New study finds link between sexism and denial of male victimhood in relationships

A new study published in Psychology of Men & Masculinities has found that people are more likely to believe myths that minimize or dismiss male victims of intimate partner violence when they also endorse sexist beliefs about men. These beliefs—both hostile and seemingly positive, yet patronizing attitudes toward men—were the strongest predictors of myth acceptance. The study also found that individuals who justified traditional gender roles and those with histories of perpetrating partner violence were more likely to endorse such myths.

While intimate partner violence is commonly portrayed as a problem that overwhelmingly affects women, a growing body of evidence shows that men can also be victims. Yet male victims are often met with skepticism, ridicule, or disbelief. Myths about male victimization—such as the belief that men cannot be abused or that abuse from a woman is not serious—can prevent men from recognizing their experiences as abuse and make it harder for them to seek help. To better understand these misconceptions and the attitudes that underlie them, the researchers developed a new tool: the Intimate Partner Violence Myths Toward Male Victims (IPVMM) Scale.

The study recruited 514 participants—247 men and 266 women—through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. All were U.S. residents and ranged in age, with an average of about 38 years old. Participants were asked to complete a battery of questionnaires, including the new IPVMM scale, which measured beliefs about male victims of partner violence.

The scale included 18 items, some adapted from earlier research on domestic violence myths toward women and others newly written to address specific misconceptions about men. These included statements such as “Men are rarely ever victims of domestic violence,” and “If a man is a victim of domestic abuse, he obviously cannot control his own partner.”

In addition to the IPVMM, participants completed measures of sexism toward both men and women, support for traditional gender hierarchies, and self-reported experiences with either victimization or perpetration of partner violence. These tools included the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, which measures hostile and benevolent sexism toward women, and a similar scale measuring sexism toward men. Hostile sexism includes overtly negative beliefs, like the idea that men are inherently violent or incapable of emotional depth. Benevolent sexism includes statements that seem positive but reinforce stereotypes, such as the belief that men must be strong protectors or providers.

The results showed that endorsement of sexism toward men was the strongest predictor of belief in myths about male victims. Specifically, those who endorsed both hostile and benevolent sexism were much more likely to agree with statements that downplayed or dismissed male victimization. Support for traditional gender roles and systems that justify gender inequality also predicted higher scores on the IPVMM. Interestingly, participants who admitted to perpetrating partner violence were also more likely to endorse these myths, while those who had been victims of such violence were less likely to believe them.

The study’s statistical analyses revealed that the new IPVMM scale had strong internal reliability and was best understood as measuring a single overall construct—belief in myths that deny or minimize male victimization. Endorsement of these myths did not significantly differ between men and women in this sample, which the authors note is somewhat surprising.

Previous research has shown that men tend to score higher than women on scales measuring sexism and victim-blaming attitudes, but in this case, both genders endorsed myths at similar levels. The authors suggest that this could reflect changing social attitudes or that participants may have responded in socially desirable ways to avoid seeming biased.

On average, participants were slightly more likely than not to endorse the myths, scoring above the midpoint of the seven-point scale. This suggests that even in a sample recruited from a general population, rather than a clinical or legal setting, these beliefs are relatively widespread. Notably, these scores were significantly higher than scores on similar scales that measure myths about female victims of domestic violence, pointing to a persistent bias in how male and female victimization is perceived.

The researchers also explored whether individuals’ own experiences with abuse—either as victims or perpetrators—influenced their beliefs. They found that those who had perpetrated partner violence were more likely to believe myths about male victims, although the connection was weaker than that observed with sexist attitudes.

Interestingly, being a victim of partner violence did not significantly predict belief in myths. This challenges assumptions based on social learning theory, which would suggest that personal experience should shape attitudes about abuse. One possibility is that perpetrators may rationalize or minimize their actions by endorsing myths, while victims may still struggle to recognize themselves as such due to internalized gender norms.

Although this study breaks new ground by validating a tool to measure attitudes about male victimization, it has several limitations. The sample, while reasonably large and diverse in age and gender, was mostly White and recruited through an online platform that may not be fully representative of the broader population. There is also the possibility that some participants responded in ways they thought were socially acceptable rather than fully truthful. The cross-sectional design of the study means the researchers could not assess how these attitudes develop or change over time, or whether interventions might shift them.

The authors suggest that future research should continue exploring the IPVMM scale’s reliability in more diverse and representative populations. It would also be valuable to examine how different professional groups—such as police officers, healthcare workers, and domestic violence counselors—respond to male victimization and whether they too endorse these myths. The role of generational differences and cultural background may also be important to investigate. Additionally, exploring these myths in same-sex relationships or among transgender and nonbinary individuals would help broaden understanding of how gendered beliefs shape perceptions of abuse.

The study, “Intimate Partner Violence Myths Toward Male Victims: Exploring Gender, Sexism, and Participant Perpetration and Victimization,” was authored by Brenda Russell, Jennifer M. Cox, and and Haylie Stewart.