Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Guided by the General Aggression Model, the study investigated the moderating role of hegemonic masculinity in the relationship between empathy and verbal aggression among emerging adult men in Australia. A sample of 109 men aged 18 to 29 years (Mage = 24.3 years; SDage = 3.53) completed an online survey including the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-29, and Anger Response Inventory. As predicted, empathy was negatively correlated with verbal aggression, whereas hegemonic masculinity was positively associated with verbal aggression. Moderated regression analysis, controlling for data collection year, revealed a significant moderating effect of hegemonic masculinity on the empathy–verbal aggression relationship. These findings suggest that traditional masculine norms may amplify verbal aggression risk, even among men with higher levels of empathy. Interventions should integrate empathy training with approaches promoting healthy masculinity to reduce aggression in this population.

Keywords

verbal aggression hegemonic masculinity empathy men

Introduction

Verbal aggression (VA) is a common form of aggression in workplaces and interpersonal relationships, with serious psychological and organizational consequences (NSW Government, 2019; Victorian Public Sector Commission, 2024; Work Safe Australia, 2025). VA encompasses hostile verbal behaviors such as swearing, insults, threats, and belittling intended to inflict psychological harm (Work Safe Australia, 2025; Yavuzer et al., 2019). According to the 2023 People at Work Survey (Safe Work Australia, 2024), shouting, swearing, angry or hostile behavior, intimidation, and insults were among the most frequently experienced forms of workplace violence in Australia. Emerging evidence also indicates that VA has increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, VA toward U.S. school personnel has returned to, or exceeded, pre-pandemic levels, with teachers experiencing the largest rise compared to other roles (McMahon et al., 2024).

Although VA does not inflict physical harm, it has serious psychological and organizational consequences for victims and witnesses. Research shows that customer-directed aggression is associated with emotional exhaustion, reduced job satisfaction, and greater turnover intentions among hotel employees (Karatepe et al., 2009). In the banking sector, victims report heightened anxiety and depression, alongside reduced productivity and safety perceptions (Acquadro Maran et al., 2022). In education, VA exposure contributes to stress, burnout, and intentions to leave the profession (McMahon et al., 2024). Harmful effects can also occur when aggressive language is nondirective. Sun et al. (2025) found that witnessing VA in multiplayer online games increased the likelihood of engaging in similar behavior, highlighting its social contagion effects. Understanding the psychological and social drivers of VA is therefore critical for effective prevention.

Two key predictors of VA are currently under investigation, namely empathy and hegemonic masculinity (HM). Empathy, the capacity to understand others’ emotions, is generally associated with lower aggression (Baskin-Sommers et al., 2014; Baumeister & Lobbestael, 2011), though evidence specific to VA is mixed (Sergeant et al., 2006). Conversely, HM, the endorsement of traditional masculine norms like male dominance and strength (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Parrott, 2018), is consistently linked to higher aggression (Gallagher & Parrott, 2011; Van Doorn et al., 2021).

Despite substantial research on VA among adolescents (Smith & Moore, 2012) and family violence perpetrators (Clements et al., 2007), little is known about VA in emerging adult men (ages 18–29), a period marked by identity exploration, instability, and increased aggression risk (Arnett & Mitra, 2020; Lee, 2007). Moreover, the moderating role of HM in the empathy–VA relationship remains largely unexamined. This study addresses this gap by examining whether HM shapes the association between empathy and VA in emerging adult men.

Emerging Adulthood

While VA perpetration has been widely studied among adolescents (Smith & Moore, 2012) and perpetrators of family violence (Clements et al., 2007), limited research has examined the factors contributing to VA in emerging adult men. Emerging adulthood (ages 18–29) is a distinct developmental stage marked by identity exploration, social and occupational transitions, increased risk-taking behavior, and delayed entry into adult roles (Arnett & Mitra, 2020; Arnett et al., 2014; Lee, 2007; Roeser et al., 2019). It is also a period in which aggressive behaviors often emerge (Mata & van Dulmen, 2012), coinciding with ongoing cognitive and emotional development (Rudling et al., 2023). Evidence suggests that men in this age group are more likely to engage in aggression, including cyberbullying and relational aggression (Barlett & Coyne, 2014). Wright and Li (2013) found that more men than women aged 18 to 25 engaged in both cyber VA and face-to-face VA, and that stronger normative beliefs about cyber VA, that is, perceiving such behavior as acceptable, tolerable, and typical, predicted greater online VA perpetration and amplified the link between prior and subsequent cyber VA. Additionally, Internet gaming disorder, a condition highly prevalent among young adults (Gao et al., 2022), is positively associated with verbal aggressiveness in this demographic (Silva & Maia, 2024). Taken together, these findings underscore emerging adulthood as a critical period in which social and psychological factors shape aggressive behaviors.

Hegemonic Masculinity

Hegemonic masculinity (HM) refers to traditional masculine norms such as dominance, strength, and pride (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Parrott, 2018). It is linked to behaviors that reinforce male dominance (Van Doorn et al., 2021), hostility toward women (Gallagher & Parrott, 2011), sexual aggression (Murnen et al., 2002), and overt aggression (Weisbuch et al., 1999). It functions by legitimizing socially sanctioned masculine behaviors and maintaining gendered hierarchy. Engaging in these behaviors can also serve as a compensatory response to broader social and structural conditions, such as economic disenfranchisement and racial inequality (Jeffrey et al., 2024). These processes are especially relevant during emerging adulthood, when masculine ideals are consolidated as young men negotiate socially acceptable behaviors and incorporate them into their identities (Arnett & Mitra, 2020; Lee, 2007).

The association between masculinity constructs and aggression is well established (Gallagher & Parrott, 2011; Lee et al., 2025). Preliminary U.S. survey data from 344 men show that conformity to traditional masculine norms predicts overall aggression more strongly than implicit aggressive cognition (Wieczorek, 2018). Recent work by Najström et al. (2026) similarly found that key dimensions of masculinity, that is, Dominance, Toughness, and Restrictive Emotionality, were strongly associated with aggression among men aged 18 to 40. Dominance and Toughness predicted higher physical aggression, while Restrictive Emotionality was linked to interpersonal mistrust, a precursor to hostile behavior. Although associations with VA were weaker, the findings indicate that hegemonic masculine ideals emphasizing control, emotional suppression, and physical strength contribute meaningfully to aggressive tendencies.

Although this study focuses on HM, the link between masculinity and aggression has long been recognized, including earlier work on hostile masculinity. Malamuth’s Confluence Model (Malamuth et al., 1991) conceptualized hostile masculinity, that is, negative masculinity traits, hostility toward women, and adversarial sexual beliefs, and demonstrated its strong association with both sexual and nonsexual aggression against women. Recent work by Sutton (2024) supports this pattern, showing that hostile masculinity, male peer support for violence, and problematic anger predicted intimate partner violence. Although hostile masculinity and HM are distinct, both emphasize dominance and power as central drivers of aggression. Jeffrey et al. (2024) further argue that many masculinity frameworks remain overly individualistic and culturalist, calling instead for approaches that situate masculinity within broader social structures, as HM theory does. This perspective supports examining how HM may intersect with psychological factors, such as empathy, in shaping aggressive behavior.

Verbal Aggression

VA is often examined within broader aggression research, which distinguishes forms of aggression such as physical aggression, emotional aggression, and property damage (Walker & Richardson, 1998). Although related, these forms are conceptually distinct, and examining their predictors separately refines our understanding of aggression as a construct (Kyranides et al., 2024). Existing work has largely focused on intimate partner relationships (e.g., Manning et al., 2018) and gender differences (e.g., Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), leaving gaps in knowledge about VA in non-intimate contexts. Moreover, triggers identified in couple relationships, such as empathy and HM, may not operate similarly in everyday interactions with non-intimate partners.

Research on empathy and VA has produced mixed findings. Some studies report a negative association. For example, Clements et al. (2007) found that lower empathy is associated with a more violent attitude toward intimate partners, and Stuewig et al. (2010) observed similar effects across three samples, with the strongest link among undergraduate students (M = 20 years). In contrast, the meta-analysis of Vachon et al. (2014) of 86 studies concluded that the relationship between empathy and aggression is generally weak and inconsistent. Other work likewise reported null findings; for instance, Yeo et al. (2011) found no association between empathy and VA in boys aged 9 to 14, and Jolliffe and Farrington (2006) found no significant association among adolescent men who experienced name-calling. More recent studies further complicate this picture. Lacko et al. (2024) reported that VA was positively correlated with affective empathy but not with cognitive empathy among Czech adolescents, whereas Atta et al. (2025) reported that VA positively predicted empathy scores among psychiatric nurses. Taken together, these inconsistencies suggest that additional variables, such as masculinity constructs, may influence the empathy–VA relationship.

Although HM is a strong predictor of general aggression (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), its role in VA is less clear. Harrington et al. (2021) found that men with low relationship power exhibited more physical aggression only when experiencing high masculine gender role stress (MGRS). Similarly, Cohn et al. (2009) reported that men who perceived masculinity threats were more likely to suppress emotions and behave aggressively. Consistent with HM theory, Franchina et al. (2001) found that men with higher MGRS were more verbally aggressive toward female partners when their masculinity was challenged. These findings underscore the need to examine HM’s impact on VA beyond intimate contexts. Indeed, preliminary U.S. survey data suggest that endorsement of HM norms, particularly toughness and restrictive emotionality, is associated with VA, albeit with modest effects (Wieczorek, 2018). Qualitative evidence from Indonesia likewise shows that toxic masculine norms drive verbal abuse and controlling behaviors in romantic relationships, reinforcing the link between rigid masculine ideals and aggression (Dewi & Umaroh, 2025).

Empathy, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Verbal Aggression

Although HM generally predicts greater aggression, empathy is typically viewed as protective (Björkqvistet al., 2000), but only when subsequent thoughts do not override empathic concern or promote unethical responses (Wang et al., 2017). HM may help explain inconsistent findings in the empathy–VA literature (Miller et al., 2012). For example, Gabbiadini et al. (2016) found that men who endorsed HM showed lower empathy toward female victims and more aggressive behavior, although their reliance on video game paradigms limits generalizability. Ferguson and Donnellan (2017) later critiqued these results, noting potential confounds such as game popularity and immersion. Aloia and Pederson (2021) likewise reported that individuals with a history of family VA exhibit higher trait anger but not necessarily lower empathy, suggesting that masculinity-related constructs shape these dynamics. Similarly, Lisak and Ivan (1995) found that sexually aggressive men demonstrated lower empathy and stronger endorsement of rigid gender norms, illustrating how hypermasculine socialization can erode empathy and increase aggression risk.

Despite evidence linking HM and empathy to aggression separately, to the authors’ knowledge, no research has examined whether HM moderates the empathy–VA relationship during emerging adulthood. Given HM’s established association with aggression (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), it may act as a contextual factor in shaping this relationship. Relatively recent Australian population data indicate that these traditional masculine norms remain widely endorsed and are perceived as constraining emotional expression and contributing to social harms (Flood, 2020). These cultural patterns underscore the ongoing relevance of HM in shaping men’s behavior and emotional regulation, reinforcing the need to explore how HM interacts with psychological factors such as empathy. Understanding this interaction may clarify the combined influence of empathy and HM on VA and inform more effective interventions for reducing aggression in this population.

Theoretical Framework

The General Aggression Model (GAM; Anderson & Bushman, 2002) offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the processes underlying aggressive behavior and has been applied to VA perpetration (e.g., Becher et al., 2025). GAM conceptualizes aggression as a dynamic sequence consisting of inputs, routes, and outcomes. Inputs include person factors such as personality traits, attitudes, and beliefs, and situational factors like provocation and anger-eliciting events. These inputs influence internal routes (cognition, affect, and arousal), which shape appraisal processes and ultimately guide behavioral outcomes.

In our hypothesized model, low empathy is treated as a person factor input because it represents a relatively stable trait that undermines perspective-taking and reduces inhibitory control, increasing vulnerability to aggression (Wang et al., 2017). HM, while also originating as a person factor, is conceptualized as an internal route that moderates this effect. Specifically, the association between low empathy and VA is expected to be stronger at higher levels of HM, as HM activates hostile cognitive schemas and affective routes tied to gendered dominance, thereby amplifying aggressive tendencies when cognitive resources for reappraisal are limited. This model aligns with evidence that person factors influence aggressive cognition and affect (Kersten & Greitemeyer, 2024) and that cognitive reappraisal can reduce aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Conversely, entrenched HM beliefs combined with low empathy heighten the likelihood of an aggressive outcome (Murnen et al., 2002).

Aims and Hypotheses

The present study aimed to examine the relationships between empathy, HM, and VA to extend current understanding and clarify misconceptions about factors that predict VA. Drawing on prior research (e.g., Richardson et al., 1998) and the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), it was hypothesized that higher empathy would be associated with lower VA, whereas stronger endorsement of HM would be associated with higher VA. It was further hypothesized that HM would moderate the relationship between empathy and VA such that men with low empathy would exhibit greater VA, particularly when they strongly endorse HM norms.

Method

Participants

Of the 237 initial responses, 106 were excluded for ineligibility, bot-like responses, or dropout, and 22 were removed due to substantial missing data. The final sample comprised 109 Australian men (M = 24.3; SD = 3.53; range 18–29 years). Eligibility required identifying as a man, being 18 to 29 years old, and residing in Australia.

Materials

The current study forms part of a larger project, and only the materials relevant to the present analyses are described below.

Masculinity

Hegemonic masculinity was measured using the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-29 (CMNI-29; Hsu & Iwamoto, 2014), a 29-item measure organized into eight subscales, namely Playboy, Self-Reliance, Emotional Control, Winning, Violence, Heterosexual Self-Presentation, Risk-Taking, and Power Over Women. Items (e.g., Women should be subservient to men) were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = Strongly Disagree, 3 = Strongly Agree). Higher scores reflect greater conformity to traditional masculine norms. Total scores were calculated by summing the scores across all scales and range from 0 to 87. Internal consistency in the present study was excellent (α = .943).

Verbal Aggression

The 8-item VA subscale of the Anger Response Inventory (ARI; Tangney et al., 1991, 1996) assessed participants’ likelihood of responding with VA to anger-eliciting scenarios. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Not Likely to 5 = Very Likely), yielding scores from 8 to 40, with higher scores indicating more VA. Internal consistency was excellent (α = .923).

Empathy

Empathy was measured using the perspective-taking and empathetic concern subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983), representing cognitive and affective components of empathy most consistently linked to aggression-related outcomes (Vachon et al., 2014). Each subscale includes seven items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = Doesn’t describe me at all to 4 = Describes me very well). Total empathy scores were calculated by summing the items. Scores range from 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating greater empathy. Internal consistency was excellent (α = .929).

Procedure

Ethics approval was obtained from the relevant university’s Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants completed an online Qualtrics survey and were recruited through advertisements on social media (e.g., Facebook) and websites (e.g., Survey Circle) as well as through snowball and convenience sampling. The advertisement link directed interested individuals to the survey.

After accessing the survey, participants viewed an information statement, and informed consent was implied by choosing to continue. They provided demographic information (e.g., gender identity, age) followed by the ARI, IRI, and CMNI, presented in random order. A debriefing statement appeared at the end. The survey took approximately 20 min to complete.

Data were collected in two waves, in 2021 and again in 2025, to increase sample size. Core materials and recruitment methods were consistent, but the location item was revised, and the Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale (AICS; Shulruf et al., 2011) was included only in 2021 and omitted in 2025. AICS data were not used in the present analyses.

Data Analysis

Analyses were conducted using jamovi version 2.7.14.0. Independent t-tests and Two One-Sided Tests compared the 2021 and 2025 samples. All key variables differed significantly and failed equivalence tests. Therefore, the year of data collection was included as a control variable in all subsequent models. Descriptive statistics and correlations were computed, followed by a moderated regression analysis testing whether HM moderated empathy–VA relationship.

Results

Missing value analysis indicated that no variables were missing. The assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, independence, and multicollinearity were examined and found to be satisfied. Descriptive statistics for each of the scales of interest are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for the Scales of Interest.

Variable	n	M	SD	Range
IRI	109	30.2	12.3	3–52
CMNI-29	109	43.9	14.7	12–76
ARI	109	19.8	8.06	8–38

Note. IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index; CMNI-29 = Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-29; ARI = Anger Response Inventory.

Pearson’s product–moment correlations were conducted to test Hypothesis 1 (empathy–VA relationship) and Hypothesis 2 (HM–VA relationship). As expected, there was a strong statistically significant negative association between empathy and VA, r = −.761, p < .001 (Hypothesis 1). As predicted, HM was strongly and positively associated with VA, r = .687, p < .001 (Hypothesis 2).

Moderation Analysis

A moderation analysis was conducted using jamovi version 2.7.14.0 to examine whether HM moderated the relationship between empathy and VA. The overall model explained 71.0% of the variance in VA, F (4, 104) = 63.6, p < .001, R² = .710. As shown in Table 2, empathy was significantly associated with VA (β = -0.491, p < .001), such that higher empathy was related to lower VA. Similarly, HM was also significantly associated with VA (β = 0.262, p = .002), indicating that greater conformity to masculine norms was associated with higher VA. Notably, the interaction between HM and empathy was significant (β = −.185, p = .004), indicating that HM moderated the relationship between empathy and VA. ANOVA results showed that the interaction explained a meaningful proportion of the variance, η²ₚ = .079.

Table 2.

Summary of Moderated Regression Analyses for Empathy and Hegemonic Masculinity Predicting Verbal Aggression.

Variable	B [95% CI]	SE (B)	t	p
Constant	18.515 [17.407, 19.623]	.559	33.139	<.001
Year	−2.779 [−4.757, −0.801]	.998	−2.786	.006
Empathy	−.323 [−0.435, −0.211]	.056	−5.711	<.001
HM	0.144 [−0.052, 0.236]	.046	3.114	.002
Empathy x HM	−0.008 [−0.014, −0.003]	.003	−2.980	.004

Note. HM = Hegemonic Masculinity; SE = standard error; N = 108.

Simple effects analysis (Figure 1) showed that the negative association between empathy and VA was significant at all levels of HM. At low HM levels, the negative association between empathy and VA was modest, F(1, 104) = 7.11, p = .009, η²ₚ = .064; β = −0.306. At average levels of HM, the association was stronger, F(1, 104) = 32.62, p < .001, η²ₚ = .39; β = −0.491. Finally, at high levels of HM, the association was strongest, F(1, 104) = 49.23, p < .001, η²ₚ = .321; β = −0.676.

Figure 1.

Changes in verbal aggression at different levels of hegemonic masculinity and empathy.

Taken together, these results highlight the influential role of HM. Men who strongly endorse HM tend to report higher levels of VA overall, and the inverse association between empathy and VA become increasingly pronounced as endorsement of HM increases.

Discussion

Drawing on the GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), this study examined how empathy and HM relate to VA among emerging adult men, and whether HM moderates the empathy–VA association. As hypothesized, empathy was inversely associated with VA, HM was positively associated with VA, and HM moderated the relationship between empathy and VA, with empathy being less protective at higher levels of HM.

Empathy and Verbal Aggression

The inverse empathy–VA aligns with prior research showing that empathy reduces hostile interpretations and aggressive responding (e.g., Björkqvist et al., 2000; Richardson et al., 1994). This contrasts with studies reporting no association (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Yeo et al., 2011), which may reflect developmental and methodological differences.

Emerging adulthood is marked by autonomy-seeking and identity exploration (Vleioras & Galanaki, 2024), and such self-focus may heighten sensitivity to perceived threats and potentially increase VA when independence is constrained, while also fostering empathy through frequent social negotiation. Neurodevelopmental evidence similarly suggests that during emerging adulthood, earlier maturation of limbic reward systems relative to prefrontal control regions responsible for judgment and impulse control increases risk-taking and aggression, whereas growing neural connectivity enhances social cognition (i.e., understanding how people interact) and sensitivity to others’ social signals and mental states (Rudling et al., 2023). These may explain how empathy helps buffer impulsive, hostility-prone responses by improving perspective-taking and reducing hostile attribution.

The stronger empathy–VA effect observed in the current study compared to Stuewig et al. (2010) may reflect the use of validated self-report measures (IRI, ARI), which assess typical responses rather than retrospective recall or hypothetical vignettes that can introduce memory biases or reduce ecological validity (e.g., Baez, 2017; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). Measurement choice likely influences effect sizes and should be considered in future research.

Hegemonic Masculinity and Verbal Aggression

The positive association between HM and VA supports prior research linking traditional masculine norms to hostility and status-driven behaviors (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Gallagher & Parrott, 2011). Consistent with Najström et al. (2026), masculinity was associated with VA, although this relationship was weaker than that observed with physical aggression. Both the current study and Najström et al. (2026) underscore that hegemonic masculine norms emphasizing control and emotional suppression appear to increase aggression risk. These findings align with social dominance theory in which aggression can service to maintain hierarchical status (Jewkes et al., 2015).

These findings extend prior research on HM’s role in physical aggression (Peralta et al., 2010) and aggression in intimate partner contexts (Dewi & Umaroh, 2025; Gabbiadini et al., 2016) to general verbal hostility. This supports theoretical perspectives that situate masculinity within social hierarchies, where assertive or aggressive communication may function to claim or defend status (Bosson, 2025; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Jewkes et al., 2015).

Moderating Role of Hegemonic Masculinity

A central contribution of this study is the finding that HM significantly moderated the relationship between empathy and VA, albeit the interaction accounted for only a modest proportion of variance in VA. Empathy was least protective for men who strongly endorse HM, consistent with evidence that hypermasculine beliefs suppress empathic responding and heighten aggression (Gabbiadini et al., 2016; Lisak & Ivan, 1995). Although contemporary masculinities are becoming more inclusive, HM remains influential, particularly in reinforcing emotional restraint and dominance (Connor et al., 2021). Thus, although the magnitude of the moderation effect is small, HM meaningfully shapes the interpersonal conditions under which empathy reduces verbal aggression.

Current findings align with the GAM, in which empathy operates as a person-level input promoting adaptive appraisal and emotion regulation, whereas HM activates dominance-oriented cognitive scripts and affect, constraining the inhibitory routes through which empathy typically operates. Consequently, although HM does not negate empathy’s protective benefits altogether, it reduces its effectiveness, increasing the likelihood of aggressive interpretations and verbalized anger under conditions of low or moderate empathy.

Significance and Implications

From a theoretical perspective, findings reinforce GAM-based models (Allen et al., 2018; Anderson & Bushman, 2002) by showing how cognitive–emotional dispositions and social norms jointly shape aggressive behavior. Empathy may reduce hostile attribution and support reappraisal, whereas HM may elevate dominance motives and moral disengagement, biasing appraisal toward confrontation, verbally aggressive responding (Miller et al., 2012). From a practical standpoint, interventions should move beyond single-focused approaches. Current efforts often emphasize empathy training (Beauchamp & Anderson, 2010) or challenging traditional masculinity norms separately (Jewkes et al., 2015). However, the moderating effect of HM suggests that these interventions may be insufficient if implemented separately. Initiatives integrating empathy-building with masculinity-focused approaches, such as The Man Cave (2021) and King County Government (2020), demonstrate the effectiveness of combining critical reflection on masculinity norms with cognitive–behavioral strategies that foster emotional regulation and empathy. Implementation should account for age-relevant contexts (e.g., emerging adulthood) and settings where verbal hostility is prevalent (e.g., education, customer-facing workplaces, online environments).

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be considered. First, the current study’s cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences. Future research should employ longitudinal or experimental designs to establish causal inferences. It can also help clarify how HM and empathy jointly shape patterns of aggressive behavior across developmental and situational contexts. Second, the modest sample size drawn from men in Australia limits generalizability. Replication with larger, more diverse populations is warranted. Third, only basic demographic variables were collected, constraining analyses of intersectional influences, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and religion.

A broader limitation of HM research is the lack of cross-cultural validation. Studies show notable differences in masculinity endorsement across countries (e.g., Lease et al., 2013). Cross-cultural research also demonstrates that societal norms shape aggression prevalence and perception, with higher power distance and collectivism associated with lower self-reported aggression (Rafferty, 2025). Anthropological work likewise highlights culturally specific expressions of masculinity and male violence (Martin, 2021), suggesting HM–aggression dynamics are not universal. Future research should therefore examine collectivistic and non-Western contexts to determine whether the HM–empathy–VA relationship is universal or culturally contingent.

Finally, although data were collected during two periods and the year of collection was controlled, caution is warranted when generalizing beyond this design.

Conclusion

HM significantly moderated the relationship between empathy and VA in emerging adult Australian men. While empathy generally reduces VA, its protective effect weakened among men who strongly endorse hegemonic masculine norms. Consistent with the GAM, these findings highlight the interplay between cognitive–emotional traits and socio-cultural norms in shaping aggression, demonstrating the need for integrated interventions that combine empathy-building strategies with positive masculinity approaches and cross-cultural research.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Marshall Valencia

Ma. Regina L. de Gracia

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval for this study was received from the Human Resource Ethics Committee of Federation University Australia.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study via an acknowledgment section in the online survey.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Author Biographies

Charlotte Barrass, MPP is a senior clinician at Berry Street Victoria. She completed her master’s degree in professional psychology from La Trobe University in 2025. She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in clinical psychology. Her current research interests include aggression, childhood trauma, and child development. Her email address is charlotte.barrass@outlook.com.

Marshall Valencia, PhD is an assistant professor at the University of the Philippines. He completed his doctoral degree in Social-Organizational Psychology from the Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines, in 2010. His current research interests include employee engagement and well-being in the organizational context. His email address is mnvalencia@up.edu.ph.

Garry Power, PhD is a lecturer at Federation University Australia. He completed his doctoral degree in Psychology (Cognitive Psychology) from Griffith University, Australia in 2018. His research interest is in applied cognitive psychology. His primary research interest has been in exploring the implications of cognitive psychology in the teaching of statistics. He is also interested in investigating the practical consequences of cognitive change in older adults. His email address is g.power@federation.edu.au.

Ma. Regina L. de Gracia, PhD is a lecturer at Federation University Australia. She completed her doctoral degree in Psychology (Developmental Psychology) from the University of Sydney, Australia, in 2017. Her current research interests include social cognition, emotion understanding, theory of mind, mental health, and psychological well-being. Her email address is r.degracia@federation.edu.au.

References

ABS. (2016). Statistics for family, domestic, sexual violence, physical assault, partner emotional abuse, child abuse, sexual harassment, stalking and safety. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/2016#data-download

Acquadro Maran

Varetto

Civilotti

Magnavita

. (2022). Prevalence and consequences of verbal aggression among bank workers: A survey into an Italian banking institution. Administrative Sciences, 12(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12030078

Allen

J. J.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2018). The general aggression model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.034

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

Aloia

L. S.

Pederson

(2021). Dispositional forgiveness in emerging adulthood: The influence of family verbal aggression, trait anger, and empathetic concern. Western Journal of Communication, 85(5), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2021.1961014

Arnett

J. J.

Mitra

(2020). Are the features of emerging adulthood developmentally distinctive? A comparison of ages 18–60 in the United States. Emerging Adulthood, 8(5), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696818810073

Arnett

J. J.

Žukauskienė

Sugimura

(2014). The new life stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18-29 years: Implications for mental health. Lancet Psychiatry, 1(7), 569–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(14)00080-7

Atta

M.H.R.

Eweida

R.S.

Albzia

El-Monshed

A.H.

Barakat

M.M.A.

(2025). Unveiling hidden trauma: A cross-sectional study of violence exposure and its impacts on entrapment, self-stigma and empathic care among psychiatric nurses. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 0, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.13160

Baez

Flichtentrei

Prats

Mastandueno

Garcia

A. M.

Cetkovich

Ibanez

(2017). Men, women. . .who cares? A population-based study on sex differences and gender roles in empathy and moral cognition. PLoS ONE, 12(6), 179–336. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179336

10.

Barlett

Coyne

S. M.

(2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in cyber-bullying behavior: The moderating role of age. Aggressive Behavior, 40(5), 474–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21555

11.

Baskin-Sommers

Krusemark

Ronningstam

(2014). Empathy in narcissistic personality disorder: From clinical and empirical perspectives. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(3), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000061

12.

Beauchamp

M. H.

Anderson

(2010). SOCIAL: An integrative framework for the development of social skills. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017768

13.

Becher

Mehlkop

Sattler

(2025). Aggressive behavior and social status: An experimental test of the general aggression model. Social Science Research, 131, 103224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2025.103224

14.

Baumeister

R. F.

Lobbestael

(2011). Emotions and antisocial behavior. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22(5), 635–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2011.617535

15.

Björkqvist

Österman

Kaukiainen

(2000). Social intelligence − empathy = aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00029-9

16.

Bosson

J. K.

(2025). Gender identity and aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 76, 635–661. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020124-115456

17.

Clements

Holtzworth-Munroe

Schweinle

Ickes

(2007). Empathic accuracy of intimate partners in violent versus nonviolent relationships. Personal Relationships, 14(3), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00161.x

18.

Cohn

A. M.

Seibert

L. A.

Zeichner

(2009). The role of restrictive emotionality, trait anger, and masculinity threat in men’s perpetration of physical aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(3), 218–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015151

19.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

20.

Connor

Edvardsson

Fisher

Spelten

(2021). Perceptions and interpretation of contemporary masculinities in Western Culture: A systematic review. American Journal of Men’s Health, 15(6), 15579883211061009. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883211061009

21.

Crick

N. R.

Grotpeter

J. K.

(1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x

22.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00860.x

23.

Dewi

A. Z.

Umaroh

A. K.

(2025). The phenomenon of toxic masculinity on violence in a romantic relationship status. AL MA’ARIEF: Jurnal Pendidikan Sosial dan Budaya, 7(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.35905/almaarief.v7i1.11006

24.

Ferguson

Donnellan

(2017). Are associations between “sexist” video games and decreased empathy toward women robust? A reanalysis of Gabbiadini et al. 2016. A Multidisciplinary Research Publication, 46(12), 2446–2459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0700-x

25.

Franchina

J. J.

Eisler

R. M.

Moore

T. M.

(2001). Masculine gender role stress and intimate abuse: Effects of masculine gender relevance of dating situations and female threat on men’s attributions and affective responses. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.2.1.34

26.

Flood

(2020). Masculinities and health: Attitudes towards men and masculinities in Australia. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth).

27.

Gabbiadini

Riva

Andrighetto

Volpato

Bushman

B. J.

(2016). Acting like a tough guy: Violent-sexist video games, identification with game characters, masculine beliefs, and empathy for female violence victims. PLoS ONE, 11(4), e0152121. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152121

28.

Gallagher

K. E.

Parrott

D. J.

(2011). What accounts for men’s hostile attitudes toward women? The influence of hegemonic male role norms and masculine gender role stress. Violence Against Women, 17(5), 568–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211407296

29.

Gao

Y.X.

Wang

J.Y.

Dong

G.H.

(2022). The prevalence and possible risk factors of internet gaming disorder among adolescents and young adults: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Journal of Psychiatric Research, 154, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.06.049.

30.

Harrington

A. G.

Overall

N. C.

Cross

E. J.

(2021). Masculine gender role stress, low relationship power, and aggression toward intimate partners. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000262

31.

Hsu

Iwamoto

D. K.

(2014). Testing for measurement invariance in the conformity to masculine norms-46 across white and Asian American college men: Development and validity of the CMNI-29. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(4), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034548

32.

Jeffrey

N. K.

Rice

Smoliak

(2024). Looking back and looking forward: Men and masculinity in psychological research on violence against women. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 25(4), 418–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000483

33.

Jewkes

Morrell

Hearn

Lundqvist

Blackbeard

Lindegger

Gottzén

(2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(2), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094

34.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32(6), 540–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20154

35.

Karatepe

O. M.

Yorgancı

İ.

Haktanır

(2009). Outcomes of customer verbal aggression among hotel employees. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21(6), 713–733. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110910975972

36.

Kersten

Greitemeyer

(2024). Human aggression in everyday life: An empirical test of the general aggression model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(3), 1091–1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12718

37.

King County Government. (2020, October 16). Step-up program curriculum. https://kingcounty.gov/courts/superior-court/juvenile/step-up.aspx

38.

Kyranides

M.N.

Mirman

J.H.

Sawrikar

(2024). Verbal, physical and relational aggression: Individual differences in emotion and cognitive regulation strategies. Current Psychology, 43, 17673–17683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05724-z

39.

Lacko

Machackova

Smahel

(2024). Does violence in video games impact aggression and empathy? A longitudinal study of Czech adolescents to differentiate within- and between-person effects. Computers in Human Behavior, 159, 108341, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108341

40.

Lease

Montes

Baggett

Sawyer

Fleming-Norwood

Hampton

Ovrebo

Çiftçi

Boyraz

(2013). A cross-cultural exploration of masculinity and relationships in men from Turkey, Norway, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 84–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111432293

41.

Lee

(2007). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199929382.001.0001

42.

Lee

Gillani

Voith

(2025). Navigating masculinities and bullying: Perspectives of violence-exposed adolescent boys. Children & Society, 39(6), 1107–1121. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12980

43.

Lisak

Ivan

(1995). Deficits in intimacy and empathy in sexually aggressive men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(3), 296-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626095010003004

44.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

Giordano

P. C.

(2018). Cohabitation and intimate partner violence during emerging adulthood: High constraints and low commitment. Journal of Family Issues, 39(4), 1030–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16686132

45.

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

46.

Martin

(2021). Violence and masculinity in small-scale societies. Current Anthropology, 62(S23), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1086/711689

47.

Mata

A. D.

van Dulmen

M. H. M.

(2012). Adult-onset antisocial behavior trajectories: Associations with adolescent family processes and emerging adulthood functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511416467

48.

McMahon

S. D.

Worrell

F. C.

Reddy

L. A.

Martinez

Espelage

D. L.

Astor

R. A.

Anderman

E. M.

Valido

Swenski

Perry

A. H.

Dudek

C. M.

Bare

(2024). Violence and aggression against educators and school personnel, retention, stress, and training needs: National survey results. American Psychologist, 79(7), 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001348

49.

Miller

J. D.

Zeichner

Wilson

L. F.

(2012). Personality correlates of aggression: Evidence from measures of the five-factor model, UPPS model of impulsivity, and BIS/BAS. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(14), 2903–2919. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512438279

50.

Wieczorek

(2018). The relationship between hegemonic masculinity and cognitive thought processes in predicting aggressive behavior in men (Honors thesis, University of South Dakota). University of South Dakota RED. https://red.library.usd.edu/honors-thesis/34

51.

Murnen

Wright

Kaluzny

(2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46(11), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020488928736

52.

Najström

Chamoun

Lindqvist

(2026). Traditional masculinity and aggressive behavior: The influence of gender norms and educational attainment. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1638171. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1638171

53.

NSW Government. (2019, September 24). Types of abuse in family violence. https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/domestic-violence/about/types-of-abuse-in-dv

54.

Leone

R. M.

Parrott

D. J.

(2018). Hegemonic masculinity and aggression (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315618777-3

55.

Peralta

Tuttle

Steele

(2010). At the intersection of interpersonal violence, masculinity, and alcohol use: The experiences of heterosexual male perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 16(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210363539

56.

Rafferty

(2025). The moderating role of societal cultural values and practices on the relationship between workplace aggression and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Journal, 35(3), 754–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12593

57.

Richardson

D. R.

Green

L. R.

Lago

(1998). The relationship between perspective-taking and nonaggressive responding in the face of an attack. Journal of Personality, 66(2), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00011

58.

Richardson

D. R.

Hammock

G. S.

Smith

S. M.

Gardner

Signo

(1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20(4), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1994)20:4

59.

Roeser

K. A.

Somers

C. L.

Mangus

L. R.

(2019). Emerging adults’ risk-taking behaviors: Personal and social predictors. Journal of Adult Development, 26(4), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-018-9318-9

60.

Rudling

Shelley

Chuah

S.-H.

Hoffmann

Lang

(2023). Emergent adulthood: Review of literature. Tasmanian Behavioural Lab, University of Tasmania. https://www.ynot.org.au/resources/emergent-adulthood-review

61.

Safe Work Australia. (2024, August). Workplace and work-related violence and aggression in Australia. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au

62.

Sergeant

M. J. T.

Dickins

T. E.

Davies

M. N. O.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2006). Aggression, empathy and sexual orientation in males. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(3), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.002

63.

Silva

Maia

B. R.

(2024). Use of videogames, internet gaming disorder, and aggressiveness in emerging adulthood. European Psychiatry, 67, S397–S833. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.814

64.

Shulruf

Alesi

Ciochina

Faria

Hattie

Hong

Watkins

(2011). Measuring collectivism and individualism in the third millennium. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2011.39.2.173

65.

Smith

D. E.

Moore

T. M.

(2013). Family violence and aggression and their associations with psychosocial functioning in Jamaican adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 34(6), 745–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12450841

66.

Stuewig

Tangney

J. P.

Heigel

Harty

McCloskey

(2010). Shaming, blaming, and maiming: Functional links among the moral emotions, externalization of blame, and aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.12.005

67.

Sun

Chen

V. H. H.

(2025). Toxic behavior in multiplayer online games: The role of witnessed verbal aggression, game engagement intensity, and social self-efficacy. Chinese Journal of Communication, 18(4), 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2024.2425662

68.

Sutton

T. E.

(2024). Hostile masculinity, male peer support for violence, and problematic anger: Linking childhood abuse to men’s partner violence perpetration. Violence Against Women, 31(9), 2264–2287. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012241252013

69.

Tangney

J. P.

Hill-Barlow

Wagner

P. E.

Marschall

D. E.

Borenstein

J. K.

Sanftner

Gramzow

(1996). Assessing individual differences in constructive versus destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 780–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.780

70.

Tangney

J. P.

Wagner

P. E.

Marschall

Gramzow

(1991). The Anger Response Inventory (ARI). George Mason University.

71.

The Man Cave. (n.d.). Our programs. https://themancave.life/our-programs/

72.

Vachon

D. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Johnson

J. A.

(2014). The (non)relation between empathy and aggression: Surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 751–773. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035236

73.

Van a

Dye

de Gracia

M. R

. (2021). Daddy issues: Friends rather than fathers influence adult men’s hegemonic masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110467

74.

Van Doorn

Dye

de Gracia

M. R.

(2021). Daddy issues: Friends rather than fathers influence adult men’s hegemonic masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110467

75.

Walker

Richardson

D. R.

(1998). Aggression strategies among older adults: Delivered but not seen. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(3), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(96)00029-8

76.

Victorian Public Sector Commission. (2024). Employees who experienced aggression or violence 2024. https://www.vpsc.vic.gov.au/public-sector-data/data-sets-and-reports/past-releases/2024-workforce-data-state-public-sector/employee-experiences-workplace/negative-behaviours/employees-who-experienced-aggression-or-violence-2024

77.

Vleioras

Galanaki

E. P.

(2024). Comparison of adulthood criteria endorsed by emerging adults and their parents in Greece: A mixed-method study. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 185(5), 366–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2024.2316802

78.

Wang

Lei

Yang

Gao

Zhao

(2017). Moral disengagement as mediator and moderator of the relation between empathy and aggression among Chinese male juvenile delinquents. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 48(2), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0643-6

79.

Weisbuch

Beal

O’Neal

. (1999). How masculine ought I be? Men’s masculinity and aggression. A Journal of Research, 40(7), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018840130646

80.

Work Safe Australia. (2025, November 19). Workplace Bullying and the Law. https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/workplace-bullying-and-law

81.

Wright

M. F.

(2013). Normative beliefs about aggression and cyber aggression among young adults: A longitudinal investigation. Aggressive Behavior, 39(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21470

82.

Yavuzer

Albayrak

Kılıçarslan

(2019). Relationships amongst aggression, self-theory, loneliness, and depression in emerging adults. Psychological Reports, 122(4), 1235–1258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118784866

83.

Yeo

L. S.

Ang

R. P.

Loh

K. J.

Karre

J. K.

(2011). The role of affective and cognitive empathy in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression of a Singaporean sample of boys. Journal of Psychology, 145(4), 313–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.568986

Hegemonic Masculinity Moderates the Relationship Between Empathy and Verbal Aggression in Emerging Adult Men

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Emerging Adulthood

Hegemonic Masculinity

Verbal Aggression

Empathy, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Verbal Aggression

Theoretical Framework

Aims and Hypotheses

Method

Participants

Materials

Masculinity

Verbal Aggression

Empathy

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Moderation Analysis

Discussion

Empathy and Verbal Aggression

Hegemonic Masculinity and Verbal Aggression

Moderating Role of Hegemonic Masculinity

Significance and Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Author Biographies

References