An Interdependence Account of When, Why, and How Men’s Hostile Sexism Promotes Aggression and Creates Problems in Intimate Relationships

Abstract

The current research examines when and why men who endorse hostile sexism are aggressive towards their partners, and investigates the broader costs men's hostile sexism has for female partners. Hostile sexism encompasses aggressive attitudes toward women who contest men's power and contains beliefs that women will manipulate men by exploiting their relational dependence (Glick & Fiske, 1996). As outlined in Chapter One, despite the established associations between men's hostile sexism and aggression toward female partners, the reasons underpinning this important link are poorly understood. Three chapters present studies that adopt different approaches and diverse methods to clarify and advance understanding of the underlying fears and concerns that are particularly problematic in intimate relationships. In Chapter Two I investigated how the risk of relationship dependence is an important contextual factor that determines when men's hostile sexism is (and is not) associated with relationship aggression. Two dyadic studies demonstrated that men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism were more aggressive toward their female partners during couples' daily life and conflict discussions, but only when their female partners were perceived to be, or reported being, low in relationship commitment, and thus men faced a greater risk of rejection. Extending this work, in Chapter Three I tested why men's hostile sexism is associated with greater relationship aggression by investigating the important role of perceived relationship power. Across four studies, men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism perceived themselves to have lower power in their relationships which, in turn, predicted greater aggression toward female partners as reported by (1) both partners during couples' daily interactions, (2) observed during couples' video-recorded discussions, and (3) self-reported over the last year. Furthermore, these lower perceptions of power were shown to be biased: men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism underestimated the power they had in their relationships compared to their partners' reports of their power. Accordingly, Chapters Two and Three demonstrate that dependence and power related concerns are central to the hostile sexism-aggression link. I moved beyond aggression in Chapter Four to explore whether men's hostile sexism predicts broader problems for female partners across diverse domains. Chapter Four demonstrated that female partners of men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism experienced more severe problems across diverse domains, which in turn, was associated with women experiencing lower relationship satisfaction and commitment. Moreover, the problems women faced were theoretically tied to the power, dependence, and trust related concerns underpinning men's hostile sexism, demonstrating that men's hostile sexism impacts the types of problems women encounter in their relationships. Taken together, the seven studies presented in this thesis advance understanding of when, why, and how men's hostile sexism damages intimate relationships. As discussed in Chapter Five, the relationship processes and dynamics that men's hostile sexism promotes will damage the health and stability of intimate relationships, undermine both men's and women's well-being, and ultimately reinforce sexist attitudes.