Domains of masculine gender role stress and intimate partner violence in a clinical sample of violent men.
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship between the specific factors of the Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS) scale and intimate partner violence among a clinical sample of violent men. Participants were 339 men court-mandated to attend violence intervention programs. After demonstrating that the 5-factor MGRS model evidenced strong fit in this sample, analyses revealed that MGRS total scores were associated with each form of intimate partner violence perpetration. However, subsequent analyses that regressed each form of aggression onto all 5 MGRS factors simultaneously revealed that different factors were responsible for each association. Specifically, gender role stress regarding failure to perform in work and sexual domains was the only factor associated with psychological aggression, gender role stress regarding appearing physically fit and not appearing feminine was the only factor associated with sexual coercion, and gender role stress regarding intellectual inferiority was the only factor associated with injury to partners. No single MGRS factor was uniquely associated with physical aggression. Implications are discussed in terms of the importance of examining specific domains of gender role stress when studying and treating partner violence. © 2010 American Psychological Association.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Men who strongly internalize traditional masculine norms are more likely to justify violence, including psychological aggression, as an appropriate response to masculinity threats.
“Empirical evidence shows that men who strongly internalize traditional masculine norms are more likely to justify violence, including psychological aggression, as an appropriate response to masculinity threats (Moore et al., 2010; O’Donnell et al., 2024).”
From Psychological Intimate Partner Violence Across Identities: Preliminary Psychometrics of the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse-Short Form Among Heterosexual, Lesbian, and Bisexual Samples in Türkiye (2026) · cites this paper as Moore et al., 2010
Cites
Mahalik, J. R., Aldarondo, E., Gilbert-Gokhale, S., & Shore, E. (2005) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260504269688 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Demirtaş, E. T., & Zurnacı, B. (2026) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-026-03422-4
- Authors
- Moore, T. M., Stuart, G. L., McNulty, J. K., Addis, M. E., Cordova, J. V., & Temple, J. R.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
- Clark University (US)
- The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Moore, Todd M.
- Venue
- Psychology of Violence
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- S
- Pages
- 68-75
- ISSN
- 2152-081X (ISSN-L)
- 2152-0828
- OpenAlex
- W2150720030
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychology of Violence (publishedVersion)
- Clark Digital Commons (Clark University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (K12HD052023)
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
- Keywords
- masculine gender role stress, intimate partner violence, men who perpetrate violence, psychological aggression, sexual coercion, physical aggression, physical fitness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review