Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Hostile Masculinity

  • Tiffany D RussellEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1827-1

Definition

A latent personality construct comprised of aggressive, defensive, and narcissistic traits and a tendency to derive sexual gratification from dominating and controlling women. Hostile masculinity predicts sexual and nonsexual violence against women, and it is one of the two proximal trait constellations directly predicting male sexual violence against women in Malamuth et al.’s (1991) Confluence Mediational Model of Sexual Aggression.

Introduction

The Confluence Mediational Model of Sexual Aggression (CMM or Confluence Model) is a multifactorial, evolutionary-based model of sexual violence perpetration first proposed by Malamuth (1986). This groundbreaking model has proven robust in cross-sectional, longitudinal, and laboratory studies, and it has been replicated in a variety of populations, including incarcerated, university, and community samples of men (for a review, see Malamuth and Hald 2016). The central premise of the CMM is that two major constellations, hostile...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Wallace, H. M. (2002). Conquest by force: A narcissistic reactance theory of rape and sexual coercion. Review of General Psychology, 6(1), 92–135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.1.92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Malamuth, N. M. (1986). Predictors of naturalistic sexual aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 953–962.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.953.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Malamuth, N. M., & Hald, G. M. (2016). The confluence mediational model of sexual aggression. In A. Beech & T. Ward (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the theories, assessment, and treatment of sexual offending, Volume I: Theories (1st ed., pp. 53–71). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Malamuth, N. M., Sockloskie, R. J., Koss, M. P., & Tanaka, J. S. (1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 670–681.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.670.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Malamuth, N. M., Heavey, C. L., & Linz, D. (1996). The confluence model of sexual aggression: Combining hostile masculinity and impersonal sex. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 23(3–4), 13–37.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v23n03_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Malamuth, N. M., Huppin, M., & Paul, B. (2005). Sexual coercion. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (1st ed., pp. 394–418). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Russell, T. D., & King, A. R. (2016). Anxious, hostile, and sadistic: Maternal attachment and everyday sadism predict hostile masculine beliefs and male sexual violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 340–345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Russell, T. D., & King, A. R. (2017). Distrustful, conventional, entitled, and dysregulated: PID-5 personality facets predict hostile masculinity and sexual violence in community men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Online First.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517689887.
  9. Yates, E., Barbaree, H. E., & Marshall, W. L. (1984). Anger and deviant sexual arousal. Behavior Therapy, 15(3), 287–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(84)80031-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychiatryHarvard Medical School/McLean Hospital, Harvard UniversityBelmontUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Brian B Boutwell
    • 1
  1. 1.Saint Louis UniversitySaint LouisUSA