Wahring, Simpson, and Van Lange propose a novel and comprehensive model to explain why men (compared to women) benefit more from romantic relationships across all stages, from initiating a relationship to after it has ended. We generally agree with this analysis and the argument relating to men’s greater dependence on their female romantic partner for intimacy and emotional support. However, the model remains relatively silent on the social-cognitive mechanisms that contribute to men’s relationship maintenance behaviors, which in turn help them sustain romantic relationships.

Drawing on recent work highlighting how moral cognition is shaped by relationships (e.g., Earp et al., Reference Earp, McLoughlin, Monrad, Clark and Crockett2021; Rai & Fiske, Reference Rai and Fiske2011; Weidman et al., Reference Weidman, Sowden, Berg and Kross2020), we propose an important extension of Wahring, Simpson, and Van Lange’s model to the realm of moral cognition in romantic relationships. We argue that it is crucial for psychological research to examine which psychological outcomes contribute to men’s efforts to maintain romantic relationships – especially if both gender stereotypes and empirical findings link the female, rather than the male, gender more strongly to communion (Horne & Johnson, Reference Horne and Johnson2019; Liebler & Sandefur, Reference Liebler and Sandefur2002). Specifically, we argue that men can utilize partner-serving moral cognition when it comes to everyday transgressions, such that they should be more inclined to accept their female partners’ mundane norm violations in the relationship. Extending Wahring, Simpson, and Van Lange’s model, this kind of flexible moral cognition ultimately can help men to sustain romantic relationships from which they benefit more.

Previous work in moral psychology has often focused on the self-serving function of moral cognition and behavior (Monin & Merritt, Reference Monin, Merritt, Mikulincer and Shaver2012). Moral double standards (i.e., hypocrisy) are a prototypical example of such self-serving morality (e.g., Lammers, Stapel, & Galinsky, Reference Lammers, Stapel and Galinsky2010). According to this work, people judge others’ moral transgressions more harshly than their own, potentially signaling high moral standards while reaping the benefits of transgressing themselves (e.g., Lammers et al., Reference Lammers, Stapel and Galinsky2010; Valdesolo & DeSteno, Reference Valdesolo and DeSteno2007; Weiss, Burgmer, & Mussweiler, Reference Weiss, Burgmer and Mussweiler2018). This kind of hypocritical false signaling is precisely what observers dislike about hypocrites (Jordan et al., Reference Jordan, Sommers, Bloom and Rand2017), so moral double standards are a dangerous game to play. Because of the social risks involved, people should be sensitive toward whom they show hypocritical judgment and behavior. Whereas one-time or even hypothetical interactions with strangers might pose low social risks – and therefore render self-serving hypocrisy more likely – hypocrites might run a greater risk of being detected as such within romantic and close relationships.

In line with the above argument, our own and other emerging work shows that instead of showing a self-serving bias (i.e., hypocrisy), people indeed exhibit other-serving moral double standards (i.e., hypercrisy) when judging those with whom they typically interact day-to-day – close others whom they trust (Weiss, Burgmer, & Hofmann, Reference Weiss, Michels, Burgmer, Mussweiler, Ockenfels and Hofmann2021, Reference Weiss, Burgmer and Hofmann2022). This hypercrisy effect is robust across different methodologies and relationships (i.e., romantic partners, friendships, family relations) and meaningfully moderated by beliefs that people hold about their relationships, such as whether or not the relationship works like a zero-sum game wherein one partner’s gain is the other partner’s loss (Weiss & Burgmer, Reference Weiss and Burgmer2021). We have argued that such partner-serving moral cognition underlies a functional upward spiral that serves to sustain close and meaningful relationships. If hypercrisy helps with maintaining romantic relationships, and if such relationships matter more for men than women, men should be more inclined to show hypercrisy in their romantic relationships.

Extending Wahring, Simpson, and Van Lange’s model, we therefore propose that men should show stronger partner-serving moral double standards within their heterosexual romantic relationships. Men should be more likely than women to give their partner the benefit of the doubt when they transgress (i.e., commit everyday-life norm violations), and they should also be more likely to condemn their own moral transgressions toward their partner in the relationship. Such hypercrisy may contribute to a self-sustaining “virtuous cycle” of responsive, trustworthy, cooperative, and trusting and forgiving behaviors (Crocker & Canevello, Reference Crocker, Canevello, Mikulincer, Shaver, Simpson and Dovidio2015). Therefore, stronger partner-serving moral double standards among men should ultimately be relationship-serving, making it more likely that men can maintain their romantic relationships and keep benefiting from them even in the face of asymmetrical investment and benefits.

To substantiate our claim, we have re-analyzed our own previous data (Weiss & Burgmer, Reference Weiss and Burgmer2021) and collected additional data (Burgmer & Weiss, Reference Burgmer and Weiss2025) that collectively suggests that men (compared to women) indeed show a significantly stronger hypercrisy effect toward their female romantic partners. This effect seems to be selective to romantic relationships (vs. close friendships), and it seems to be mainly driven by how men evaluate their partner’s moral transgressions: compared to women, men are more likely to give their partner the benefit of the doubt when they transgress within the relationship.

Taken together, these preliminary findings support our contention that men attune their moral judgments more strongly to their female partners’ standards and expectations with respect to typical and everyday moral transgressions in their relationship. More research is needed to examine when and how this motivated partner-serving moral cognition may clash with more problematic relationship behaviors shown by men (e.g., benevolent sexism, relationship conflicts, or even intimate partner violence; Costa et al., Reference Costa, Scharpf, Weiss, Ayanian and Bozorgmehr2024). Nevertheless, such a selective hypercrisy effect is theoretically in line with both the proposed stronger dependence of men on their female partners and with the important social-functional role of moral cognition in maintaining relationships. Moral cognition in the service of the relationship is therefore an important extension of Wahring, Simpson, and Van Lange’s model that helps shed light on how men can successfully pursue and manage to stay involved in their romantic relationships, from which they benefit more than women do.