Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-f6s65 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-03T07:28:49.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The costs and rewards of men’s romantic dependence: A gendered perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2026

Niv Reggev Open the ORCID record for Niv Reggev [Opens in a new window]  and
Orly Bareket Open the ORCID record for Orly Bareket [Opens in a new window]
Niv Reggev*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel School of Brain Sciences and Cognition, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel reggevn@bgu.ac.il orlybareket@bgu.ac.il
Orly Bareket
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary applies a structural, gender-informed lens to interpret men’s romantic dependence. Gendered arrangements reward masculine conformity and discourage vulnerability, thereby limiting men’s emotional reciprocity and increasing their reliance on women for intimacy. This perspective reframes romantic dependence as a product of broader social conditions, broadening the focus from individual limitations to systemic dynamics shaping relationships.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e121
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

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., & Fiske, S. T. ( 2025). Lost opportunities: How gendered arrangements harm men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(5), e2320788122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2320788122 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosson, J. K., Buckner, C. E., & Vandello, J. A. ( 2022). The psychology of sex and gender (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Brescoll, V., Uhlmann, E. L., & Newman, G. E. ( 2013). The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034701 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M. ( 1996). Sexual conflict: Evolutionary insights into feminism and the “battle of the sexes.” In Buss, D. M., & Malamuth, N. (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 296–318). Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195095814.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, D. L., Hanson, S., & Fitzroy, A. ( 2016). The division of child care, sexual intimacy, and relationship quality in couples. Gender & Society, 30(3), 442–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215626709 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, K. E., & Gerstein, E. D. ( 2021). Fathering and masculine norms: Implications for the socialization of children’s emotion regulation. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, M. S., & Mils, J. ( 1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293196003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. ( 2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, J., Canevello, A., & Brown, A. A. ( 2017). Social motivation: Costs and benefits of selfishness and otherishness. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044145 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. ( 2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314564789 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. ( 2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
England, P., Levine, A., & Mishel, E. ( 2020). Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(13), 6990–6997. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918891117 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrara, A. P., & Vergara, D. P. ( 2024). Theorizing mankeeping: The male friendship recession and women’s associated labor as a structural component of gender inequality. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 25(4), 391–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, E. J., Simpson, J. A., & Eastwick, P. W. ( 2017). The psychology of close relationships: Fourteen core principles. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-PSYCH-010416-044038 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graso, M., & Reynolds, T. ( 2024). A feminine advantage in the domain of harm: A review and path forward. Biology Letters, 20(11), 20240381. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. ( 2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109 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
Jackman, M. R. ( 1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520337794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. ( 2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadwe, P. P., Sklenar, A. M., Frankenstein, A. N., Levy, P. U., & Leshikar, E. D. ( 2022). The influence of memory on approach and avoidance decisions: Investigating the role of episodic memory in social decision making. Cognition, 225, 105072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105072 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kray, L. J., Howland, L., Russell, A. G., & Jackman, L. M. ( 2017). the effects of implicit gender role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs strengthen masculinity to preserve the status quo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000124 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, R., Bradbury, T. N., Nussbeck, F. W., & Bodenmann, G. ( 2018). The power of listening: Lending an ear to the partner during dyadic coping conversations. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(6), 762–772. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le, B. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Webster, G. D., & Cheng, C. ( 2012). The personal and interpersonal rewards of communal orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(6), 694–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512466227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levant, R. F. ( 2017). Family psychology and the psychology of men and masculinities. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(1), 2–4. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000289 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenzie, S. K., Collings, S., Jenkin, G., & River, J. ( 2018). Masculinity, social connectedness, and mental health: Men’s diverse patterns of practice. American Journal of Men’s Health, 12(5), 1247–1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988318772732 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mokady, A., & Reggev, N. ( 2022). The role of predictions, their confirmation, and reward in maintaining the self-concept. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, 824085. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.824085 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss-Racusin, C. A. ( 2014). Male backlash: Penalties for men who violate gender stereotypes. In Burke, R. J., & Major, D. A. (Eds.), Gender in organizations: Are men allies or adversaries to women’s career advancement? (pp. 247–269). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781955703.00021 Google Scholar
Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. ( 2015). Good, giving, and game: The relationship benefits of communal sexual motivation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614553641 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuenswander, K. L., Haines, E. L., & Stroessner, S. J. ( 2023). Caring or competent? Apparent prioritization of childcare over work affects evaluations and stereotyping of fathers. Sex Roles, 89(5–6), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01401-w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielson, M. G., Ward, L. M., Seabrook, R. C., & Giaccardi, S. ( 2022). The roots and fruits of masculinity: Social antecedents and sexual relationship consequences of young men’s adherence to masculine norms. The Journal of Sex Research, 59(7), 897–910. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2022.2049188 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reggev, N. ( 2024). Motivation and prediction-driven processing of social memoranda. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 159, 105613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105613 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reggev, N., Chowdhary, A., & Mitchell, J. P. ( 2021). Confirmation of interpersonal expectations is intrinsically rewarding. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(12), 1276–1287. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsab081 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. ( 2016). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. ( 2021). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. ( 2013). Penalizing men who request a family leave: Is flexibility stigma a femininity stigma?. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. ( 2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In Devine, P. G., & Plant, E. A. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp. 167–227). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00004-4 Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. ( 2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: Is feminism good for romantic relationships?. Sex Roles, 57(11–12), 787–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11199-007-9319-9/METRICS CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saguy, T., Reifen-Tagar, M., & Joel, D. ( 2021). The gender-binary cycle: The perpetual relations between a biological-essentialist view of gender, gender ideology, and gender-labelling and sorting. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1822), 20200141. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0141 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmader, T. & Nater, C. ( 2025). Gender. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., Finkel, W. B., & Mendes, W. B. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (6th ed.). Situational Press. https://doi.org/10.70400/AKXO6205 Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., Hudson, S. T. J., Davis, G., & Bergh, R. ( 2018). The theory of gendered prejudice: A social dominance and intersectionalist perspective. In Mintz, A., & Terris, L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of behavioral political science (pp. 253–284). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190634131.013.11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 and Masculinity, 14(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., & Lawler, J. R. ( 2019). Precarious manhood and men’s health disparities. In Griffith, D. M., Bruce, M. A., & Thorpe, R. J. Jr (Eds.), Men’s health equity: A handbook (pp. 27–41). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315167428-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Y. J., Ho, M.-H. R., Wong, S.-Y., & Miller, I. S. K. ( 2017). Meta-analyses of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000176 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. ( 2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed