Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-f6s65 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-03T07:28:56.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Men’s dependence in intimate relationships has broader harm beyond men’s wellbeing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2026

Nickola C. Overall Open the ORCID record for Nickola C. Overall [Opens in a new window]  and
Matthew D. Hammond Open the ORCID record for Matthew D. Hammond [Opens in a new window]
Nickola C. Overall*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand n.overall@auckland.ac.nz
Matthew D. Hammond
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand matt.hammond@vuw.ac.nz
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract;

We challenge the conclusion that “romantic relationships matter more to men than women” using ambivalent sexism theory and research. Men’s dependence on women for intimacy and support has harmful consequences beyond men’s wellbeing, including producing ideologies that sustain gender inequality and promote aggression toward women. Ignoring these broader consequences risks perpetuating gender roles that harm people regardless of their gender.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e118
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agadullina, E., Lovakov, A., Balezina, M., & Gulevich, O. A. ( 2022). Ambivalent sexism and violence toward women: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(5–6), 819–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bareket, O., & Fiske, S. T. ( 2023). A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles. Psychological Bulletin, 149(11–12), 637–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000400 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bareket, O., Shnabel, N., Kende, A., Knab, N., & Bar-Anan, Y. ( 2021). Need some help, honey? Dependency-oriented helping relations between women and men in the domestic sphere. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1175–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000292 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosson, J. K., Rousis, G. J., & Felig, R. N. ( 2022). Curvilinear sexism and its links to men’s perceived mate value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(4), 516–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211009726 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, R. C., Russo-Batterham, D., & Blake, K. R. ( 2022). Incel activity on social media linked to local mating ecology. Psychological Science, 33(2), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211036065 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, E. J., & Overall, N. C. ( 2019). Women experience more serious relationship problems when male partners endorse hostile sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(5), 1022–1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, E. J., Overall, N. C., Hammond, M. D., & Fletcher, G. J. O. ( 2017). When does men’s hostile sexism predict relationship aggression? The moderating role of partner commitment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616672000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, E. J., Overall, N. C., Low, R. S. T., & McNulty, J. K. ( 2019). An interdependence account of sexism and power: men’s hostile sexism, biased perceptions of low power, and relationship aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 338–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000167 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, M. I., & Hammond, M. D. ( 2019). Personal ties and prejudice: a meta-analysis of romantic attachment and ambivalent sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1084–1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218804551 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. ( 1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. ( 2001). Ambivalent sexism. In Zanna, M. P., & Zanna, M. P. (Ed) (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 33. (pp. 115–188). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, B. C., & Leaper, C. ( 2024). Linking ambivalent sexism to violence-against-women attitudes and behaviors: a three-level meta-analytic review. Sexuality & Culture, 28(2), 851–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-023-10127-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. ( 2015). Benevolent sexism and support of romantic partner’s goals: undermining women’s competence while fulfilling men’s intimacy needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1180–1194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215593492 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. ( 2017). Dynamics within intimate relationships and the causes, consequences, and functions of sexist attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416686213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hideg, I., & Shen, W. ( 2019). Why still so few? A theoretical model of the role of benevolent sexism and career support in the continued underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 26(3), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819849006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loveland, J. E., & Raghavan, C. ( 2017). Coercive control, physical violence, and masculinity. Violence and Gender, 4(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2016.0019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, D., Huang, Y., Overall, N. C., Sutton, R. M., Petterson, A., Douglas, K. M., Davies, P. G., & Sibley, C. G. ( 2022). Abortion attitudes: an overview of demographic and ideological differences. Political Psychology, 43(S1), 29–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12803 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overall, N. C., Chang, V. T., Cross, E. J., Low, R. S. T., & Henderson, A. M. E. ( 2021). Sexist attitudes predict family-based aggression during a COVID-19 lockdown. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(8), 1043–1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000834 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overall, N. C., & Hammond, M. D. ( 2026). Power and ideology in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 77, 13.1–13.29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-012325-032022 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. ( 2011). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022727 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waddell, N., Overall, N. C., & Chang, V. T. ( 2024). Parents’ pre-pandemic benevolent sexism predicted lower parenting strain and psychological distress during COVID-19 lockdowns. Sex Roles, 90(6), 789–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01472-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddell, N., Overall, N. C., Cross, E. J., & Sibley, C. G. ( 2025). Sexist attitudes, relationship conflict and satisfaction in heterosexual couples, and men’s and women’s wellbeing. Sex Roles, 91(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01556-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddell, N., Sibley, C. G., & Osborne, D. ( 2019). Better off alone? Ambivalent sexism moderates the association between relationship status and life satisfaction among heterosexual women and men. Sex Roles, 80(5), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0935-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, M. P. ( 2013). Centrality of control-seeking in men’s intimate partner violence perpetration. Prevention Science, 14(5), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0332-z CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zawisza, M., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Glick, P., Olech, M., Besta, T., Jurek, P., Sobiecki, J., Best, D. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Safdar, S., Włodarczyk, A., & Żadkowska, M. ( 2025). Worse for women, bad for all: a 62-Nation study confirms and extends ambivalent sexism principles to reveal greater social dysfunction in sexist nations. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241302882 CrossRefGoogle Scholar