How Ambivalent Sexism Toward Women and Men Support Rape Myth Acceptance

The goal of this study was to determine how ambivalent sexism toward women and men are both associated with rape myth acceptance. The Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance scale, Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, and Ambivalence toward Men Inventory were completed by 409 participants. Hostile sexism toward women positively correlated with rape myth acceptance. For benevolent sexism toward women, complementary gender differentiation was positively associated with rape myth acceptance whereas protective paternalism was negatively associated. Benevolent sexism toward men, but not hostile sexism, positively correlated with rape myth acceptance. Further, for female participants higher maternalism toward men corresponded with higher rape myth acceptance. These findings suggest that sexist beliefs toward both women and men are important for understanding the support of rape myths.     

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.     

Do Scales Measuring Sexist Attitudes have Equivalent Meaning for Sexual Minorities and Majorities?

Ambivalent Sexism Theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) has revolutionised understanding of sexism and generated a new way of examining sexist attitudes using the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). One key goal in sexism research is to compare sexist attitudes across different groups, including people with different genders and sexual identities. Before doing so, researchers must be confident that the construct(s) they are comparing are invariant across groups. Given assumptions of heterosexuality, and the central role of heterosexual interdependence, we expected the ASI would be variant across people with different genders and sexual orientations. We conducted multigroup measurement invariance tests between heterosexual women, heterosexual men, lesbian women, and gay men (total N?=?1614). Results indicated that hostile sexism and benevolent sexism emerged as separate, related, forms of sexism across groups (i.e., configural invariance was met), but item loadings and intercepts were not equivalent (i.e., loading and intercept invariance was not met). Accordingly, the ASI is not a suitable measurement tool to compare sexist attitudes across sexual minorities (lesbian women and gay men) and majorities (heterosexual women and men). We discuss implications for the centrality of heterosexual interdependence in ambivalent sexism, practical implications for the use of ASI, and we encourage researchers to develop new scales to assess sexism across diverse gender and sexual identities.

     

Ambivalent Sexism, Gender, and Major as Predictors of Turkish College Students’ Attitudes Toward Women and Men’s Atypical Educational Choices

The aim of the study was to investigate how ambivalent gender attitudes (hostile/benevolent sexism; hostility/benevolence toward men), plus gender and major predict attitudes toward men studying social sciences and women studying natural sciences in Turkey, where gender attitudes are relatively traditional. Undergraduates (N?=?215, mean age?=?21.16) completed scales of Ambivalent Sexism, Ambivalence toward Men, Attitudes toward Men in Social Sciences (AMSS), and Attitudes toward Women in Natural Sciences (AWNS). Although AMSS and AWNS were positive, men and natural-science majors had less positive AMSS and AWNS. Men in social sciences were perceived more negatively than women in natural sciences. Gender and hostile sexism predicted AWNS; gender, major, and benevolence toward men predicted AMSS. Implications for status relations 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.     

Ambivalence Toward Men: Comparing Sexism Among Polish, South African and British University Students

This study extends the literature on attitudes toward gender roles by exploring whether the nature of sexism (i.e., benevolence and hostility directed at men) differs among university students from two under-researched countries, Poland (n?=?190) and South Africa (n?=?188), in a comparison with students in the United Kingdom (n?=?166). Based on empirical literature applying Ambivalent Sexism Theory, and in the light of the socio-political context, it was hypothesized that: (1) both hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men in Poland would be more liberal than in South Africa and more conservative than in the United Kingdom, and (2), women would exhibit more hostile but less benevolent attitudes than men in relatively more conservative South Africa. The Ambivalence to Men Inventory was used to measure the two types of sexist attitudes about men. Findings supported the first hypothesis for hostile attitudes and partially for benevolent attitudes. South African and Polish students were more benevolent and hostile to men than British students, and students from South Africa were more hostile than those from Poland. Moreover, as predicted, a significant country-by-gender interaction revealed that South African women had more hostile and less benevolent attitudes to men than South African men. No such gender gap was present in the case of hostile attitudes in Poland and benevolent attitudes in the United Kingdom. Findings are discussed in terms of Ambivalent Sexism Theory and the countries’ socio-cultural context.     

Sexism, Hostility toward Women, and Endorsement of Beauty Ideals and Practices: Are Beauty Ideals Associated with Oppressive Beliefs?

Relationships between the endorsement of Western beauty ideals and practices and measures of hostility toward women and sexism were studied in 159 college men and 194 college women. The participants were predominately 18 or 19 years of age and of European American ethnicity. Correlations were computed between five factor analytically derived measures of beauty ideals and practices, two measures of the thin body ideal, and the following measures: Hostility toward Women Scale (HTWS; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1995), Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS; Spence & Helmreich, 1978), and the two subscales of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996): hostile sexism (ASI-H) and benevolent sexism (ASI-B). It was found that endorsement of Western beauty ideals and practices was associated with hostility toward women, traditional sexism, hostile sexism, and, to a lesser extent, benevolent sexism. Results support feminist critiques of beauty practices as oppressive.     

An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality

The equation of prejudice with antipathy is challenged by recent research on sexism. Benevolent sexism (a subjectively favorable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrace conventional roles) coexists with hostile sexism (antipathy toward women who are viewed as usurping men's power). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, first validated in U.S. samples, has been administered to over 15,000 men and women in 19 nations. Hostile and benevolent sexism are complementary, cross-culturally prevalent ideologies, both of which predict gender inequality. Women, as compared with men, consistently reject hostile sexism but often endorse benevolent sexism (especially in the most sexist cultures). By rewarding women for conforming to a patriarchal status quo, benevolent sexism inhibits gender equality. More generally, affect toward minority groups is often ambivalent, but subjectively positive stereotypes are not necessarily benign.     

Education and Catholic Religiosity as Predictors of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Toward Women and Men

The relationships of education and religiosity to hostile and benevolently sexist attitudes toward women and men, as assessed by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) and the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999), was explored in a random sample of 1,003 adults (508 women, 495 men) from Galicia, Spain. For both men and women (a) level of educational attainment negatively correlated with hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes, and (b) Catholic religiosity uniquely predicted more benevolent, but not more hostile, sexist attitudes. Although correlational, these data are consistent with the notion that active participation in the Catholic Church may reinforce benevolently sexist ideologies that legitimate gender inequality, whereas education may be effective in diminishing sexist beliefs.     

Ambivalent Sexism and the Sexual Double Standard

The sexual double standard is the notion that women are evaluated negatively and men positively for engaging in similar sexual behaviors. Because traditional, gender-based stereotypes are reflected in the attitudes that people hold towards men and women, it is likely that sexism plays a part in the manifestation of the double standard. The goal of the present study is to investigate the relationship between sexism (prejudice against individuals based on their gender) and the sexual double standard. There are two types of sexism: hostile (negative prejudice) and benevolent (positive prejudice). We hypothesized that participants displaying high levels of either type of sexism would be most likely to exhibit the sexual double standard. A US-sample of 232 undergraduates from a Southwestern university completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory (AMI) and then evaluated a hypothetical target individual who reported having zero, one or 12 sexual partners. Results show that participants’ sexist attitudes towards men and women were related to their exhibition of the sexual double standard. Specifically, men and women’s hostile attitudes towards targets of their own gender were related to negative evaluations of highly sexually active targets of the same gender, while men and women’s benevolent attitudes towards the opposite gender were related to positive evaluation of highly sexually active targets of the opposite gender. Implications of the present results and directions for future research are discussed.     

Ambivalent Sexism and Applicant Evaluations: Effects on Ambiguous Applicants

The purpose of the current research was to evaluate how gender stereotypes and sexist attitudes affect responses to hypothetical job applicants. In Study 1 (N?=?93) undergraduate and graduate students in the Southwestern USA evaluated a male, female, or gender-ambiguous resume. They also completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick and Fiske 1996). Hypotheses were tested using ANOVA. Results suggested that participants who expressed more hostile sexist attitudes evaluated the gender-ambiguous applicant more negatively than a male or female applicant. In Study 2 (N?=?117), graduate and undergraduate participants were asked to indicate the gender of the ambiguous applicant. Those who scored high on hostile sexism, and perceived a gender-ambiguous applicant to be male, provided the most favorable evaluations.     

CONTEMPORARY SEXISM

Previous research has examined the relationship between the Modern Sexism Scale (Swim, Aikin, Hall & Hunter, 1995) and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) or the relationship between the Modern Sexism Scale and the Neosexism Scale (Campbell, Schellenberg, & Senn, 1997; Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995). The present study examined the relationship between the ASI and the Neosexism Scale. Across three samples ( N = 907), neosexism was found to be associated primarily with the hostile rather than the benevolent component of ambivalent sexism. Hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and neosexism were all significantly associated with attitudes toward lesbians' and gay men's rights, and both hostile sexism and neosexism were significantly associated with attitudes toward women's rights. Neosexism and hostile sexism were negatively associated with a humanitarian-egalitarian orientation, whereas benevolent sexism was positively associated with a Protestant-ethic orientation. It is concluded that, although both the Neosexism Scale and ASI measure contemporary sexism, only the Benevolent Sexism subscale of the ASI taps the subjectively positive side of contemporary sexism.     

Ambivalent Sexism and Power-Related Gender-role Ideology in Marriage

Glick-Fiske’s (1996) Ambivalent Sexism Inventory(ASI) and a new Gender-Role Ideology in Marriage (GRIM) inventory examine ambivalent sexism toward women, predicting power-related, gender-role beliefs about mate selection and marriage norms. Mainland Chinese, 552, and 252 U.S. undergraduates participated. Results indicated that Chinese and men most endorsed hostile sexism; Chinese women more than U.S. women accepted benevolent sexism. Both Chinese genders prefer home-oriented mates (women especially seeking a provider and upholding him; men especially endorsing male-success/female-housework, male dominance, and possibly violence). Both U.S. genders prefer considerate mates (men especially seeking an attractive one). Despite gender and culture differences in means, ASI-GRIM correlations replicate across those subgroups: Benevolence predicts initial mate selection; hostility predicts subsequent marriage norms.     

Sexist attitudes and beliefs during adolescence: A longitudinal study of gender differences

The aim of this study was to examine changes in sexist attitudes and beliefs in a group of Spanish adolescents over a period of three consecutive years, with specific attention being paid to gender differences. Participants were 279 students (mean age at first assessment of 12.10 years) who, in each of the three years, completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Questionnaire on Attitudes towards Diversity and Violence. Longitudinal analysis showed that hostile sexism did not vary over time, whereas scores on benevolent sexism and on sexist beliefs and justification of violence all fell between the ages of 12 and 14, there being an equivalent decrease in boys and girls. Boys scored significantly higher than girls on hostile sexism, as well as on sexist beliefs. These results illustrate how sexist attitudes and beliefs change during adolescence and provide further confirmation that these variables show gender differences from an early age.     

When less is more: Psychometric properties of Norwegian short‐forms of the Ambivalent Sexism Scales (ASI and AMI) and the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance (IRMA) Scale

This paper reports on the development and the psychometric properties of short forms of Ambivalent Sexism Scales toward women (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) and men (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999), and a scale measuring rape stereotypes (IRMA; McMahon & Farmer, 2011). The short form AMI/ASI were applied for examining gender and educational differences in university students (N = 512) and in high school students (N = 1381), and for predicting individual differences in rape stereotypes in the latter. The short forms demonstrated good to excellent psychometric properties across samples of emerging adults. Relative to female students, male students reported markedly more hostility toward women and more stereotypical beliefs about rape. Despite sampling from a highly gender egalitarian and secular culture, these gender differences are on a par with those reported internationally. Rape stereotypes were predicted by sexism in high school students. Additional predictors were educational program, relationship status, and acceptance of derogatory sexual slurs. The paper questions the validity of separate constructs for benevolent sexism toward women versus men. The short form versions of the scales may substitute the original versions in future research, and help prevent attrition while measuring the same constructs.     

The Intersection of Gender and Sexuality: Sexism Shapes Men’s Same-Sex Sexuality in Terms of Self-Label Identification and Partner Choice in China

We examined how sexism related to gay and bisexual men’s preferences for same-sex top (dominant) or bottom (submissive) sexuality in China. Specifically, we determined the impacts of sexism on sexual self-label identification and requirements for a romantic partner’s sexual role among 507 Chinese gay and bisexual men. Sexism was found to significantly predict top/bottom sexual self-label: gay and bisexual men endorsing benevolent sexism (BS; ideation of women who conform to traditional gender roles) were more likely to identify as tops than as bottoms. We also noted a significant prediction of hostile sexism (HS; hostility toward women who oppose traditional roles) on partner choice: Tops and bottoms endorsing HS were more likely to require a complementary partner rather than to have no requirements. Moreover, sexism was related to sexual role prejudice, a concept derived from sexism that we defined as holding attitudes toward the gender roles of “bottoms” among gay and bisexual men that indicate inequality of sexual self-labels. In a mediation analysis of these relationships, we noted significant indirect effects of BS and HS on sexual self-label via both benevolent and hostile sexual role prejudice, as well as on requirements for a romantic partner’s sexual role via benevolent (but not hostile) sexual role prejudice. Our results suggest that traditional gender beliefs may influence negative beliefs toward other sexual roles and that both sets of beliefs, although not always consistent with each other, relate to gay and bisexual men’s sexual self-labels and requirements for a romantic partner’s sexual role.     

Benevolent sexist beliefs predict perceptions of speakers and recipients of a term of endearment

This study examined how endorsement of benevolent sexist ideologies predicts perceptions of requesters who use a term of endearment and of the female addressees who comply with their requests. Undergraduate women who previously completed the Benevolent Sexism Scale as part of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory were randomly assigned to one of four groups. They watched one of four videos in which a female addressee responded to a request that either included or did not include the term of endearment "hon"; the requester was either male or female. Participants then rated both actors' social likeability. Among participants who watched a woman respond to a female requester who addressed her with the term "hon," benevolent sexism scores predicted liking for the female responder and disliking of the female requester. Findings reflect the dissatisfaction of women who are high in benevolent sexism with women who act outside of traditional gender role expectations.     

The “True” Romantic: Benevolent Sexism and Paternalistic Chivalry

Previous research has shown that individuals high in benevolent sexism positively evaluate women who conform to traditional gender roles (e.g., Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Warner, & Zhu, 1997). In the current study, male and female participants completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and a new measure of paternalistic chivalry, that is, attitudes that are both courteous and considerate to women but place restrictions on behavior considered appropriate for women during courtship. Consistent with our hypotheses, benevolent sexism was significantly positively related to paternalistic chivalry. Hostile sexism and participant sex were unrelated to paternalistic chivalry.     

Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes toward gender relations

This study related measures of hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, hostility toward men, and benevolence toward men to value priorities. It was predicted that these variables would be positively related to the importance of power values for self and negatively related to universalism and benevolence values and that measures of benevolent sexism and benevolence toward men would be positively related to tradition values and negatively related to self-direction values. These predictions were supported in a study in which student participants in Adelaide, South Australia, completed the Glick and Fiske Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory, and the Schwartz Value Survey. The results demonstrate how values influence attitudes toward gender relations and provide an additional perspective on current discussions of prejudice.     

Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations

A 16-nation study involving 8,360 participants revealed that hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men, assessed by the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (P. Click & S.T. Fiske, 1999), were (a) reliably measured across cultures, (b) positively correlated (for men and women, within samples and across nations) with each other and with hostile and benevolent sexism toward women (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, P. Click & S.T. Fiske, 1996), and (c) negatively correlated with gender equality in cross-national comparisons. Stereotype measures indicated that men were viewed as having less positively valenced but more powerful traits than women. The authors argue that hostile as well as benevolent attitudes toward men reflect and support gender inequality by characterizing men as being designed for dominance.