Advertisement

Masculinity and Violence Against Women from a Social-Ecological Perspective: Implications for Prevention

Living reference work entry

Later version available View entry history

First Online:

Abstract

The prescriptive and rigid nature of masculine gender roles has repeatedly been associated with a host of physical and mental health consequences for men and women alike. In particular, a body of literature demonstrates a significant relationship between boys’ and men’s conformity to masculine gender roles and their perpetration of violence against girls and women. In the following chapter, we begin by briefly defining masculine gender roles and reviewing the measurement of masculinity before presenting literature linking masculinity to intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV) at various layers of the social ecology. We then turn our focus to the discussion of what prevention strategies currently look like at different levels of the social ecology and describe potential new strategies. In our discussion, we give attention to the differentiation between direct prevention strategies – those strategies explicitly developed to prevent IPV/SV – and indirect prevention strategies, strategies not originally intended for violence prevention but that may indirectly prevent violence (e.g., policies for paid leave, gender wage gap, etc.). We end the chapter with caveats, conclusions, and future directions. The ultimate goal of this chapter is to stimulate the development of, and research into, novel approaches for the primary prevention of IPV/TDV at multiple layers of the social ecology. The eradication of such forms of violence will ultimately require comprehensive efforts that integrate these multilayer strategies.

Keywords

Masculinity Masculine gender role norms Intimate partner violence Sexual violence Gender equity Social ecology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abebe, K. Z., Jones, K. A., Culyba, A. J., et al. (2018). Engendering healthy masculinities to prevent sexual violence: Rationale for and design of the Manhood 2.0 trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 71, 18–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2018.05.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125.Google Scholar
  3. Abramsky, T., Devries, K., Kiss, L., et al. (2014). Findings from the SASA! Study: A cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of a community mobilization intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV risk in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Medicine, 12(1), 122.Google Scholar
  4. Abramsky, T., Devries, K. M., Michau, L., et al. (2016a). Ecological pathways to prevention: How does the SASA! community mobilisation model work to prevent physical intimate partner violence against women? BMC Public Health, 16(1), 339.Google Scholar
  5. Abramsky, T., Devries, K. M., Michau, L., Nakuti, J., Musuya, T., Kyegombe, N., & Watts, C. (2016b). The impact of SASA!, A community mobilisation intervention, on women’s experiences of intimate partner violence: Secondary findings from a cluster randomised trial in Kampala, Uganda. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 70, 818–825.Google Scholar
  6. Atkinson, M. P., Greenstein, T. N., & Lang, M. M. (2005). For women, breadwinning can be dangerous: Gendered resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1137–1148.Google Scholar
  7. Austin, R. L., & Kim, Y. S. (2000). A cross-national examination of the relationship between gender equality and official rape rates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(2), 204–221.Google Scholar
  8. Basile, K. C., DeGue, S., Jones, K., Freire, K., Dills, J., Smith, S. G., & Raiford, J. L. (2016). STOP SV: A technical package to prevent sexual violence. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-prevention-technical-package.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. Baxter, J., & Kane, E. W. (1995). Dependence and independence: A cross-national analysis of gender inequality and gender attitudes. Gender & Society, 9(2), 193–215.Google Scholar
  10. Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231–280.Google Scholar
  11. Chan, K. L., Emery, C. R., Fulu, E., Tolman, R. M., & Ip, P. (2017). Association among father involvement, partner violence, and paternal health: UN multi-country cross-sectional study on men and violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), 671–679.Google Scholar
  12. Chung, D. (2005). Violence, control, romance and gender equality: Young women and heterosexual relationships. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28(6), 445–455.Google Scholar
  13. Chung, G. H., Tucker, M. B., & Takeuchi, D. (2008). Wives’ relative income production and household male dominance: Examining violence among Asian American enduring couples. Family Relations, 57(2), 227–238.Google Scholar
  14. Coleman, D. H., & Straus, M. A. (1986). Marital power, conflict, and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. Violence and Victims, 1(2), 141–157.Google Scholar
  15. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  16. D’Inverno, A. S., Kearns, M. C., & Reidy, D. E. (2016). The potential role of science, technology, engineering, and math programs in reducing teen dating violence and intimate partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health, 25(12), 1199–1203.Google Scholar
  17. D’Inverno, A. S., Reidy, D. E., & Kearns, M. C. (2018). Prevention intimate partner violence through paid leave policies. Preventive Medicine, 114, 18–23.Google Scholar
  18. Dahl, J., Vescio, T., & Weaver, K. (2015). How threats to masculinity sequentially cause public discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance over women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 242.Google Scholar
  19. Dworkin, S. L., Hatcher, A. M., Colvin, C., & Peacock, D. (2013). Impact of a gender-transformative HIV and antiviolence program on gender ideologies and masculinities in two rural, South African communities. Men and Masculinity, 16, 181–202.Google Scholar
  20. Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress: Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior modification, 11(2), 123–136.Google Scholar
  21. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “Safe Dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6(3), 245–258.Google Scholar
  22. Gangl, M., & Ziefle, A. (2009). Motherhood, labor force behavior, and women’s careers: An empirical assessment of the wage penalty for motherhood in Britain, Germany, and the United States. Demography, 46(2), 341–369.Google Scholar
  23. Gartland, D., Hemphill, S. A., Hegarty, K., & Brown, S. J. (2011). Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and the first year postpartum in an Australian pregnancy cohort study. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 15(5), 570–578.Google Scholar
  24. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109.Google Scholar
  25. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775.Google Scholar
  26. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713.Google Scholar
  27. Gracia, E., & Merlo, J. (2016). Intimate partner violence against women and the Nordic paradox. Social Science & Medicine, 157, 27–30.Google Scholar
  28. Gressard, L. A., Swahn, M. H., & Tharp, A. (2015). A first look at gender inequality as a societal risk factor for dating violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(3), 448–457.Google Scholar
  29. Haas, L., & Hwang, C. P. (2008). The impact of taking parental leave on fathers’ participation in childcare and relationships with children: Lessons from Sweden. Community, Work & Family, 11(1), 85–104.Google Scholar
  30. Heise, L. L., & Kotsadam, A. (2015). Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: an analysis of data from population-based surveys. The Lancet Global Health, 3(6), e332–e340.Google Scholar
  31. Herrero, J., Rodriguez, F. J., & Torres, A. (2017). Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women, 23(3), 351–367.Google Scholar
  32. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jakupcak, M., Lisak, D., & Roemer, L. (2002). The role of masculine ideology and masculine gender role stress in men’s perpetration of relationship violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3(2), 97–106.Google Scholar
  34. Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359(9315), 1423–1429.Google Scholar
  35. Kågesten, A., Gibbs, S., Blum, R. W., Moreau, C., Chandra-Mouli, V., Herbert, A., & Amin, A. (2016). Understanding factors that shape gender attitudes in early adolescence globally: A mixed-methods systematic review. PLoS One, 11(6), e0157805.Google Scholar
  36. Karakurt, G., & Cumbie, T. (2012). The relationship between egalitarianism, dominance, and violence in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 27(2), 115–122.Google Scholar
  37. Kim, J. Y., & Emery, C. (2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(2), 197–219.Google Scholar
  38. Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 259–265.Google Scholar
  39. Lisco, C. G., Parrott, D. J., & Tharp, A. (2012). The role of heavy episodic drinking and hostile sexism in men’s sexual aggression toward female intimate partners. Addictive Behaviors, 37(11), 1264–1270.Google Scholar
  40. Locke, B. D., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Examining masculinity norms, problem drinking, and athletic involvement as predictors of sexual aggression in college men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 279–283.Google Scholar
  41. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3.Google Scholar
  42. McCloskey, L. A. (1996). Socioeconomic and coercive power within the family. Gender & Society, 10(4), 449–463.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., et al. (2012). “Coaching boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 431–438.Google Scholar
  44. Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., et al. (2013). One-year follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention program: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45, 108–112.Google Scholar
  45. Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2005). A review of the literature on masculinity and partner violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(1), 46–61.Google Scholar
  46. Moore, T. M., Stuart, G. L., McNulty, J. K., Addis, M. E., Cordova, J. V., & Temple, J. R. (2008). Domains of masculine gender role stress and intimate partner violence in a clinical sample of violent men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9(2), 82–89.Google Scholar
  47. Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18(2), 150–163.Google Scholar
  48. Niolon, P. H., Kearns, M. C., Dills, J., Rambo, K., Irving, S., Armstead, T. L., & Gilbert, L. (2017). Preventing intimate partner violence across the lifespan: A technical package of programs, policies and practices. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  49. O’Neil, J. M. (2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role conflict using the Gender Role Conflict Scale: New research paradigms and clinical implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 36(3), 358–445.Google Scholar
  50. O’Neil, J. M., Helms, B. J., Gable, R. K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1986). Gender-role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14(5–6), 335–350.Google Scholar
  51. Peterson, C., Kearns, M. C., McIntosh, W. L., et al. (2018). Lifetime economic burden of intimate partner violence among US adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(4), 433–444.Google Scholar
  52. Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  53. Redding, E. M., Ruiz-Cantero, M. T., Fernández-Sáez, J., & Guijarro-Garvi, M. (2017). Gender inequality and violence against women in Spain, 2006–2014: Towards a civilized society. Gaceta Sanitaria, 31, 82–88.Google Scholar
  54. Reidy, D. E., Berke, D. S., Gentile, B., & Zeichner, A. (2014). Man enough? Masculine discrepancy stress and intimate partner violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 160–164.Google Scholar
  55. Sani, G. M. D., & Quaranta, M. (2017). The best is yet to come? Attitudes toward gender roles among adolescents in 36 countries. Sex Roles, 1(2), 30–45.Google Scholar
  56. Schnurr, M. P., Mahatmya, D., & Basche, R. A., III. (2013). The role of dominance, cyber aggression perpetration, and gender on emerging adults’ perpetration of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 70.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, S. G., Chen, J., Basile, K. C., Gilbert, L. K., Merrick, M. T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain, A. (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 state report. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  58. Straus, M. A. (1994). State-to-state differences in social inequality and social bonds in relations to assaults on wives in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 7–24.Google Scholar
  59. Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(3), 252–275.Google Scholar
  60. Sugihara, Y., & Warner, J. A. (2002). Dominance and domestic abuse among Mexican Americans: Gender differences in the etiology of violence in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 17(4), 315–340.Google Scholar
  61. Tager, D., Good, G. E., & Brammer, S. (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(3), 233–239.Google Scholar
  62. Tanaka, S., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Effects of parental leave and work hours on fathers’ involvement with their babies: Evidence from the millennium cohort study. Community, Work & Family, 10(4), 409–426.Google Scholar
  63. Tang, C. S. K. (1999). Marital power and aggression in a community sample of Hong Kong Chinese families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(6), 586–602.Google Scholar
  64. Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543.Google Scholar
  65. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups, indicator 24: STEM degrees (NCES 2017-051).Google Scholar
  66. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2016). Human development report 2016: Human development for everyone. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Van den Berg, W., Hendricks, L., Hatcher, A., Peacock, D., Godana, P., & Dworkin, S. (2013). ‘One Man Can’: Shifts in fatherhood beliefs and parenting practices following a gender-transformative programme in Eastern Cape, South Africa. Gender and Development, 21(1), 111–125.Google Scholar
  68. Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113.Google Scholar
  69. Waldfogel, J. (1998). The family gap for young women in the United States and Britain: Can maternity leave make a difference? Journal of Labor Economics, 16(3), 505–545.Google Scholar
  70. Whaley, R. B. (2001). The paradoxical relationship between gender inequality and rape: Toward a refined theory. Gender & Society, 15(4), 531–555.Google Scholar
  71. World Economic Forum. (2016). The global gender gap report 2016. Geneva: Switzerland.Google Scholar
  72. Yllo, K., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of structural and normative factors. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families (pp. 383–399). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  73. Yodanis, C. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(6), 655–675.Google Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Division of Violence PreventionCenters for Disease Control & PreventionAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryRhode Island HospitalProvidenceUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Glenna Tinney
    • 1
  • Shelly M. Wagers
    • 2
  • Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling
    • 3
  1. 1.ConsultantAlexandriaUSA
  2. 2.College of Arts and Sciences - Society, Culture, and LanguageUniversity of South Florida - St. PetersburgSt. PetersburgUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite entry