When Does Men’s Hostile Sexism Predict Relationship Aggression? The Moderating Role of Partner Commitment

Abstract

Hostile sexism encompasses aggressive attitudes toward women who contest men’s power and suspicions that women will manipulate men by exploiting their relational dependence. Prior research has shown that these attitudes predict greater aggression toward female relationship partners, but has overlooked the contexts in which such aggression should occur. The present research identified an important contextual factor that determines when men’s hostile sexism is (and when it is not) associated with relationship aggression. Men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism were more aggressive toward their female partners during couples’ daily life (Study 1) and conflict discussions (Study 2), but only when their female partners were perceived to be, or reported being, low in relationship commitment. These findings show that men who endorse hostile sexism do not always enact aggression toward female partners, but do so in contexts relevant to their fears that women will exploit men’s relational dependence and undermine men’s power.

Keywords

hostile sexism psychological aggression commitment dependence

Men’s Hostile Sexism and Relationship Aggression: The Moderating Role of Partner Commitment

Hostile sexism encompasses aggressive attitudes toward women who contest men’s power (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Hostile sexism is often directed toward women who threaten men’s societal-level dominance, such as feminists or career women (Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner, & Zhu, 1997; Sibley & Wilson, 2004). Yet, men who endorse hostile sexism also respond more aggressively toward their intimate relationship partners (Hammond & Overall, 2013; Overall, Sibley, & Tan, 2011). The link between hostile sexism and relationship aggression most likely occurs because the dependence that characterizes intimate relationships clashes with men’s power concerns and associated fears that they will be exploited by female partners (Chen, Fiske, & Lee, 2009; Hammond & Overall, 2013; Overall et al., 2011). However, the relative risk of exploitation varies across relationships, and so the levels of aggression prompted by hostile sexism should also vary. In the current studies, we advance prior research by identifying when men’s hostile sexism predicts relationship aggression, and when it does not. We predicted that men’s hostile sexism would predict greater aggression toward female partners, but only when men’s dependence was most risky because partners were, or were perceived to be, low in relationship commitment.

Hostile Sexism and Relationship Aggression

Hostile sexism characterizes the relationship between men and women as a contest for power, such as expressing that women pursue power “by getting control over men” and use the “guise of equality” to get ahead of men (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory; Glick & Fiske, 1996). These attitudes protect men’s privileged societal status by derogating and intimidating women who threaten men’s societal power. Accordingly, men who endorse hostile sexism evaluate career women and feminists more negatively, but not homemakers and caretakers (Glick et al., 1997; Sibley & Wilson, 2004). Yet, research has also revealed that men who more strongly endorse hostile sexism report greater acceptance of aggression toward intimate partners (Forbes, Jobe, White, Bloesch, & Adams-Curtis, 2005; Yamawaki, Ostenson, & Brown, 2009), report more verbal aggression toward dating partners (Forbes, Adams-Curtis, & White, 2004; Martinez-Pecino & Durán, 2016), and respond more aggressively toward intimate partners during couples’ daily life and within conflict discussions (Hammond & Overall, 2013; Overall et al., 2011).

Prior studies supporting that men’s hostile sexism predicts greater relationship aggression have focused on the main effect of hostile sexism on aggression measures. However, contemporary approaches to understanding aggression recognize that the predictive power of variables associated with aggression are intensified or reduced by other theoretically related factors (Finkel & Eckhardt, 2013). For example, people higher in neuroticism enact greater relationship aggression, but particularly do so when they encounter stress which exacerbates affective reactivity (Hellmuth & McNulty, 2008). Similarly, dispositional aggressiveness predicts greater aggression toward partners, but does so when people lack the self-regulatory resources needed to deal with difficult relationship interactions (Finkel et al., 2012). These patterns emphasize that aggression is not enacted routinely by individuals who have a propensity toward aggression, but occurs when specific contexts exacerbate the underlying vulnerabilities or concerns that prompt aggression.

The aim of the current research was to examine an important contextual factor that should be relevant to the concerns associated with men’s hostile sexism and, thus, determine when men’s hostile sexism will predict relationship aggression. Hostile sexism is essentially about protecting and maintaining men’s power, but these power concerns clash with the dependence that is inherent in intimate relationships. In heterosexual relationships, men are inescapably dependent on their female partners for love, care, and support and can only achieve these desired outcomes with the co-operation and investment of their female partner (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Thus, in intimate relationships, the fulfillment of men’s (like women’s) relational needs are in the hands of their partner and such dependence risks the possibility of hurt and exploitation (Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006). The risks of dependence are particularly concerning to heterosexual men who endorse hostile sexism because they fear that women will use their dependence to control and manipulate them (e.g., put them “on a tight leash”; Glick & Fiske, 1996). Of importance, aggression is a common self-protective response when people fear their dependence is not in safe hands (Murray et al., 2006) and aggression is often enacted to demonstrate power and ensure partners do not exploit one’s dependence (Bornstein, 1996; Murphy, Meyer, & O’Leary, 1994; Overall, Hammond, McNulty, & Finkel, 2016). Accordingly, the relationship aggression associated with men’s hostile sexism has been understood to represent attempts to reduce dependence and maintain power and control (Hammond & Overall, 2013, in press; Overall et al., 2011).

Although fears of relational dependence may be central to the aggressive responses associated with hostile sexism, the hurt and exploitation that dependence risks varies across relationships. The relative risks of dependence are determined by the degree to which partners are motivated to meet one’s needs versus be hurtful and exploitative (Murray et al., 2006), which is indicated by the degree to which partners are (or perceived to be) committed (Drigotas, Rusbult, & Verette, 1999; Rusbult, 1980, 1983). When partners are more committed, they are orientated toward preserving their relationship and are willing to put their personal interests aside to ensure the other partner’s needs are met (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993; Rusbult et al., 1991). In this context, the risks of dependence are minimized because people are more able to rely on their partner’s investment and they are less vulnerable to hurt, rejection, and exploitation (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). By contrast, when partners are less committed, they are less motivated to care for the other partner and are more likely to prioritize their own needs, and thus, the risks of dependence run high; people are less able to rely on their partner’s investment and they are particularly vulnerable to hurt and exploitation (also see Murray et al., 2006).

In sum, the risk of dependence, and associated self-protective and aggressive responses, should occur more strongly when the risk of hurt and exploitation runs high because partners are low in commitment. Moreover, people who are more concerned about being dependent and harbor fears of exploitation, such as men high in hostile sexism, should be more sensitive to the relative risks of dependence and respond to low partner commitment more aggressively. Indeed, the potential for partners low in commitment to exploit and hurt men clashes with the power concerns and dependence fears associated with hostile sexism and should prompt aggression to reduce dependence and rebalance control. Accordingly, we predicted that men who endorse hostile sexism should respond aggressively toward their partners particularly when the risks of hurt, rejection, and exploitation are high because their partners are low—or are perceived to be low—in relationship commitment. By contrast, because the threat of dependence and exploitation is diminished when partners are highly committed, the association between hostile sexism and aggression should be reduced when their partners are high—or are perceived to be high—in relationship commitment.

Current Research

In two studies, we tested our prediction that female partners’ level of commitment would determine when men who more strongly endorse hostile sexism respond aggressively in their intimate relationships, and when they do not. In Study 1, heterosexual couples completed a 3-week daily diary and reported on aggressive responses relevant to the daily course of relationships. In Study 2, heterosexual couples engaged in video-recorded conflict discussions and observers rated each partner’s aggressive communication. Our assessment of relationship aggression was based on well-studied relationship behaviors that (1) are relevant to the relationship interactions investigated, (2) have been shown to have harmful consequences for partners (Gottman, 1998; Karney & Bradbury, 1995), and (3) represent psychological aggression involving communication that is intended, or can be reasonably perceived as intended, to hurt partners and cause psychological pain (Gelles & Straus, 1979; Straus, 1979).

We expected that partners’ commitment would interact with men’s hostile sexism to predict aggression. In particular, we predicted that men who more strongly endorse hostile sexism would be more aggressive toward their partners when the risk of hurt and exploitation associated with dependence is greatest because their partners are low—or are perceived to be low—in commitment. In contrast, we predicted that the link between hostile sexism and aggression would be reduced when partners are high—or are perceived to be high—in commitment because the risk of hurt and exploitation is low, and the concerns of power and dependence associated with hostile sexism are less pertinent. Although we expected this predicted interaction effect would emerge using both partners’ reports of their commitment and individuals’ perceptions of their partners’ commitment, we expected the effects to be stronger for perceptions of commitment, given that the perceptions of low commitment should most strongly activate the dependence fears and power concerns central to men’s hostile sexism (and vice versa). Finally, we expected these effects to occur for men and not women. Women who endorse hostile sexism also believe that men’s power and dominance should be upheld in relationships (Chen et al., 2009), and so should not be threatened by relationship dependence or have the need to restore power via aggression.

Study 1

In Study 1, both members of heterosexual couples completed measures of sexist attitudes and relationship commitment in an initial laboratory-based session and then reported on their aggressive responses toward their partner each day for 21 days.

Method

Participants

Seventy-three heterosexual couples (total N = 146) were reimbursed NZD$70 for the procedures described below. Participants were on average 23.5 years old (SD = 6.83 years). Couple were in relatively serious (12% married, 33% cohabitating, 46% serious, 9% steady) relationships for an average length of 3.01 years (SD = 3.35).¹ See the Online Supplemental Material (OSM) for more information about the size and use of this sample.

Procedure and Materials

During an initial session, participants completed the scales described below and received instructions regarding how to complete a web-based daily record of their behavior over the next 21 days. Participants completed an average of 19.82 diary entries (total number of entries = 2,786).

Initial Questionnaire Measures

Sexist attitudes

The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) measured participants’ attitudes toward women. Eleven items assessed hostile sexism (e.g., “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men,” “Once a woman gets a man to commit to her she usually tries to put him on a tight leash;” −3 = strongly disagree, 3 = strongly agree). Eleven items assessed benevolent sexism, which encompasses subjectively positive, yet patronizing, attitudes toward women (e.g., “Women should be cherished and protected by men”).

Commitment and perceptions of partners’ commitment

Participants rated 5 items developed by Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew (1998) to assess commitment (e.g., “I am committed to maintaining my relationship with my partner”) and perceptions of partner’s commitment (e.g., “My partner is committed to maintaining his/her relationship with me;” 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Daily aggression

At the end of each day, participants rated 2 items used in prior studies to assess aggressive behaviors that are relevant to the day-to-day course of relationships (Overall & Sibley, 2009, 2010): “I was critical or unpleasant toward my partner,”, “I acted in a way that could be hurtful to my partner” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). To ensure that these behaviors captured aggressive motivations directed toward the partner, we followed prior assessments of relationship aggression (e.g., Finkel et al., 2012; Overall et al., 2016) by gathering ratings of anger toward the partner (“I felt angry at my partner;” 1 = not at all, 7 = extremely). We averaged the 3 items to provide an overall index of daily aggression (α = .85; M across days = 1.53, SD = 1.02). Analyzing the behavioral items and anger separately produced a similar pattern of results (see OSM). Also see OSM for results examining partners’ perceptions of participants’ daily aggression.

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations. We tested our predictions using both (1) perceptions of partner’s commitment and (2) partner’s actual self-reported commitment. We expected that both analyses would reveal that men’s hostile sexism predicted greater daily aggression when partners were low (but not high) in relationship commitment, although we expected that the effects would be stronger for perceptions of partner’s commitment. Following Kenny, Kashy, and Cook’s (2006) procedures for analyzing repeated measures dyadic data using the MIXED procedure in SPSS 21, we regressed daily aggression on hostile sexism, perceptions of partner’s commitment (or the partner’s reported commitment), and the interaction between hostile sexism and perceptions of partner’s commitment (or the partner’s reported commitment). As is typical because hostile and benevolent sexism are positively correlated, we also included the main and interaction effects of benevolent sexism to ensure that the effects were due to hostile sexism. The hypothesized effects remained significant without controlling for benevolent sexism (see OSM).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, α Reliabilities, and Correlations Across All Measures (Study 1).

Measures	Men		Women		Gender Difference	Correlations
Measures	M (SD)	α	M (SD)	α	t	1	2	3	4	5
1. Hostile sexism	−0.70 (1.10)	.87	−0.86 (1.09)	.87	0.85	.33**	.38**	−.05	−.07	.12
2. Benevolent sexism	−0.14 (0.87)	.68	−0.58 (1.00)	.80	2.85**	.60**	.19*	.14	.13	.09
3. Own commitment	6.25 (0.80)	.89	6.50 (0.64)	.84	−2.05*	−.16	.06	.40**	.74**	.45**
4. Perceptions of partners’ commitment	6.43 (0.75)	.88	6.25 (0.85)	.88	1.34	−.13	.02	.76**	.50**	.60**
5. Partners’ commitment	6.50 (0.64)	.84	6.25 (0.80)	.89	2.05*	−.12	−.16	.45**	.64**	.40**

Note. Possible scores range from −3 to 3 for hostile sexism and benevolent sexism and 1 to 7 for all other scales. Gender difference t represents test of difference between men and women. Correlations for men are above the diagonal. Correlations for women are below the diagonal. Values in boldface on the diagonal represent correlations across partners.

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

Predictor variables were grand-mean-centered, intercepts were treated as random coefficients, and errors were allowed to covary across dyad members. We first estimated the effects pooled across men and women, modeling the main and interaction effects of gender (coded −1 = women, 1 = men) to test whether the effects significantly differed across men and women. We then ran a two-intercept model to simultaneously estimate the effects for men and women separately while controlling for the dependence in the data (equivalent to decomposing the gender interactions; see Kenny et al., 2006). Table 2 displays the main and interaction effects for men and women (first two columns) as well as the gender interactions testing whether each effect differed across men and women (final column).

Table 2.

The Main and Interaction Effects of Hostile Sexism and (1) Perceptions of Partners’ Commitment and (2) Partners’ Commitment on Daily Aggression (Study 1).

Variables	Men				Women				Gender Difference
	B	95% CI [Low, High]	t	r	B	95% CI [Low, High]	t	r
	B	95% CI [Low, High]	t	r	B	95% CI [Low, High]	t	r	t	r
Perceptions of partners’ commitment
Hostile sexism	.05	[−.05, .15]	0.97	.11	.10	[−.05, .26]	1.34	.16	−0.61	.06
Perceptions of partners’ commitment	−.37	[−.51, −.23]	−5.32**	.53	−.30	[−.50, −.11]	−3.21*	.35	−0.71	.08
Hostile Sexism × Perceptions of Partners’ Commitment	−.26	[−.43, −.09]	−3.10**	.34	.17	[−.05, .40]	1.55	.18	−3.18**	.31
Partners’ commitment
Hostile sexism	.04	[−.07, .14]	0.71	.08	.17	[.00, .34]	2.01*	.24	−1.35	.14
Perceptions of partners’ commitment	−.25	[−.43, −.08]	−2.89**	.32	−.08	[−.28, .11]	−0.84	.10	−1.44	.16
Hostile Sexism × Partners’ Commitment	−.22	[−.39, −.05]	−2.56*	.29	.13	[−.12, .39]	1.04	.12	−2.45*	.25

Note. The predicted effects are shown in bold. Gender difference coefficients test whether the effects significantly differed across men and women. Effect sizes (r) were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t ²/t ² + df).

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

As predicted, a significant interaction between hostile sexism and perceptions of partners’ commitment emerged for men, and not women, and this gender difference was significant (see upper half of Table 2). The interaction for men is shown in Panel A, Figure 1. Greater hostile sexism was only associated with greater daily aggression when men perceived their partners to be less committed (B = .24, t = 2.72, p = .008), and had the opposite effect when partners were perceived to be highly committed (B = −.14, t = −2.03, p = .046).

Figure 1.

The moderating effect of men’s perceptions of the partners’ commitment (Panel A) and partners’ commitment (Panel B) on the association between hostile sexism and daily aggression. High and low values represent 1 SD above and below the mean.

A similar effect emerged when modeling partners’ reported commitment (lower half of Table 2). As displayed in Panel B, Figure 1, greater hostile sexism was only associated with greater daily aggression by men when their female partners reported being less committed (B = .18, t = 2.25, p = .028), but not when their female partners reported being highly committed (B = −.10, t = −1.41, p = .16).

Additional analyses demonstrated that the effects were specific to partners’ level of commitment and not men’s own levels of commitment. The effects of hostile sexism were not moderated by men’s own commitment (B = −.06, t = −0.90, p = .37), and controlling for the main and interaction effects of own commitment did not reduce the effects shown in Figure 1.²

Study 2

Study 1 supported our prediction, but relied on self-reports of aggression. In Study 2, we tested our prediction by gathering observer ratings of aggression exhibited within couples’ conflict discussions. Discussing relationship conflicts involves partners trying to influence, and resist influence from, each other and thus is a key context in which the links between hostile sexism and relationship aggression will arise (Overall et al., 2011).

Method

Participants

Ninety-one heterosexual couples (total N = 182) were reimbursed NZ$70 for the procedures described below. Participants were on average 21.90 years of age (SD = 3.96 years). Couples were in serious (11% married, 42% cohabitating, 41% serious, 6% steady) relationships for an average length of 2.5 years (SD = 1.67). See the OSM for more information about the size and use of this sample.

Procedure

After completing measures assessing sexist attitudes and relationship commitment, participants were asked to identify and rank in order of importance three relationship problems that were caused by aspects of their partner that they want improved. This procedure ensures that each couple member identifies relationship problems that represent conflicting desires, goals, and needs across partners (Overall, Fletcher, Simpson, & Sibley, 2009). The most important ranked problem identified by each couple member was chosen for discussion, unless there was overlap in topics across partners, in which case the next ranked nonoverlapping problem was selected. Following a 5-min warm-up discussion about nonconflictual events over the past week, couples engaged in two 7-min discussions about (1) the top-ranked problem the female partner identified and (2) the top-ranked feature the male partner identified (order counterbalanced across couples). Both discussions involve partners trying to influence and resist influence, regardless of who identified the topic (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Gottman, 1998). Thus, as in prior research (Overall et al., 2011), we expected men’s hostile sexism to be associated with aggression in both discussions (also see OSM).

Measures

Sexist attitudes

Participants completed the short form version of the ASI (Glick & Fisk, 1996), which has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Hammond & Overall, 2013; Overall et al., 2011; Sibley & Perry, 2010).

Perceptions of partners’ commitment and satisfaction

Participants reported on their (1) own and (2) perceptions of their partner’s, commitment using the same scales in Study 1.

Aggressive communication

Two trained coders independently rated aggressive communication using an established coding scheme that incorporates the most commonly assessed hostile and destructive conflict behaviors that prior research has shown to have detrimental effects on relationship partners (Overall et al., 2009; also see Gottman, 1998; Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Coded behaviors included derogating partners (e.g., criticizing, insulting, belittling), displaying harsh negative affect (e.g., anger, frustration, yelling, cursing), and threatening punishment/negative consequences for the partner. Coders took into account the frequency, intensity, and duration of these behaviors across each discussion (1 = low, 7 = high). Men and women were coded separately in independent viewings (order counterbalanced across couples). Coder ratings were reliable (see Table 3). Individuals’ aggressive communication was highly correlated across the two discussions (r = .72 for men and .75 for women), and we averaged scores across the discussions to index each participant’s aggressive communication. Additional analyses revealed there were no differences across discussions (see OSM).

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics, α Reliabilities, and Correlations Across All Measures (Study 2).

Measures	Men		Women		Gender Difference	Correlations
Measures	M (SD)	R	M (SD)	R	t	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Hostile sexism	0.13 (1.20)	.78	−0.41 (1.09)	.63	3.20**	.04	.21*	−.04	−.11	−.15	.26*
2. Benevolent sexism	0.60 (1.08)	.63	0.34 (1.09)	.60	1.66	.28**	.13	.20	−.07	−.01	−.00
3. Own commitment	6.22 (0.88)	.83	6.51 (0.82)	.90	−2.25*	−.12	.16	.34**	.40**	.38**	−.19
4. Perceptions of partners’ commitment	6.44 (0.76)	.81	6.25 (0.97)	.88	1.50	.06	.05	.56**	.38**	.50**	−.46**
5. Partners’ commitment	6.51 (0.82)	.90	6.22 (0.88)	.83	2.25*	.08	.09	.38**	.67**	.34*	−.26*
6. Aggressive communication	2.22 (1.53)	.91	3.18 (1.91)	.80	−3.72**	.04	.15	−.15	−.23*	−.17	.40**

Note. Possible scores range from −3 to 3 for hostile sexism and benevolent sexism and 1 to 7 for all other scales. For the questionnaire measures, R represents Cronbach’s αs, testing the internal reliability of the scales. For aggressive communication, R represent intraclass correlation coefficients testing the reliability of the coders’ observational ratings. Gender difference t represents test of difference between men and women. Correlations for men are above the diagonal. Correlations for women are below the diagonal. Values in boldface on the diagonal represent correlations across partners.

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

Results

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations. As in Study 1, we tested the predicted effect using both (1) perceptions of partner’s commitment and (2) partner’s reported commitment. Following the guidelines by Kenny et al. (2006) using the MIXED procedure in SPSS 21, we ran dyadic regression models predicting aggressive communication by hostile sexism, perceptions of partners’ commitment (or partners’ reported commitment), and the interaction between hostile sexism and perceptions of partners’ commitment (or partners’ reported commitment). We also included the main and interaction effects of benevolent sexism (although the results were the same without this control; see OSM). All predictor variables were mean-centered. As in Study 1, we estimated the effects pooled across men and women, modeling the main and interaction effects of gender (coded −1 = women, 1 = men), and ran a two-intercept model to estimate the effects for men and women separately while controlling for the dependence in the data (see Kenny et al., 2006).

As predicted, a significant interaction between hostile sexism and perceptions of partners’ commitment emerged for men, but not women, and this gender difference was significant (see upper half of Table 4). As shown in Panel A in Figure 2, greater men’s hostile sexism was only associated with greater aggressive communication when men perceived their partners to be low in commitment (B = .82, t = 3.60, p = .001), but not when partners were perceived to be high in commitment (B = −.14, t = −1.04, p = .30). A marginal interaction effect between hostile sexism and partners’ reported commitment (lower half of Table 4) demonstrated the same pattern (Figure 2, Panel B): Greater men’s hostile sexism predicted more aggressive communication when female partners reported low levels of commitment (B = .58, t = 1.97, p = .052), but not when female partners’ commitment was high (B = −.09, t = −0.57, p = .57). Finally, as in Study 1, the effects of hostile sexism were not moderated by men’s own commitment (B = −.08, t = −0.58, p = .57), and controlling for the main and interaction effect of men’s own commitment did not reduce the effects shown in Figure 2.

Table 4.

The Main and Interaction Effects of Hostile Sexism and (1) Perceptions of Partners’ Commitment and (2) Partners’ Commitment on Aggressive Communication During Couples’ Conflict Discussions (Study 2).

	Men				Women				Gender Difference
Variables	B	95% CI [Low, High]	t	r	B	95% CI [Low, High]	t	r
Variables	B	95% CI [Low, High]	t	r	B	95% CI [Low, High]	t	r	t	r
Perceptions of partners’ commitment
Hostile sexism	.34	[.10, .58]	2.86*	.30	− .02	[−.35, .31]	−0.12	.01	1.75	.16
Perceptions of partners’ commitment	−.50	[−.96, −.04]	−2.18*	.23	−.23	[−.59, .14]	−1.23	.13	−1.01	.10
Hostile Sexism × Perceptions of Partners’ Commitment	−.63	[−1.00, −.26]	−3.37**	.34	.12	[−.25, .49]	0.65	.07	−2.86**	.25
Partners’ commitment
Hostile sexism	.24	[−.04, .52]	1.72	.18	.04	[−.30, .37]	0.21	.02	0.93	.08
Perceptions of partners’ commitment	−.06	[−.51, .39]	−0.27	.03	−.12	[−.55, .31]	−0.56	.06	0.22	.02
Hostile Sexism × Partners’ Commitment	−.41	[−.88, .06]	−1.75†	.19	.28	[−.08, .64]	1.55	.17	−2.28*	.19

†p < .084. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of men’s perceptions of the partners’ commitment (Panel A) and partners’ commitment (Panel B) on the association between hostile sexism and aggressive communication during couples’ conflict discussions. High and low values represent 1 SD above and below the mean.

Discussion

Prior research indicates that men who strongly endorse hostile sexism will be more aggressive within intimate relationships. Given the damaging effects such aggression has on female partners (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015; Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1997), it is crucial to understand when men’s hostile sexism leads to relationship aggression and when men’s hostile sexism does not. The current studies reveal that men who strongly endorse hostile sexism are not always more aggressive within their relationships. Instead, men’s endorsement of hostile sexism was only associated with greater aggressive responses during couples’ daily life (Study 1) and conflict discussions (Study 2) when female partners were perceived to be, or reported being, low in relationship commitment.

The moderating role of partner commitment provides insight into the underlying reasons why men who endorse hostile sexism are aggressive toward female partners. Prior theory and research have posited that men’s hostile sexism is associated with relationship aggression because dependence on female partners clashes with the power concerns central to hostile sexism (Chen et al., 2009; Hammond & Overall, 2013; Overall et al., 2011). Men who endorse hostile sexism fear female partners will exploit their dependence and thus strive to maintain power in relationships (Chen et al., 2009; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Yakushko, 2005). However, if fears of dependence underlie their relationship aggression, then men who endorse hostile sexism should exhibit more aggression when they are at greater risk of being hurt, rejected, and exploited. This risk is greatest when female partners are low in commitment, and thus, it was in this relationship context that men high in hostile sexism were aggressive toward their partners. By contrast, the risks of dependence are minimal, and dependence fears and power concerns are less pertinent, when partners are highly committed. Thus, men’s hostile sexism did not predict relationship aggression when partners’ commitment was high or perceived to be high.

The moderating role of partner commitment not only provides valuable insight into why hostile sexism is associated with aggression but also helps to reconcile inconsistencies in the literature. Although prior research has indicated that men’s hostile sexism is associated with relationship aggression (Forbes et al., 2004; Hammond & Overall, 2013; Overall et al., 2011), other influential research has indicated that hostile sexism will predict aggression toward women outside intimate contexts (e.g., career women), but not toward “supportive” women within intimate contexts (e.g., homemakers; Glick et al., 1997; Sibley & Wilson, 2004). Our results indicate that both positions may be correct. In particular, the latter results are understood to reflect that hostile sexism is associated with categorizing women into “good” (e.g., homemaker) versus “bad” (e.g., career women) subtypes (Glick et al., 1997). Intimate partners who are highly committed fit the “good” woman subtype and thus may be protected from the application of hostile attitudes and may even be responded to more positively. Indeed, in Study 1 (but not Study 2), men’s hostile sexism was associated with less daily aggression when partners were perceived to be highly committed. However, intimate partners who are not committed fit the “bad” subtype because they may exploit men’s dependence and thus represent the type of women men need to aggressively protect their power from.

An alternative account of these contextual effects is that the prorelationship goals and motives present in committed intimate relationships reduce or override men’s hostile attitudes and associated aggressive responses toward women. Indeed, participants in the current studies were highly committed (see Tables 1 and 3), and people who are more committed resist aggressive impulses in favor of behaving more constructively (Rusbult et al., 1991) and thus exhibit lower relationship aggression (Slotter et al., 2012). However, the effects of hostile sexism on aggression were not moderated by men’s own commitment, and controlling for the main and interaction effects of men’s own commitment did not change the moderating role of partners’ commitment. This pattern demonstrates that the dependence and power concerns central to hostile sexism, and associated relationship aggression, are focused on the partner and not driven by men’s own investment or orientation toward the relationship. It is the female partner’s commitment—or lack thereof—that indicates whether men are vulnerable to the potential hurt, rejection, and exploitation that relationship dependence risks, because it is the female partner’s commitment that determines whether female partners will meet men’s relational needs or be hurtful and exploitative.

Strengths, Caveats, and Future Research Directions

The current studies are the first to identify an important contextual factor that determines when men’s hostile sexism predicts relationship aggression, and when it does not. The moderating role of partner commitment replicated across two studies examining aggression reported during couple’s daily lives (Study 1) and couple’s conflict discussions (Study 2). The effects were evident for men’s perceptions of female partners’ commitment as well as for partners’ reported commitment, which reveals that the effects are not simply driven by more negative relationship perceptions. The effects held statistically controlling for men’s own commitment, demonstrating that the effects were independent of men’s own level of commitment. Moreover, the effects were also shown with self-reported aggression (Study 1) and aggression observed by objective raters (Study 2), which illustrates that the effects are not simply men reporting more aggressive attitudes and desires. Our measures of aggression also captured forms of psychological aggression that commonly emerge in couples’ interactions and have established harmful effects on partners and relationships (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015; Gottman, 1998; Karney & Bradbury, 1995).

Although assessing aggressive responses as they naturally occur in couples’ interactions is important, these ecologically valid methods rely on correlational data that prevent causal conclusions. Reverse causal directions are less theoretically plausible; it is unlikely that relationship aggression increases men’s endorsement of hostile sexism, and it is less likely that men’s hostile sexism intensifies any feedback loop from aggression to partners’ commitment. Our methods also precluded the assessment of physical aggression. The forms of aggression we measured are as psychologically harmful as physical forms of aggression (Arriaga & Schkeryantz, 2015) and precede physical aggression in relationships (Murphy & O’Leary, 1989). Nonetheless, in future studies, it will be important to use additional methods to strengthen causal conclusions and to determine whether the results extend to more serious forms of physical aggression and intimate partner violence, or other detrimental long-term outcomes (e.g., reductions in commitment and satisfaction).

Finally, our samples involved relatively committed couples from a country with relatively high levels of gender equality and relatively low endorsement of sexist attitudes (see Brandt, 2011). The effects of hostile sexism appear consistent across nations, including attitudes toward intimate partner aggression (Glick, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Ferreira, & Souza, 2002; Yamawaki et al., 2009). Thus, we expect the results to replicate in less egalitarian countries, although they might be exacerbated or weakened in different social contexts. On the one hand, the threat of low partner commitment (for men) might be lower in countries where women have less freedom to exit relationships due to economic dependence or lack of viable alternatives. On the other hand, men’s aggressive reactions to low partner commitment are probably greater in more inequitable societies because of stronger support for the aggressive maintenance of men’s power (Archer, 2006). These types of additional contextual moderators are important to examine in future research.

Conclusion

The present research identified an important contextual feature of relationships that determines when men’s hostile sexism is, and when it is not, associated with relationship aggression. The results replicated across two studies assessing aggression during couples’ daily life (Study 1) and observed conflict discussions (Study 2). Men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism were more aggressive toward their female partners, but only when their partners were perceived to be, or reported being, low in relationship commitment. These findings extend prior research by showing that men who endorse hostile sexism do not always enact aggression toward female partners. Instead, the relationship aggression associated with men’s hostile sexism occurs in contexts relevant to their fears that women could exploit relational dependence and undermine men’s power.

Footnotes

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.

Supplemental Material

The online supplements are available at .

Notes

References

Archer

. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 133–153. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_3

Arriaga

X. B.

Schkeryantz

E. L.

(2015). Intimate relationships and personal distress: The invisible harm of psychological aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 1332–1344. doi:10.1177/0146167215594123

Bornstein

R. F.

(1996). The complex relationship between dependence and domestic violence. American Psychologist, 61, 595–606.

Brandt

M. J.

(2011). Sexism and gender inequality across societies. Psychological Science, 22, 1413–1418. doi:10.1177/0956797611420445

Chen

Fiske

S. T.

Lee

T. L.

(2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60, 765–778. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9585-9

Christensen

Heavey

C. L.

(1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–81. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.73

Drigotas

S. M.

Rusbult

C. E.

Verette

(1999). Level of commitment, mutuality of commitment, and couple well-being. Personal Relationships, 6, 389–409. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00199.x

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Slotter

E. B.

McNulty

J. K.

Pond

R. S.

Jr Atkins

D. C.

(2012). Using I³ theory to clarify when dispositional aggressiveness predicts intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 533–549. doi:10.1037/a0025651

Finkel

E. J.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2013). Intimate partner violence. In Simpson

J. A.

Campbell

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 452–474). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0020

10.

Forbes

G. B.

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

White

K. B.

(2004). First-and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths, and related beliefs, and hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion. Violence against Women, 10, 236–261. doi:10.1177/1077801203256002

11.

Forbes

G. B.

Jobe

R. L.

White

K. B.

Bloesch

Adams-Curtis

L. E.

(2005). Perceptions of dating violence following a sexual or nonsexual betrayal of trust: Effects of gender, sexism, acceptance of rape myths, and vengeance motivation. Sex Roles, 52, 165–173. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1292-6

12.

Gelles

Straus

(1979). Determinants of violence in the family: Toward a theoretical integration. In Burr

Hill

Nye

Reiss

(Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Research based theories (pp. 549–581). New York, NY: Free Press.

13.

Glick

Diebold

Bailey-Werner

Zhu

(1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334. doi:10.1177/01461672972312009

14.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

15.

Glick

Sakalli-Ugurlu

Ferreira

M. C.

Souza

M. A.

(2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 292–297. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00068

16.

Gottman

J. M.

(1998). Psychology and the study of marital processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 169–197.

17.

Hammond

M. D.

Overall

N. C.

(2013). Men’s hostile sexism and biased perceptions of intimate partners: Fostering dissatisfaction and negative behavior in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1585–1599. doi:10.1177/0146167213499026

18.

Hammond

M. D.

Overall

N. C.

(in press). Sexism in intimate contexts: How romantic relationships help explain the origins, functions and consequences of sexist attitudes. In Sibley

C. G.

Barlow

F. K.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Hellmuth

J. C.

McNulty

J. K.

(2008). Neuroticism, marital violence, and the moderating role of stress and behavioral skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 166–180. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.166

20.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Bates

Smutzler

Sandin

(1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2, 65–99.

21.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 3–34. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3

22.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

J. W.

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley.

23.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

24.

Martinez-Pecino

Durán

(2016). I love you but I cyberbully you: The role of hostile sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–4. doi:10.1177/0886260516645817

25.

Murphy

C. M.

Meyer

S. L.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1994). Dependency characteristics of partner assaultive men. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 729–735. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.103.4.729

26.

Murphy

C. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 579–582. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.57.5.579

27.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

Collins

N. L.

(2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641

28.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Sibley

C. G.

(2009). Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 620–639. doi:10.1037/a0012961

29.

Overall

N. C.

Hammond

M. D.

McNulty

J. K.

Finkel

E. J.

(2016). Power in context: Relationship and situational power interact to predict men’s aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 195–217. doi:10.1037/pspi0000059

30.

Overall

N. C.

Sibley

C. G.

(2009). Attachment and dependence regulation within daily interactions with romantic partners. Personal Relationships, 16, 239–261. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01221.x

31.

Overall

N. C.

Sibley

C. G.

(2010). Convergent and discriminant validity of the Accommodation Scale: Evidence from three diary studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 299–304. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.020

32.

Overall

N. C.

Sibley

C. G.

Tan

(2011). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 271–290. doi:10.1037/a0022727

33.

Rosenthal

Rosnow

R. L.

(2007). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

34.

Rusbult

C. E.

(1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

35.

Rusbult

C. E.

(1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model. The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101–117.

36.

Rusbult

C. E.

Buunk

B. P.

(1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204. doi:10.1177/026540759301000202

37.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–391. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x

38.

Rusbult

C. E.

Van Lange

P. A.

(2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059

39.

Rusbult

C. E.

Verette

Whitney

G. A.

Slovik

L. F.

Lipkus

(1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 53–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53

40.

Sibley

C. G.

Perry

(2010). An opposing process model of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 438–452. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9705-6

41.

Sibley

C. G.

Wilson

M. S.

(2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687–696. doi:10.1007/s11199-004-0718-x

42.

Slotter

E. B.

Finkel

E. J.

DeWall

C. N.

Pond

R. S.

Jr Lambert

N. M.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

Fincham

F. D.

(2012). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 291–305.

43.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88. doi:10.2307/351733

44.

Yakushko

(2005). Ambivalent sexism and relationship patterns among women and men in Ukraine. Sex Roles, 52, 589–596. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3727-5

45.

Yamawaki

Ostenson

Brown

R. C.

(2009). The functions of gender role traditionality, ambivalent sexism, injury, and frequency of assault on domestic violence perception: A study between Japanese and American college students. Violence against Women, 15, 1126–1142. doi:10.1177/1077801209340758

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB