Sex Roles, Vol. 24, Nos.

5/6, 1991
The Maleness of Violence in Dating Relationships:
An Appraisal of Stereotypes'
Edward H. Thompson,
Holy Cross College
This study clarifies and adds to our understanding of how gender and gender
orientation affect physical aggression in dating relationships. The stereotype
of male violence assumes that men exclusively or nearly exclusively use abu-
sive and violent behavior to manage conflict situations with an intimate part-
ner, and that the more violent men will be more masculine. Data from a
sample of 336 undergraduates indicate that the expected sex differences were
not observed; among college students, physical aggression in dating relation-
ships is not gender-specific. However, gender orientation was significantly
related to courtship aggression. A more masculine and/or less feminine gender
orientation and variations in relationship seriousness proved to be the two
strongest predictors o/both men's and women's involvement in courtship
violence. Findings are discussed in terms of the masculine mystique and the
male role norms in our culture's superstructure.
A growing body of research on violence in intimate relationships reveals that
physical aggression in dating relationships is as extensive a social problem
as marital violence. Studies assessing the prevalence of dating violence rev-
eal at least one-sixth, perhaps as many as one half of college undergraduates
have faced a dating partner's physical aggression (cf.. Arias, Samios, &
O'Leary, 1987; Billingham & Sack, 1986; Deal & Wampler, 1986; Gwart-
ney-Gibbs, Stockard, & Bohmer, 1987; Matthews, 1984; Sigelman, Berry,
& Wiles, 1984). Furthermore, as many as one in four high school students
'This project was funded in part by a faculty research grant from Holy Cross College.
^Department of Sociology and Anthropology, PO Box 129A, Holy Cross College, Worcester
MA 01610.
2*1
03MIQ23/l/03OO.O261J06.5O/O 1991 Pknum PubBshinj CorporMion
2(2 Thompson
have already encountered a dating partner's aggression (Henton, Cate, Koval,
Lloyd, & Christopher, 1983; O'Keeffe, Brockopp, & Chew, 1986). Although
the self-report method used in prevalence studies has produced a broad range
of estimates, even the low estimates point to a sizeable problem (Sugarman
and Hotaling, 1989:6).' Recognizing that men and women are dating earlier
and delaying marriage, these known prevalence estimates may underestimate
the expanding "at risk" population.
For the last decade, research has tried to map out who is at risk and
what characteristics distinguish violent from nonviolent dating relationships.
Much more is known about which demographic factors covary with aggres-
sion than what personality and relationship factors contribute to intimates'
physical aggression (for recent review, see Sugarman & Hotaiing, 1989). One
recurrent finding indicates that there may be little difference between men's
and women's rates of aggressing against a dating partner or their reported
victimization.
Generally, however, both the lay public and many professionals regard
a finding of no sex difference in rates of physical aggression among intimates
as surprising, if not unreliable (cf. Makepeace, 1986; Social Work 33: 179-191,
1988). Null findings in samples of young dating or married couples clash
with both clinical studies of battered women (e.g., Dobash & Dobash, 1979)
and the stereotype of male violence. This stereotype is widely held and actu-
ally comprises two distinct beliefs. First is the sex difference assumption that
only men aggress against their intimate partner and women are exclusively
victims. However, studies of physical aggression reveal that men and wom-
en in dating and marital relationships report approximately equal rates of
aggression and victimization (see O'Leary, Barling, Arias, Rosenbaum, Ma-
lone, & Tyree, 1989; Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989; Mason & Blankenship,
1987)."
The second aspect of the stereotype of male violence anticipates an in-
teraction between gender and gender orientation (e.g., Bernard & Bernard,
1984; Goldstein & Rosenbaum, 1985; Taubman, 1986). This expectation,
which can be translated as a "masculinity argument," suggests that physical
aggression is indigenous to men's traditional role norms and the most ag-
gressive in dating relationships will be the men with a strong, traditional mas-
culine orientation. To date, however, the evidence bolstering the masculinity
'Sugarman and Hataling (1989) examined why the prevalence rates vary so widely across studies,
including the methodological features of how dating aggression was measured and sample charac-
teristics. Additionally, they tried to identify the significant risk markers of dating aggression.
'Although many studies conclude that men's and women's rates of aggression are equivalent,
we must recognize that male and female aggression should not be considered equivalent, at least
at this time. The causes, meaning, and consequences of aggression very likely differ across gender.
Maleness of Violence jgj
argument is impressionistic or drawn from small, unrepresentative clinical
samples of violent men. Further, as Pleck (1981) has argued, the norms defin-
ing masculinity now deemphasize aggressiveness.
The purpose of the present study was to shed additional light and clarifi-
cation onto the question of how gender and gender orientation affect the
way intimates manage conflict inside their dating relationship. In particu-
lar, 1 was interested in testing the effect of a masculine gender orientation
on women's and men's physical aggression while dating. At issue is the credi-
bility of hypothesis that a masculine gender orientation is an underpinning
for both men's and women's physical aggression in dating relationships, rather
than only men's aggressiveness. This hypothesis is grounded on the precept
that traditional male role norms encourage many forms of aggression (Eag-
ly and Steffen, 1986) and, today, both women and men occupy numerous
social roles which are still regulated by traditional male role norms (Risman
and Schwartz, 1989). Thus, individual differences in physical aggression while
dating should reflect differences in gender orientation.
The Research Tradition
Rarely have studies abandoned assumptions about sex differences in
aggressiveness to examine men and women concurrently. Researchers most
often analyze men's aggression apart from women's aggression (cf., Bernard,
Bernard, & Bernard, 1985; Stets & Pirog-Good, 1987). In addition, research
protocols have rarely been designed to determine whether a "masculine" orien-
tation equally applies to women. Finally, with a few exceptions (e.g., Billin-
gham and Sack, 1986; Marshall & Rose, 1987), individual differences are
emphasized without adequate control for relationship-specific characteris-
tics and the systemic aspects of conflict. This study was designed with these
three weaknesses in mind.
The project begins with a "gender-neutral approach" in methodology.
Because prior research suggests that men are as often victims of dating vio-
lence as women and women aggress against their partner as much as men,
this study will examine men and women concurrently. This strategy avoids
introducing the reductionism of sex-specific analyses and thinking only about
sex differences in aggression (cf., Risman and Schwartz, 1989).
Further, this study is grounded in a "conflict perspective" (Simmel, 1955;
Sprey, 1979) and by taking this perspective assumes that conflict is systemic
to relationships. People's management of confiict can involve nonviolent tac-
tics such as negotiating and renegotiating agreements as well as physically
aggressive tactics. What individual, situational, and structural characteris-
tics distinguish between people who do and do not resort to physical aggres-
2M Thompson
sion in dating relationships still remains largely uncertain (cf., Sugarman and
Hotaling, 1989). Thus, part of this study is inherently exploratory. It targets
the issue of whether the men and women who have been in a conflict situa-
tion involving physical aggression significantly differ in their gender orien-
tation from individuals who have not experienced physical aggression.
Finally, prior research on dating and marital violence finds the two ex-
periences of aggressing against one's partner and being victimized by a part-
ner are correlated yet distinct life events. Therefore, to fully assess the links
between a masculine orientation and physical aggression in dating relation-
ship, both aggression against and being a victim of a dating partner will be
examined.
For this exploratory study, my hypotheses run counter to the stereo-
types. Given previous findings as well as the premise that physical aggres-
sion in dating relationships is not gender-specific, I expect that both men
and women will report equivalent rates of aggression while dating. However,
since prior work has not clarified if the "maleness of violence" includes or
excludes women with a masculine orientation, we cannot argue that physi-
cal aggressiveness is the domain of only men with a traditional masculine
orientation. Individual differences in physical aggression in dating relation-
ships may be specific to both women's and men's gender orientation.
METHODS
Sample
Data were gathered in fall 1988 and winter 1989 from an opportunity
sample of 352 undergraduate men and women attending Clark University,
Holy Cross College, or Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Between 100-125
students from each of the campuses participated in a research project on
"men's and women's gender attitudes and dating experiences." Three college
populations were sampled to guard against the homogeneity of students on
a single campus. Volunteers were recruited from sociology, psychology,
mathematics, and ethics courses, and at least 9 of 10 students attending class
completed the anonymous questionnaire.
The completed sample is limited to 336 students, because 16 students
reported that their dating experience was limited to mixed-sex group socializ-
ing and they had not dated exclusively. Males comprised 49.7% of the sam-
ple. There were nearly equivalent response rates for the junior and senior
class (24%), and second year students made up nearly one-third of the sam-
ple. Respondents' ages ranged from 17 to 24 with a mean age of 19.7. The
sample was predominantly white (93%), largely Catholic (63%), never mar-
ried (1CX)%), and represented a wide variety of majors.
Maleness of Violence 2 ^
Measurement of Major Variables
Physical Aggression. The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS, Straus, 1979)
is a widely used measure of the physical aggression experienced in an inti-
mate relationship. This scale does not incorporate the context in which the
aggressive behavior occurs, the injury that results, or whether the aggres-
siveness is defensive or offensive.' Rather, it provides a comprehensive in-
dex of the aggressiveness used to manage confiict. In keeping with previous
research, the measure of physical aggression was drawn from the "physical
violence" end of the Conflict Tactics Scale. Respondents were asked to report
on a four-point rating scale, ranging from "never" to "three-or-more times,"
the extent to which they had sustained and/or used 8 types of aggressive be-
havior within the past two years: grabbing, pushing or shoving; slapping or
spanking; throwing something at a partner; kicking or biting; punching with
fists; striking or struck with something; beating; threatening with weapon;
and, assaulted with weapon.
Gender Role Orientation. An early conception of gender orientation
produced the image that psychological masculinity-femininity was bipolar,
mutually exclusive, and quite static across the life span. Being more mascu-
line was thought to represent being less feminine. More recently, the view
that masculinity and femininity are neither mutually exclusive phenomena
nor fixed personality constellations has emerged. Someone can have both
masculine and feminine interests and characteristics, and once created, gender
role orientation is continually modified throughout life (Bem, 1983; Risman
& Schwartz, 1989). Gender orientation is now widely regarded as the vari-
ous instrumental and expressive qualities which individuals think they actu-
ally possess at that point in time.
Although there remains much debate on exactly what the new genera-
tion of "sex-role" instruments actually measure (see, Pedhazur & Tetenba-
um, 1979; Spence, Deaux, & Helmreich, 1984), most support the premise
that individuals see and describe themselves in some combination of the tradi-
tional "masculinity" and "femininity" themes found in our culture. In this
study, the short form of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1981)
was selected because it incorporates separate, multi-item measures of the at-
'There has been considerable controversy about the way the Conflict Tactics Scale fails to take
into consideration possible gender differences in f)erception of aggression (Lloyd, 1987), the
meaning of the aggression, such as distinguishing between offensive and defensive behavior
(Pleck, Pleck, Grossman, & Bart, 1977-78; Straus, 1989), willingness to report having aggressed
against a partner or sustained a partner's aggression (Szinovacz, 1983; O'Leary et al., 1989),
or the injurious intent and consequences of the aggression (Yllo, 1988). Nonetheless, Straus
(1989) continues to argue that additional questions can be added to a research protocol to
evaluate these gaps in the context and meaning of aggressive acts, but the CTS is a reliable
instrument to investigate rates of aggression.
2f^ Thompson
tributes found in cultural stereotypes of "masculinity" and "femininity."*
Previous research has indicated that responses to the scale are predictive of
traditionally masculine and feminine behaviors in a variety of contexts.
Respondents are required to rate how well they believe 30 attributes describe
them on a 7-point scale ranging from "always or almost always true" to "never
or almost never true," and masculinity and femininity scores are computed
by averaging responses to a set of items. Higher scores refiect greater "mas-
culinity" and "femininity."
Seriousness of Relationships. Given that confiict is systematic to on-
going relationships (Simmel, 1955), the likelihood that an incident of physi-
cal aggression would occur increases as dating relationships become more
serious. Thus, in a study assessing individual-level variation in dating ag-
gression, relationship-specific variation is of interest as a confounding vari-
able. Prior work has shown that it is not the level of commitment (or
dependency) someone has to the dating realtionship which determines the
more frequent reports of physical aggression. It is, perhaps, the emotional
closeness and exclusiveness of the relationship that covaries with a higher
risk of physical aggression. To measure the seriousness of the dating rela-
tionship, respondents were asked to subjectively assess which of six stages
best described their relationships: casual dating with little emotional attach-
ment, dated often but not emotionally attached, serious dating with some
emotional attachment, someone with whom you are in love, living together,
and engaged.
Attitudes Toward Physical Aggression. People give different symbolic
interpretations to aggressive acts. For example, some may perceive and de-
fine a slap as conditionally legitimate and thereby forget the act ever occurred,
whereas others regard slapping an intimate's face as illegitimate for any rea-
son. These differing attitudes regarding "normal violence" and "abusive vio-
lence" (Gelles and Cornell, 1985) may have bearing on both people's use of
aggression and their recall of conflict episodes involving physical aggression.
Therefore, respondents' tolerance of interpersonal violence is of special in-
'Self-assessments using the BSRI estimate only how much respondents see themselves in terms
of traditional, stereotypical gender-typed attributes. They do not measure one's internalized
gender identity (cf,. Burke et al., 1988), nor one's instrumental/expressive personality charac-
teristics (cf,, Spence et al., 1984), Rather, they measure the subjectively-defined fit between
stereotypes and self-image. The 10 attributes judged more desirable for traditional men than
for women (the masculinity scale) are defends own beliefs, independent, assertive, strong per-
sonality, forceful, leadership abilities, willing to take risks, dominant, willing to take a stand,
and aggressive. The femininity attributes are affectionate, sympathetic, sensitive to the needs
of others, understanding, compassionate, eager to soothe hurt feelings, warm, tender, loves
children, and gentle. Masculinity and femininity scores were computed for each subject by
averaging responses to each set of items. Reliability estimates reveal the "masculinity" and "femi-
ninity" scales are both reliable (Cronbach's alpha was ,87 and ,86 respectively).
Maleness of Violence 2C7
terest as a confounding variable. Attitudes toward "normal violence" were
measured by asking three questions. Respondents were asked if there were
times when slapping a date was first "necessary," then "normal," and finally
"appropriate." Initially measured on a 7-point disagree/agree rating scales,
only the agree/disagree dichotomy was of interest. This a priori decision to
only tdly the number of agreements avoided the interpretative problem when
statistical averaging makes one "very strongly agree" response equivalent to
three "agree" responses. Agreement with the three questions would refiect
greater acceptance of the conditions under which physical aggression is "nor-
mal violence." The number of agreements were tallied yielding a scale rang-
ing from zero to three. High scores denote greater acceptance of physical
aggression.
RESULTS
Comparisons indicated that the men and women in the sample did not
differ in the seriousness of their dating relationship or age. Predictably, men
had higher masculinity scores than women (M = 4.99 and 4.81, SD = 0.85
and 0.90, /(1,335) = l.9S,p < .05) and lower femininity scores (A/ = 5.08
and 5.65, SD = 0.74) and 0.66, /(1,335) = 7.16, p < .001). Men also did
not support the use of physical aggression as much as women (M = 0.50
and 0.78, SD = 0.92 and 1.02, r(l,335) = 2.41, p < .02).
Rates of Physical Aggression
In keeping with prior work, to compare men's and women's reported
aggression, dichotomies are created. For example, if a respondent reported
having sustained any one of the physically aggressive acts in the Confiict Tac-
tics Scale, they were defined as having been a victim of physical aggression
and assigned a value of one on the overall physical aggression index. If they
indicated that they had never sustained any physically aggressive act, they
were assigned a zero. The severe aggression index identifies respondents who
have participated in conflict situations involving a kick, use of fists, being
struck with an object, a beating, or a weapon.
In terms of overall physical aggression, 24.6% of the men and, simi-
larly, 28.4% of the women disclosed that they had employed physical ag-
gression in a confiict situation with a dating partner within the past two years,
while 27.5% of the men and 29.6% of the women report having been the
target of their partner's physical aggression (A^ = 0.58 and 0.03, respective-
ly, p > .50). The gender comparison for the severe aggression indexes also
reveal no significant gender difference: 7.2% of the men and 10.7% of the
268 Thompson
women said they had been aggressive, and 13.8% of the men verses 8.9%
of the women had been victimized by a partner's aggressiveness (A^ = 0.85
and 1.55, respectively).
The Confiict Tactics Scale can yield more than simple dichotomous in-
formation on who has and has not experienced physical aggressiveness.
Punching an intimate partner with a closed fist once is qualitatively differ-
ent than several episodes of minor shoving, and we might expect very few
people to report having been punched while a large number report an epi-
sode of grabbing/shoving. To capture these quantitative and qualitative
differences in aggression, each aggressive act was standardized (A/ = 0, SD
= 1). Standardization will produce a high weight for even a single occur-
rence of an uncommon aggressive act, such as inflicting a beating, and a
lower weight to occurrences of the common behaviors such as grabbing/shov-
ing. Further, when summed, multiple occurrences will be weighted more high-
ly than a single occurrence of the same aggressive act. Summing these weighted
frequencies captures the broader differences in both reported seriousness and
frequency of aggression (cf. Malone, Tyree, & O'Leary, 1989: 690-691).
Difference in means tests for these weighted overall and severe indices
revealed no gender difference in use of physical aggression {ts = 0.30 and
0.75, respectively), nor a significant gender difference in the overall meas-
ure of w ho had been a target of a partner's aggression {t = 1.151, p > .10).
However, there was a gender difference for the measure of who sustained
severe physical aggression (t = 2.06, df - 334, p < .05), with men report-
ing having encountered aggressive acts more than women. Aside from this
single, statistically significant difference, the overall pattern of findings bas-
ically affirms the conclusion that there are no gender differences in who ag-
gresses and very few differences in who sustains physical aggression in dating
relationships.
The Masculinity Argument
The second assumption within the stereotype of male violence empha-
sizes an interaction between gender and gender orientation. Supposedly, the
more aggressive in dating relationships will be the men with a strong mascu-
line orientation. If this assumption is valid, men who use physical aggres-
sion, particularly severe aggression, should have higher masculinity scores
and lower femininity scores than women and the men who have not used phys-
ical aggression.
Multivariate analysis of variance was used to determine if, in fact, var-
iations in gender role orientation differed by the men and women who had
and had not experienced courtship aggression. Masculinity and femininity
Maleness of Violence 2(9
scores were assessed in a 2 (gender of respondent) x 3 (history of courtship
aggression use: nonviolent, minor aggression present but no severe aggres-
sion, severe aggression present) MANCOVA design, while variations in the
seriousness of dating relationships and respondent's age and attitudes toward
physical aggression were entered as covariates. The multivariate F was sig-
nificant (F(6,630) = 3.02, p = .006).
Subsequent r-tests and univariate ANOVAs demonstrated that this mul-
tivariate effect was due, in part, to variations in respondents' age and the
seriousness of their dating relationship. Older undergraduates and those in-
volved in more serious relationships rated themselves more highly on mas-
culinity (rs = 2.75 and 2.01, respectively). As shown in the upper portion
of Table I, gender remained an independent determinant for masculinity {F
= l.%l,p < .10) and femininity ratings (/="= 37.14,/? < .001). The interac-
tion effect of gender and history of using physical aggression was significant
for masculinity (F = 3.37, p < .05) but not femininity. However, as can
be derived from the upper portion of Table II, the data do not affirm the
"masculinity argument." Although men who had never aggressed against a
dating partner had lower masculinity scores than men who had used physi-
Tble I. Summary of the MANOVAs for Effects of Gender and
Aggressor/Victim Statuses on Masculinity and Femininity
Aggressing against partner"
Gender of respondent
Masculinity
Femininity
Nonaggressor/aggressor statuses
Masculinity
Femininity
Gender x aggressor status
Masculinity
Femininity
Sustaining partner's aggression'
Gender of respondent
Masculinity
Femininity
Nonaggressor/aggressor statuses
Masculinity
Femininity
Gender x aggressor statuses
Masculinity
Fetnininity
df
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
I
2
2
2
2
Univariate
F
2.87
37.14
1.48
0.17
3.37
1.11
3.61
37.14
0.97
1.86
0.32
1.45
P <
.091
.001
.229
.844
.036
.331
.058
.001
.381
.157
.726
.237
"For nonaggressor, n = 224; for minor, n = 71; for severe, n
= 29.
*For nonvictim, n = 226; for minor, n = 63; for severe, n = 35.
270 Thompson
o
O OO
OO 00 so vC
'^' O v-i O
n o -^J-
11
rf >r, O
O
O
E
S
I QOfN00
I f^ 00 ^
I d ^ d
5 B
>
I
o -> o
S
Maleness of Violence 271
cal aggression, it was the men who had used only minor forms of physical
aggression who rated themselves the most highly on masculinity (M = 5.30),
followed by the women who had used severe aggression tactics (M = 5.24),
followed by men who had used severe aggression tactics (M = 5.17). These
three groups do not differ significantly. Finding the women who had used
severe aggression rating themselves as masculine as the aggressive men raises
doubt about the credibility of an interaction effect between gender and gender
orientation.
The flip-side of the masculinity assumption proposes that the most femi-
nine women would have sustained more courtship aggression. Again, mas-
culinity and femininity scores were subjected to a 2 (gender of respondent)
X 3 (history of sustaining courtship aggression: nonviolent, minor aggres-
sion present but no severe aggression, severe aggression present) MANCO-
VA design, with controls for the seriousness of dating relationships and
respondents' age and attitudes toward physical aggression. The multivariate
effect was significant F(6,630) = 2.77, p = .012). However, the univariate
ANOVAs and r-tests indicated that the observed multivariate effect was due
only to differences in respondents' age, dating relationship, and gender. Net
of other effects, masculinity and femininity scores did not vary with individu-
als' history of sustaining aggression or the interaction between gender and
history of sustaining aggression (see the lower portion of Tables 1 and 2).
Gender Orientation and Violence
Given that the sex-specific analyses yielded no support for the stereo-
type of male violence, the remaining question is whether gender role orien-
tation has a common, independent effect on both men's and women's courtship
aggression.
Discriminant function analyses were used to continue to explore, in a
multivariate context, how important gender role orientation is to the distinc-
tion between individuals who had and had not experienced physical aggres-
sion in their dating relationship. Discriminant analysis selects the least
redundant set of individual and relationship variables that best distinguish
one group from another; the analysis aims to maximize the separation of
the groups and thereby help identify the undergraduates who have exercised
aggressive behavior versus the undergraduates who have not used aggres-
sion as a means of conflict management. Means, standard deviations, and
univariate F ratios for the discriminating variables are presented in Tables
III and IV. There was significant multivariate separation between the nonag-
gressive and aggressive groups in both the aggressor and victim analyses {X^
272 Thompson
Table III. Summary of the Discriminant Function Analysis Distinguishing Nonaggressor/Aggres-
sor Statuses in Dating Relationships
Means and
(Standard
Nonaggressor"
Age
Sex
Masculinity
Femininity
Attitudes toward aggression
Seriousness of relationship
Wilks's lambda
Canonical correlation
Chi-square
Cases correctly grouped
19,59
(1,30)
0,51
(0,50)
4,84
(0,82)
5.36
(0.75)
0,61
(0,98)
2,63
(1,27)
Deviations)
Minor
19,75
(1.29)
0,49
(0,50)
4,97
(0,98)
5.39
(0.78)
0,66
(0,98)
3,31
(1,10)
Severe
19,72
(1,13)
0,42
(0,50)
5,21
(0,87)
5,37
(0,97)
0,86
(0,99)
3,31
(0,97)
Univariate
F-Ratio
0,44
0.46
2,58''
0,05
0,88
10,49*
Standardized
Coefficients'
- , 016
- . 098
, 2%'
.018
.362'
.879"
,915
,276
28,18
67,4"'o
"For nonaggressor, n = 224; for minor, n = 71; for severe, n = 29,
' A' for discriminant analyses: total sample = 324,
"Variable contributed significantly to discriminant function,
''F-ratio significant at ,10,
*F-ratio significant at ,001,
Table \\. Summary ofthe Discriminant Funaion Analysis Distinguishing Victim Status in Dating
Relationships
Age
Sex (male = 1)
Mascuhnity
Femininity
Attitudes toward aggression
Seriousness of relationship
Wilks's lambda
Canonical correlation
Chi-square
Cases correctly grouped
Means and
(Standard
Nonvictim"
19,46
(1.28)
0,50
(0.50)
4,83
(0,85)
5,36
(0,74)
0,61
(0,97)
2,66
(1,26)
Deviations)
Minor
19,90
(1,30)
0,43
(0,50)
4,96
(0,93)
5,53
(0,80)
0,67
(0,97)
3,19
(1,16)
Severe
20,29
(1,32)
0,60
(0,50)
5,24
(0,82)
5,10
(0,97)
0,80
(0,99)
3,37
(1,13)
Univariate
F-Ratio
7,97'
1,34
3,55"
3,67"
0,58
8,07'
Standardized
Coefficients'
,582'
.115
.nr
,288'
,394"
,590"
,878
,313
41,31
71,2'^o
"For nonvictim, n = 226; for minor aggression, n = 63; for severe, n = 35.
' N for discriminant analyses: total sample = 324,
"Variable contributed significantly to discriminant function,
''F-ratio significant at ,05,
'F-ratio significant at ,001,
Maleness of Violence 273
= 28.18 and 41.31, respectively, p < .005). Notably, in neither analysis did
gender contribute significantly to the discriminant function.
When the issue is use of physical aggression, the predictors of group
membership are the seriousness of the dating relationship, rating oneself more
highly on masculinity, and personal attitudes toward physical aggression,
as shown in Table III. The first two variables also exhibited significant univar-
iate mean differences between groups. Simply put, the men and women who
have a history of physical aggression rate themselves more highly on mascu-
linity and were more deeply involved in their relationship.
Gender orientation also helped distinguish between the group of men
and women who have never faced a partner's physical aggression and the
groups who have been victims of physical aggression. As revealed in Table
IV, whether it was minor or severe physical aggression, victims were older,
more deeply involved in their relationship, and evaluated themselves more
highly on masculinity and lower on femininity.
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this research was to begin to understand how
gender orientation affects men's and women's physical aggression while dat-
ing. This study first examined the validity of precepts within the stereotype
of male violence and found neither assumption very credible. The general-
ized percept that men exclusively or nearly exclusively use physical aggres-
sion was not supported. When direct, sex difference comparisons are made,
men and women report equal use of physically aggressive behavior with their
dating partners. When the "masculinity argument" and its proposed interac-
tion effect between gender and gender role orientation was evaluated, no sup-
port was found for the idea that the more aggressive in dating relationships
would be men with a strong masculine orientation. In effect, gender by it-
self or in interaction with gender orientation does not readily explain who
used and sustained physical aggression.
The results of this study indicate that it is gender orientation, not gender,
which is independently related to who inflicts and sustains physical aggression
while dating. Net of other effects, a masculine gender orientation predicts in-
volvement in dating violence for both men and women. This latter point is impor-
tant: Past investigations have proposed that disputes over interpersonal
control are at the core of courtship aggression (cf., Stets & Pirog-Good, 1987;
Makepeace, 1986). Many earlier studies simply assumed only men would use
violent tactics to maintain interpersonal control in face-to-face interaction
(cf., Dobash & Dobash, 1979). However, aggressive conflict management
strategies are not gender-specific. This study reveals that physically aggres-
sive behavior while dating is a tactic used by both males and females who
have a masculine view of self.
274 Tbompson
These results may also cast doubt on the gender-specific explanation
that using physical aggression is a way for men to maintain their masculinity
and bolster their threatened status (Toby, 1966). The notion that physical
aggression among intimates is palliative for men only and arises when a man
is threatened comes from clinical studies of violent men. But, as the present
study revealed, among college students physical aggressiveness in dating rela-
tionships is not gender-specific. Clearly, if aggression perpetrated by men against
their dating partner is the result of a man's threatened masculine identity,
would a woman's aggression likely be the result of her threatened masculine
identity?
Rethinking the Stereotypes
The central tenet of the stereotype of male violence is that using physi-
cal aggression is consistent with traditional male role norms. Although
thought to apply to men only, apparently the aggressive and dominant charac-
teristics of a masculine orientation do come into play for both men and wom-
en. Given the findings in this study, research protocols concerned with who
uses violence should continue to anticipate a gender gap. The gap, however,
would emphasize variations in gender orientation and recognize the importance
of male role norms for women as well as men. The fact is, male role norms
come into play for women too. For those men and women whose experiences
and opportunities yield more contact with traditional male roles and a "mas-
culine" interpretation of reality, physical aggression will have a different per-
sonal meaning than it would for those men and women who have acquired
a "feminine" outlook. Men who conform to traditional gender norms and
use physically aggressive behavior, and women who cross-over traditional
boundaries to use physically aggressive behavior are adhering to masculine
norms which advocated being dominant, in control, aggressive, and if need
be, physical (Brannon, 1976; Lipman-Blumen, 1984).
That a masculine orientation was found to be quite important to un-
derstanding both men's and women's involvement in dating violence suggests
that styles of conflict management are likely influenced by gender role norms.
As a legacy of our patriarchal heritage, the values of defending one's be-
liefs, being assertive and self-reliant, and maintaining control have always
sat on the edge of becoming encouragement for exploitative and violent be-
havior. At present, these public sphere values may be unintentionally car-
ried into intimate relationships by both women and men who endorse
traditional male role norms.
In addition to clarifying how gender orientation affects physical ag-
gression in dating relationships, we also confirmed that relationship charac-
Maleness of Violence 27S
teristics independently influence people's experience with physical aggression
while dating. It was inside the more emotionally close relationships that people
had more often engaged in physically aggressive exchanges. This finding is
incongruous with stereotyjjes about close relationships yet consistent with
the conflict perspective. Dating relationships, like marriages, differ in inten-
sity of emotional involvement and the social constructed right of partners
to exert influence on one another. The probability that disagreements esca-
late to involve physical aggression apparently increases with relationship close-
ness (that is, intimacy, privacy, emotional commitment) and, very likely,
duration.
Rethinking this Study
Feminist scholars (e.g., Yllo, 1988) have cautioned against a methodolo-
gy of "context stripping." That is, tallying individual acts of violence by men
and women without regard to the issue of motive or the severity of injury, fails
to truly assess who initiated the violent episode and who sustained the violence.
Researchers can unwittingly redefine a woman's self-defensive behavior of hitting-
back as evidence of her initiating courtship violence. When this occurs, the stereo-
type of male violence is falsely rejected. Before the stereotype is fully aban-
doned, additional research needs to assess the meaning of men's and women's
physical aggression. Research showing fewer or as many offensive violent acts
by males as females would seem necessary to truly challenge the credibility of
the stereotype.
In addition, there is the possibility of judgmental error which arises from
sampling error. Since men and women have differentially struaured realities
in a patriarchal society, we can assume men and women also differ in the way
they perceive and define abusive acts (cf., Lloyd, 1987). The evidence is ac-
cumulating (Szinovacz, 1983; O'Leary et al., 1989) that men underreport and
women overreport their own victimization, which would in turn provide a false
positive test for the stereotype of male violence. Moreover, there is some sug-
gestion (Szinovacz, 1983) that men underreport and women overreport their
abuse of their partner as well, which would falsely challenge the stereotype.
Added research is needed on couples (rather than individuals) to test for reporting
differences.
The findings observed here that men and women with more masculine
and/or less feminine gender orientations are likely be involved in violent ex-
changes does not coincide with the work of Burke, Stets, & Pirog-Good (1988:
282). They report just the opposite: males and females with more feminine
gender identities were likely to inflict and sustain physical and sexual aggres-
sion. How can this disparity be explained? I can only speculate but it seems
276 Thompson
to be methodological. They elected to run separate analyses for males and
females and not examine men and women together. Their study Jilso opera-
tionalized the construct gender identity in the older style as a bipolar mascu-
line-feminine phenomenon.
Conclusions
Part of the fallout of contemporary society's gender reevaluation is that
gender-role confiict and strain now characterize men's and women's lives.
The primary results observed in this study, that a more masculine gender
orientation and/or less feminine gender orientation is associated with both
men's and women's physically aggressive behavior in dating relationships,
highlight the acidity of the masculine mystique and the traditional male role
norms which now affect women's behavior as much men's (cf., Cancian, 1985;
Risman and Schwartz, 1989).
Perhaps, then, the fundamental issue is an erroneous vision of court-
ship aggression as individual-dependent and gender-specific. It may well have
more to do with the systemic quality of confiict and how the pervasiveness
of male role norms and the masculine mystique in our society shift, for some
people, acceptable confiict management behavior over the boundary to abu-
sive behavior. It is now firmly established that physical aggression is quite
prevalent in college students' dating relationships. What is needed is more
attention given to an assessment of what interpersonal and structural fac-
tors constrain most men from using physical aggression and move some wom-
en to become physically aggressive.
REFERENCES
Arias, I., Samios, M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggres-
sion during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90.
Bem, S. (1981). The Bem Sex Role Inventory Professional Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consultmg
Bem S l!'^(I983r Gender schema theory and its implications for child development: Raising
gender-aschematic children in a gender-schematic society. Signs, 8, 598-616.
Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1984). The abusive male seeking treatment: Jekyll and Hyde.
Family Relations, 33, 543-547. r ;
Bernard, J. L., Bernard, S., & Bernard, M. L. (1985). Courtship violence and sex-typing, t-ami-
ly Relations, 34, 573-576. , .
Billingham. R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1986). Courtship violence and the interactive status of the
it\zMoni\aV>-Journal of Adolescent Research, l,-i\S-ZlS. ^ u . ^ ,
Brannon R (1976). The male sex role: Our culture's blueprint for manhood, and what it s done
fo'r us lately. Deborah David & Robert Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majori-
ty: The male sex role. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Maleness of Violence 277
Burke, P. J., Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1988). Gender identity, self-esteem, and phys-
ical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 272-285.
Cancian, F. M. (1985). Gender politics: Love and power in the private and public spheres. In
Alice S. Rossi (Ed.), Gender and the life course. New York: Aldine.
Deal, J. E., & Wampler, K. S. (1986). Dating violence: the primacy of previous experience.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 457-471.
Dobash, R., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press.
Eagly, A. H., and Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review
of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330.
Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C. P. (1985). Intimate violence in families. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Goldstein, D., & Rosenbaum, A. (1985). An evaluation of the self-esteem of maritally violent
men. Family Relations, 34, 425-428.
Owartney-Gibbs, P. A., Stockard, }.,& Bohmer, S. (1987). Learning courtship aggression: The
influence of parents, peers, and personal experiences. Family Relations, 36, 276-282.
Hemon, J. M., Cate, R. M., Koval, J., Lloyd, S., & Christopher, F. S. (1982). Romance and
violence in dating relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 467-482.
Lipman-Blumen, J. (1984). Gender roles and power. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lloyd, S. A. (1987). Conflict in premarital relationships: Differential jjerceptions of males and
females. Family Relations, 36, 290-294.
Makepeace, J. (1983). Life events, stress, and courtship violence. Family Relations, 32, 101-109.
Makepeace, J. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations,
35, 383-388.
Malone, J., Tyree, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (1989). Generalization and containment: Different
effects of past aggression for wives and husbands. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
51, 687-697.
Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. )1987). Gender, stress and violence in the adult relationships of
a sample of college students. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 299-316.
Mason, A., & Blankenship, V. (1987). Power and affiliation motivation, stress, and abuse in
intimate relationships. Journal of Personalily and Social Psychology, 52, 203-210.
Matthews, W. J. (1984). Violence in college couples. College Student Journal, 18, 150-158.
O'Keefe, N., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social Work, 31, 465-468.
O'Leary, K. D., Barling, J., Arias, 1., Rosenbaum, A., Malone, J., & Tyree, A. (1989). Preva-
lence and stability of physical aggression between spouses: A longitudinal analysis. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 263-268.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1979). Bem Sex Role Inventory: A theoretical and methodo-
logical critique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 9%-1016.
Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pleck, E. H., Pleck, J. H., Grossman, M., & Bart, P. B. (1977-78). The battered data syn-
drome: A comment on Steinmeu' article. Victimology: An International Journal, 2,
680-682.
Risman, B., & Schwartz, P. (1989). Gender in intimate relationships: A microstructural ap-
proach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J., & Wiles, K. A. (1984). Violence in college students' dating rela-
tionships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 530-548.
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict and the web of group affiliation. New York: Free Press.
Spence, J., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimen-
sions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Spence, J., Deaux, K., & Helmreich, R. L. (1984). Sex roles in contemporary' American socie-
ty. In Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of sociology psychology (3rd ed.).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sprey, J. (1979). Conflict theory and the study of marriage and the family. In Burr, W. R.
et al. (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2). New York: Free Press.
Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 50, 237-246.
278 Thompson
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence; The Conflict Tactics (CT)
Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.
Straus, M. A. (1989). The conflia tactics scale and its critics: An evaluation and new data
on validity and reliability. In Straus, M., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.), Physical violence in
American families: Risk factors and adaptation to violence in 8,145 families. New York;
Transaction Press.
Sugarman, D. B., & Hotaling, G. T. (1989). Dating violence; Prevalence, context, and risk mar-
kers. In Pirog-Good, M., & Stets, J. E. (eds.). Violence in dating relationships: Emerg-
ing social issues. New York; Praeger.
Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). Using couple data as a methodological tool; The case of marital vio-
lence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 633-644.
Taubman, S. (1986). Beyond the bravado; Sex roles and the exploitative male. Social Work,
31, 12-18.
Toby, J. (1966). Violence and the masculine ideal; Some qualitative data. Annals of the Ameri-
can Academy of Political and Social Science, 36, 19-27.
Yllo, K. (1988). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. In Yllo, K., &
Bograd, M. (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wive abuse. Newbury Park, CA; Sage.