive aspects of IPV, sexism, and relationship dominance.

Conclusion

In summary, men’s endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology is strongly related to acceptance of male-to-female IPV myths; this effect is partially explained by attitudes of ambivalent sexism and relationship dominance. The male socialization process prescribes the ways men should act in specific situations, including intimate relationships. Following these prescriptions can hinder men’s functioning and satisfaction in these important life roles through structuring overly simplistic ways of viewing women as “all good” (supporting men’s place in society, needing their protection) or “all bad” (challenging men’s place in society, usurping men’s power). These sexist beliefs and use of tactics to maintain power over women in intimate relationships, potentially in an effort to shape or protect their own identities as men, result in men’s over-reliance on faulty minimizing “myths” about IPV. To increase support for victims of IPV, to improve men’s health and relationship functioning, and to reduce sexist power tactics used against women in society and in intimate relationships, therapeutic interventions could focus on altering the societal discourse on gender and the way boys and men are socialized into emotionally and behaviorally restrictive norms.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This article has not been published elsewhere nor submitted simultaneously for publication elsewhere.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Alida Novarese Gage, PhD (Counseling Psychology, University of Memphis, 2013), completed an internship at Hazelden Foundation before a Postdoctoral Fellowship at University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center’s Center. She now has a private practice in Memphis, TN, while consulting at area psychiatric and residential facilities. Her clinical interests include chemical dependency and eating disorders recovery.

Suzanne H. Lease, PhD, is an alum of Southern Illinois University-Carbondale (1989). Current research interests are career counseling with underserved populations, gender ideologies (especially masculinity ideologies), and health promotion/integrated care. She has published in the Journal of Career Development, the Journal of Counseling and Development, Career Development Quarterly, and Psychology of Men & Masculinity. She serves on the editorial board for the Journal of Career Development and Psychology of Men & Masculinity.

References

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breidling

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. . . Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Brooks

G. R.

Good

G. E.

(2005). A final word. In Good

G. E.

Brooks

G. R.

(Eds.), The new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men: A comprehensive guide to settings, problems, and treatment approaches (Rev. & abridged ed.). (pp. 405-406). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brown

(2004). Shame and domestic violence: Treatment perspectives for perpetrators from self psychology and affect theory. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 19, 39-56. doi:10.1080/14681990410001640826

Burn

Ward

(2005). Men’s conformity to traditional masculinity and relationship satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 254-263. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.6.4.254

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Copenhaver

M. M.

Lash

S. J.

Eisler

R. M.

(2000). Masculine gender-role stress, anger, and male intimate abusiveness: Implications for men’s relationships. Sex Roles, 42, 405-414. doi:10.1023/A:1007050305387

Crossman

R. K.

Stith

S. M.

Bender

M. M.

(1990). Sex role egalitarianism and marital violence. Sex Roles, 22, 293-304.

Day

Chung

O’Leary

Carson

(2009). Programs for men who perpetrate domestic violence: An examination of the issues underlying the effectiveness of intervention programs. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 203-212. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9221-4

Descutner

C. J.

Thelen

M. H.

(1991). Development and validation of a Fear-of-Intimacy Scale. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 218-225. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.3.2.218

10.

Doi

S. C.

Thelen

M. H.

(1993). The Fear-of-Intimacy Scale: Replication and extension. Psychological Assessment, 5, 377-383. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.3.377

11.

Dutton

D. G.

(2007). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

12.

Dutton

D. G.

Corvo

(2007). The Duluth Model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 658-667. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.03.002

13.

Eades

(2003). Ambivalent sexism as a predictor of severity of domestic violence by male offenders. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: Sciences and Engineering, 64(6), 2913.

14.

Finkel

Eckhardt

(2013). Intimate partner violence. In Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

(Eds.), Handbook of close relationships (pp. 452-474). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15.

Glick

Fiske

(1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

16.

Good

G. E.

Heppner

M. J.

Hillenbrand-Gunn

T. L.

Wang

(1995). Sexual and psychological violence: An exploratory study of predictors in college men. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 4, 59-71.

17.

Good

G. E.

Robertson

J. M.

(2010). To accept a pilot? Addressing men’s ambivalence and altering their expectancies about therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 47, 306-315. doi:10.1037/a0021162

18.

Guoping

Yalin

Yuping

Momartin

Ming

(2010). Relationship between recent life events, social supports, and attitudes to domestic violence: Predictive roles in behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 863-876. doi:10.1177/0886260509336959

19.

Hamby

S. L.

(1996). The Dominance Scale: Preliminary psychometric properties. Violence and Victims, 11, 199-212.

20.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

21.

Hoskins

C. N.

(1990). The Dominance-Accommodation Scale: Further studies of validity and reliability. Psychological Reports, 66, 1101-1102. doi:10.2466/PR0.66.4.1101-1102

22.

Ingersoll

T. S.

Norvilitis

J. M.

Zhang

Jia

Tetewsky

(2008). Reliability and validity of the Fear of Intimacy Scale in China. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 270-279. doi:10.1080/00223890701885019

23.

Jakupcak

(2003). Masculine gender role stress and men’s fear of emotions as predictors of self reported aggression and violence. Violence and Victims, 18, 533-541.

24.

Jakupcak

Lisak

Roemer

(2002). The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 97-106. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.3.2.97

25.

Jennings

J. L.

Murphy

C. M.

(2000). Male–male dimensions of male–female battering: A new look at domestic violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1, 21-29. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.1.1.21

26.

Jourard

S. M.

(1964). The transparent self. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

27.

Kiselica

M. S.

Englar-Carlson

(2010). Identifying, affirming, and building upon male strengths: The positive psychology/positive masculinity model of psychotherapy with boys and men. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 47, 276-287. doi:10.1037/a0021159

28.

Kress

V. E.

Protivnak

J. J.

Sadlak

(2008). Counseling clients involved with violent intimate partners: The mental health counselor’s role in promoting client safety. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 30, 200-210.

29.

Leaper

Van

S. R.

(2008). Masculinity ideology, covert sexism, and perceived gender typicality in relation to young men’s academic motivation and choices in college. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9, 139-153. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.139

30.

Lease

S. H.

Montes

S. H.

Baggett

L. R.

Sawyer

R. J.

Fleming-Norwood

K. M.

Hampton

A. B.

. . . Boyraz

(2013). A cross-cultural exploration of masculinity and relationships in men from Turkey, Norway, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 84-105.

31.

Levant

R. F.

(1992). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 379-402.

32.

Levant

R. F.

(1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology, 27, 259-265.

33.

Levant

R. F.

(2005). The crises of boyhood. In Good

G. E.

Brooks

G. R.

(Eds.), The new handbook of psychotherapy and counseling with men: A comprehensive guide to settings, problems, and treatment approaches (Rev. & abridged ed.) (pp. 161-171). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

34.

Levant

R. F.

Allen

P. A.

Lien

(2014). Alexithymia in men: How and when do emotional processing difficulties occur? Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 324-334.

35.

Levant

R. F.

Halter

E. W.

Hayden

M. J.

Williams

C. M.

(2009). The efficacy of alexithymia reduction treatment: A pilot study. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 17, 75-84.

36.

Levant

R. F.

Rankin

T. J.

Williams

C. M.

Hasan

N. T.

Smalley

(2010). Evaluation of the factor structure and construct validity of scores on the Male Role Norms Inventory—Revised (MRNI-R). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 25-37. doi:10.1037/a0017637

37.

Levant

R. F.

Smalley

Aupont

House

Richmond

Noronha

(2007). Initial validation of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, 83-100. doi:10.3149/jms.1501.83

38.

Levesque

D. A.

Velicer

W. F.

Castle

P. H.

Greene

(2008). Resistance among domestic violence offenders: Measurement development and initial validation. Violence Against Women, 14, 158-184. doi:10.1177/1077801207312397

39.

Mahalik

J. R.

Aldarondo

Gilbert-Gokhale

Shore

(2005). The role of insecure attachment and gender role stress in predicting controlling behaviors in men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 617-631. doi:10.1177/0886260504269688

40.

Mahalik

J. R.

Locke

B. D.

Ludlow

L. H.

Diemer

M. A.

Scott

R. J.

Gottfried

Freitas

(2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3-25. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3

41.

McGraw

S. L.

(2001). Masculinity ideologies, men’s relationship behavior, and relationship satisfaction in heterosexual couple relationships. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 62, 1588.

42.

Miller

R. S.

Lefcourt

H. M

. (1982). The assessment of social intimacy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 514-518.

43.

Moore

T. M.

Stuart

G. L.

(2005). A review of the literature on masculinity and partner violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 46-61. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.46

44.

Mudrack

P. E.

Farrell

G. M.

(1994). The need for dominance scale of the Manifest Needs Questionnaire and role behaviour in groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 43, 399-413. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1994.tb00836.x

45.

Murnen

S. K.

Wright

Kaluzny

(2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359-375. doi:10.1023/A:1020488928736

46.

Peters

(2008). Measuring myths about domestic violence: Development and initial validation of the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16, 1-21. doi:10.1080/10926770801917780

47.

Pleck

J. H.

Sonenstein

F. L.

L. C.

(1994). Attitudes toward male roles: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex Roles, 30, 481-501.

48.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

49.

Robertson

J. M.

Williams

(2010). “Gender aware therapy” for professional men in a day treatment center. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 47, 316-326. doi:10.1037/a0021163

50.

Schwartz

J. P.

Waldo

Daniel

(2005). Gender-role conflict and self-esteem: Factors associated with partner abuse in court-referred men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 109-113. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.6.2.109

51.

Soper

D. S.

(2011). A-priori sample size calculator for multiple regression (Online Software). Retrieved from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc3

52.

Spence

J. T.

Helmreich

R. L.

(1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66-67.

53.

Spence

J. T.

Helmreich

R. L.

Stapp

(1974). A short version of the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (ATW). Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 2, 219-220.

54.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

55.

Tager

Good

G. E.

Brammer

(2010). “Walking over’ em”: An exploration of relations between emotion dysregulation, masculine norms, and intimate partner abuse in a clinical sample of men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11, 233-239. doi:10.1037/a0017636

56.

Thompson

E. H.

Pleck

J. H.

(1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531-543. doi:10.1177/000276486029005003

57.

Wade

J. C.

Coughlin

(2012). Male reference group identity dependence, masculinity ideology, and relationship satisfaction in men’s heterosexual romantic relationships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 325-339. doi:10.1037/a0026278

58.

Wingood

G. M.

DiClemente

R. J.

(2000). Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors, and effective interventions for women. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 539-565.