Ambivalent Sexism, Belief in a Just World, and Empathy as Predictors of Turkish Students’ Attitudes Toward Rape Victims

The present study investigated whether hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, belief in a just world and empathy predict attitudes toward rape victims in a Turkish sample. Turkish college students (N = 425, mean age = 22) completed scales assessing Ambivalent Sexism, Belief in a Just World and Rape Victim Empathy as predictors of a general measure of attitudes toward rape victims. Male (as compared to female) participants had significantly less positive attitudes toward rape victims. Correlational analyses showed that, for both male and female participants, benevolent as well as hostile sexism, and belief in a just world each predicted less positive attitudes toward rape victims, but empathy predicted more positive attitudes.     

The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes

In the present research, consisting of 2 correlational studies (N = 616) including a representative U.S. sample and 2 experiments (N = 350), the authors investigated how stereotypes and emotions shape behavioral tendencies toward groups, offering convergent support for the behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes (BIAS) map framework. Warmth stereotypes determine active behavioral tendencies, attenuating active harm (harassing) and eliciting active facilitation (helping). Competence stereotypes determine passive behavioral tendencies, attenuating passive harm (neglecting) and eliciting passive facilitation (associating). Admired groups (warm, competent) elicit both facilitation tendencies; hated groups (cold, incompetent) elicit both harm tendencies. Envied groups (competent, cold) elicit passive facilitation but active harm; pitied groups (warm, incompetent) elicit active facilitation but passive harm. Emotions predict behavioral tendencies more strongly than stereotypes do and usually mediate stereotype-to-behavioral-tendency links.     

THE AMBIVALENCE TOWARD MEN INVENTORY

We present a measure, the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI), that differentiates between women's hostile and benevolent prejudices and stereotypes about men. The Hostility toward Men (HM) and Benevolence toward Men (BM) subscales of the AMI tap conventional attitudes toward men that have opposing valences. Each subscale assesses subfactors concerning men's power, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality. Three studies with predominately White, male and female participants (two with undergraduates and one with a community sample) establish the factor structure, reliability, convergent validity, and predictive validity of the AMI. The AMI was strongly related to its sister scale, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and to two established scales of attitudes toward men (Downs & Engleson, 1982; Iazzo, 1983). Only the AMI, however, successfully distinguished between subjectively positive and subjectively negative beliefs about men. A copy of the 20-item AMI is provided as a tool for further exploration of women's ambivalence toward men.     

DOES CLEAVAGE WORK AT WORK? MEN, BUT NOT WOMEN, FALSELY BELIEVE CLEAVAGE SELLS A WEAK PRODUCT

We examined whether men, but not women, would be distracted by a female sales representative's exposed cleavage, leading to greater perceived efficacy for a weak, but not for a strong product. A community sample of 88 men and 97 women viewed a video of a female pharmaceutical sales representative who (a) had exposed cleavage or dressed modestly and (b) pitched an ineffective or effective product. Although men were not more distracted or persuaded by cleavage, they gave the cleavage-exposed (versus nonexposed) sales representative more favorable hiring recommendations in the ineffective-drug condition and less favorable ratings in the effective-drug condition. Women generally rated the sales representative similarly regardless of cleavage exposure. On a postexperimental questionnaire, men, but not women, believed that female sales professionals ought strategically to use sex appeal to distract from a weak (but not a strong) product.     

Keeping Your Distance: Group Membership,Personal Space,and Requests for Small Favors1

The effects of group membership and interpersonal distance on interpersonal anxiety and compliance with a small request were explored. In a field experiment, people seated alone in the public eating area or a shopping mall were approached by one of two female confederates: an in-group member or an out-group member. Three different interpersonal distances were assumed by the confederates: near, medium, and far. The “medium” distance was the normative distance for interactions between strangers in the experimental situation. Although the out-group confederate aroused greater anxiety and obtained less compliance than the in-group confederate overall, these differences completely disappeared in the far-distance condition. It is suggested that one reason why out-group members are less likely to elicit compliance with a small request is that they arouse interpersonal anxiety on the part of potential helpers. The results of the present experiment indicate that this anxiety can be reduced (and compliance thereby increased) if the out-group member assumes a somewhat greater distance than is normally deemed appropriate for interactions between strangers.