Women's attraction to benevolent sexism: Needing relationship security predicts greater attraction to men who endorse benevolent sexism

Benevolent sexism prescribes that men should cherish and protect women in intimate relationships. Despite the romantic tone of these attitudes, prior research indicates that benevolent sexism undermines women's competence, ambition, and independence. Ambivalent sexism theory proposes that benevolent sexism is able to incur these costs because the promise of a chivalrous and protective partner offers women security in their intimate relationships. We tested this key proposition by examining whether women who intensely need relationship security—women higher in attachment anxiety—are more attracted to men who endorse benevolent sexism. Highly anxious women (N = 632) rated men described as endorsing benevolent sexism as relatively more attractive, and reported greater preferences for partners to hold benevolently sexist attitudes. These results advance understanding regarding the underlying reasons women find benevolent sexism appealing and identify who will be most vulnerable to the potential costs of benevolent sexism.     

Gender-Role Variables and Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

Two studies examined the relationships of gender-role variables to attitudes toward homosexuality. Study 1, a meta-analysis, found that endorsement of traditional gender-role beliefs, modern sexism, and hypermasculinity were related to attitudes, but that gender-role self-concept was not. Study 2 examined the relationships of endorsement of male role norms, attitudes toward women, hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, modern sexism, hypermasculinity, and hyperfemininity to attitudes toward homosexuality and self-reported antigay behaviors in a college student sample. The best predictors of attitudes were participant gender, endorsement of male role norms, attitudes toward women, benevolent sexism, and modern sexism. The best predictors of antigay behavior were participant gender and hyper-gender-role orientation; attitudes toward women and modern sexism were also predictors for men but not for women.     

Endorsement of sexist ideology in Taiwan and the United States: Social dominance orientation,right‐wing authoritarianism,and deferential family norms

Despite close relationships between men and women in daily lives, gender inequality is ubiquitous and often supported by sexist ideology. The understanding of potential bases of sexist ideology is thus important. According to Duckitt's dual‐process model (2001), different worldviews may explain different types of sexist ideology. Individuals who hold a “competitive world” worldview tend to endorse group‐based dominance. This lends itself to the endorsement of hostile sexism, because hostile sexism is an obvious form of male dominance. Conversely, individuals who hold a “dangerous world” worldview tend to adhere to social cohesion, collective security, and social traditions. This lends itself to the endorsement of benevolent sexism, because benevolent sexism values women who conform to gender norms. As predicted by Duckitt's model, research has shown that social dominance orientation, a general orientation towards the endorsement of group‐based dominance, is closely associated with hostile sexism. Furthermore, right‐wing authoritarianism, which measures adherence to social traditions, is closely associated with benevolent sexism. Due to the interdependent nature of gender relationships, the current research proposed that a relationship‐based belief in hierarchy, deferential family norms, and norms depicting proper manners among family members should predict the endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexism, after controlling for social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism. As predicted, according to student samples collected in Taiwan and the US, the endorsement of deferential family norms predicted the endorsement of hostile sexism and of benevolent sexism, respectively. In addition, among men and women, social dominance orientation predicted hostile sexism more strongly (as opposed to benevolent sexism), whereas right‐wing authoritarianism predicted benevolent sexism more strongly (as opposed to hostile sexism). Implications regarding relationship norms, social dominance orientation, right‐wing authoritarianism, and sexist ideology are discussed.     

Relationship (in)security is central to the sources and outcomes of sexist attitudes

Ambivalent sexism theory recognizes that sexist attitudes maintain gender inequalities via sociocultural and close relationship processes. This review advances established work on sociocultural processes by showing how people's need for relationship security is also central to the sources and functions of sexism. Men's hostile sexism—overtly derogatory attitudes toward women—involves insecurities about women exploiting men's relational dependence. Accordingly, men's hostile sexism predicts relational aggression when their dependence on partners is risky. Men's benevolent sexism—patronizing and protective attitudes toward women—offers men relationship security by idealizing traditional gender roles in romantic relationships. Benevolent sexism also appeals to women who seek the security of a devoted partner, but requires women to invest in their relationship at the expense of their independence. Our relationship science perspective reveals that romantic (in)security is critical to why people adopt sexist attitudes and why sexist attitudes create differential costs and benefits for women and men.     

Honey,Sweetie, Dear: Terms of Endearment Communicate,Reflect, and Reinforce Sexism Toward Adult Women

Four studies demonstrated how terms of endearment (ToE; e.g., “honey,” “dear”) communicate, reflect, and reinforce sexism toward adult women outside of close relationships. Study 1 participants reported more negative reactions to ToE as their endorsement of benevolent sexism decreased, and older women reacted more negatively than men and younger women. In Study 2, an interviewer either used or did not use ToE when interviewing women from upper-level business classes. ToE use caused women relatively low in benevolent sexism to feel less positive, warm, and competent, whereas women higher in benevolent sexism were unaffected by the use of ToE. Shifting focus to ToE users, Study 3 participants read about a day in the life of a man protagonist (Tim) who did or did not use ToE. Participants inferred that Tim more strongly endorsed sexist attitudes and hierarchy-enforcing ideologies if he used ToE than if he did not. Finally, Study 4 showed that the more participants self-reported using ToE, the more they endorsed several of these sexist attitudes and ideologies. Altogether, this research demonstrates the deleterious effects of seemingly harmless language and extends knowledge about everyday sexism through language.

     

The burden of benevolent sexism: how it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities

This study (N = 235) examines the responses of male and female participants to information about the alleged endorsement of either hostile or benevolent sexist beliefs by a sample of either men or women. We predicted that people endorsing benevolent sexist statements would be less likely to be perceived as sexist than those endorsing hostile sexist views, and examined the judgmental process through which people fail to recognize benevolent sexism as a form of prejudice. We argue that benevolent sexists do not match the mental prototype of sexist perpetrators, because they are seen as likeable. Our results confirm that because benevolent sexists are evaluated more positively than hostile sexists, they are less likely to be seen as sexists. This judgmental process occurs relatively independently of emotional responses to hostile vs. benevolent sexism. These results are discussed in terms of their relevance to the maintenance of gender inequalities. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

DON'T ROCK THE BOAT: WOMEN'S BENEVOLENT SEXISM PREDICTS FEARS OF MARITAL VIOLENCE

We examined how Spanish women's benevolent sexism (a sex-role attitude) affects their perceptions of whether a hypothetical husband will feel threatened by a wife's success at work. In a social perception study, female participants ( N  = 210) read a vignette in which a husband and his wife argued over her job promotion. Women's benevolent sexism (but not hostile sexism) predicted viewing the husband as more threatened by his wife's promotion and more likely to aggress against her (intimate partner violence). The effect of women's benevolent sexism was robust and not mitigated when specific information about the husband's attitude (traditional, egalitarian, no information) was provided. Belief that a husband would feel threatened by a wife's promotion partially mediated the relationship between women's benevolent sexism scores and their anticipation that the husband would become violent. Benevolently sexist women may embrace traditional roles in relationships in part to avoid antagonizing male partners, ultimately maintaining the status quo.     

When Women Become More Hostilely Sexist toward their Gender: The System-Justifying Effect of Benevolent Sexism

Two longitudinal studies examined the system-justifying effect of women’s benevolent sexist ideology in New Zealand female undergraduate samples. Women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism predicted longitudinal changes in hostile sexist attitudes toward their gender over 6-month (study 1; n?=?117) and 12-month (study 2; n?=?76) periods. Consistent with Ambivalent Sexism Theory, these findings indicate that women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism disarms resistance to, and increases their endorsement of, more hostile forms of sexism directed toward their gender. However, the disarming effect of benevolent sexism occurred only for women high in Right-Wing Authoritarianism (study 2), suggesting that threat-driven authoritarian motivations for collective security and social cohesion cause women to actively participate in an ideological system that perpetuates gender inequality.     

Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: the role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity

In Studies 1 and 2, after reading an acquaintance-rape but not a stranger-rape scenario, higher benevolent sexist but not hostile sexist participants blamed the victim significantly more. In Study 2, higher hostile sexist but not benevolent sexist male participants showed significantly greater proclivity to commit acquaintance (but not stranger) rape. Studies 3 and 4 supported the hypothesis that the effects of benevolent sexism and hostile sexism are mediated by different perceptions of the victim, as behaving inappropriately and as really wanting sex with the rapist. These findings show that benevolent sexism and hostile sexism underpin different assumptions about women that generate sexist reactions toward rape victims.     

Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change

The current research tests a model for understanding how benevolent sexism undermines, whereas hostile sexism promotes, social change. Study 1 (N = 99) and Study 2 (N = 92) demonstrate that exposing women to benevolent sexism decreases their engagement in collective action, whereas exposure to hostile sexism increases it. Both effects were mediated by gender-specific system justification and perceived advantages of being a woman. In Study 2, positive and negative affect also mediated these relationships. Results from Studies 3 and 4 (N = 68 and N = 37) support the causal chain described in the mediational models tested in Studies 1 and 2. Manipulations that increased gender-specific system justification (Study 3) and perceived advantages of being a woman (Study 4) reduced intentions to participate in collective action.     

Explicit but not implicit sexist beliefs predict benevolent and hostile sexist behavior

Much work has been carried out on sexist attitudes, but only little on sexist behaviors. The goal of the present research was to close this gap by testing how a variety of benevolent and hostile sexist behaviors correlate with implicit and explicit sexist attitudes. In Study 1 (N = 126), we developed implicit association tests for benevolent sexism and hostile sexism and illustrated that implicit and explicit benevolent sexist beliefs, as well as implicit and explicit hostile sexist beliefs, were positively correlated. In Study 2 (N = 83 of Study 1), we tested whether implicit and explicit benevolent and hostile sexist attitudes correlate with benevolent and hostile sexist behaviors. As expected, explicit benevolent (but not hostile) sexist attitudes predicted benevolent sexist behavior, whereas explicit hostile (but not benevolent) sexist attitudes predicted hostile sexist behavior. Implicit sexist attitudes did not predict sexist behavior. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Relational Uncertainty and Cortisol Responses to Hurtful and Supportive Messages from a Dating Partner

This paper evaluates theoretical claims linking relational uncertainty about a relationship partner to experiences of stress during interactions with that partner. Two observational studies were conducted to evaluate the association between relational uncertainty and salivary cortisol in the context of hurtful and supportive interactions. In Study 1, participants (N = 89) engaged in a conversation about core traits or values with a partner, who was trained to be hurtful. In Study 2, participants (N = 89) received supportive messages after completing a series of stressful tasks and receiving negative performance feedback. As predicted, partner uncertainty was associated with greater cortisol reactivity to the hurtful interaction in Study 1. Contrary to expectations, Study 1 results also indicated that self uncertainty was associated with less cortisol reactivity, when self, partner, and relationship uncertainty were tested in the same model. Study 2 revealed that relational uncertainty dampened cortisol reactions to performing poorly on tasks while the partner observed. As predicted, Study 2 also found that partner uncertainty was associated with less cortisol recovery after the supportive interaction, but neither self nor relationship uncertainty was associated with rate of cortisol change during the recovery period.     

Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: consequences for women's performance

Four experiments found benevolent sexism to be worse than hostile sexism for women's cognitive performance. Experiments 1-2 showed effects of paternalist benevolent sexism and ruled out explanations of perceived sexism, context pleasantness, and performance motivation. Experiment 3 showed effects of both paternalist and complementary gender differentiation components of benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism per se (rather than the provision of unsolicited help involved in paternalism) worsened performance. Experiment 4 showed that impaired performance due to benevolent sexism was fully mediated by the mental intrusions women experienced about their sense of competence. Additionally, Experiment 4 showed that gender identification protected against hostile but not benevolent sexism. Despite the apparently positive and inoffensive tone of benevolent sexism, our research emphasizes its insidious dangers.     

The Danger in Sexism: The Links Among Fear of Crime, Benevolent Sexism, and Well-being

In two studies utilizing undergraduate students at a large public university in the Northeastern U.S., we examined how fear of crime negatively impacts psychological well-being and gender relations. In Study 1, students (N?=?216, 105 female) who indicated higher levels of fear of crime also indicated greater endorsement of benevolent sexism (but not hostile sexism) as well as higher levels of behavioral inhibition and lower self-esteem. In Study 2, fear of crime was manipulated and participants (N?=?115, 73 female) in the crime condition indicated greater endorsement of benevolent sexism, greater behavioral inhibition and lower self-esteem, as compared to participants in a control condition. The implications of the findings for gender relations and psychological well-being are discussed.     

It's for your own good: benevolent sexism and women's reactions to protectively justified restrictions

Three studies examined women's reactions to ostensibly protective restrictions. In Study 1, only benevolently sexist women accepted a protectively justified (hypothetical) prohibition against driving on a long trip, but only when imposed by a husband (not a coworker). In Study 2, when women's actual romantic partners opposed their participation in a practicum counseling dangerous men, most reacted positively to a personalized protective justification ("I am concerned for your safety"), but only benevolently sexist women reacted positively when no justification was given. In Study 3, only benevolently sexist women accepted an explicitly group-based protective justification ("It is not safe for any woman") for a partner's imagined opposition to an internship that involved interviewing criminals. By fusing benevolence with dominance, protective paternalism can lead women (especially those who are high on benevolent sexism) to accept restrictions.     

How Nice of Us and How Dumb of Me: The Effect of Exposure to Benevolent Sexism on Women’s Task and Relational Self-Descriptions

This research demonstrates how women assimilate to benevolent sexism by emphasizing their relational qualities and de-emphasizing their task-related characteristics when exposed to benevolent sexism. Studies 1 (N?=?62) and 2 (N?=?100) show, with slightly different paradigms and measures, that compared to exposure to hostile sexism, exposure to benevolent sexism increases the extent to which female Dutch college students define themselves in relational terms and decreases the extent to which they emphasize their task-related characteristics. Study 3 (N?=?79) demonstrates that benevolent sexism has more pernicious effects when it is expressed by someone with whom women expect to collaborate than when no collaboration is expected with the source of sexism. The implications of these results are discussed.     

The costs and benefits of sexism: resistance to influence during relationship conflict

This study tested whether men's and women's hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS) were associated with resistance to influence in couples' conflict interactions. Ninety-one heterosexual couples were recorded while trying to produce desired changes in each other. Participants reviewed their discussions and rated how open they were to their partner's perspective. Objective coders also rated the extent to which each partner exhibited hostile communication. We tested key principles arising from ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). First, BS is necessary because mutual interdependence reduces the power of HS to influence women within intimate relationships. We found that the more men endorsed HS, the less open and more hostile both partners were, and the less successful their discussions were in producing desired change. Second, BS reduces the threat of women's dyadic power by revering and respecting women's interpersonal roles while restricting women's influence outside the relationship domain. We found that men who expressed higher agreement with BS were more open to their partners' influence and behaved with less hostility, and their discussions were more successful. These relationship benefits illustrate why BS is effective at disarming women's resistance to wider inequalities. These benefits, however, were contingent on men adopting BS attitudes. When women strongly endorsed BS but their male partner did not, women were less open, behaved with greater hostility, and perceived their discussions as less successful. These results indicate that, because BS increases the stakes within the relationship domain, women who endorse BS will react more negatively when their expectations are not realized.