Benevolent Sexist Beliefs Research Articles

The Effect of Feminist Identification on the Perceived Authenticity of Male Allies

Male allies are often described as essential to reducing gender inequity. However, some men may become allies through benevolent sexist beliefs. While some women recognize this as a suboptimal form of allyship, others may interpret it as authentic. We investigated whether the type of allyship (egalitarian vs. benevolent sexist) influences women’s perceptions of authenticity and whether women’s feminist identification moderates this effect. Women (N = 132) undergraduate students completed a pre-screening survey including a measure of feminist identification. They read about and rated the authenticity of a male ally who exhibited egalitarianism or benevolent sexism in his effort to increase women representation in a male-dominated club. Women perceived the egalitarian ally as highly authentic regardless of their feminist identification. However, higher feminist identification was associated with higher perceived authenticity for the benevolent sexist ally. Results are discussed in terms of how feminist identification can influence women’s perceptions of men who help.

Obstacles to Birth Surname Retention Upon Marriage: How Do Hostile Sexism and System Justification Predict Support for Marital Surname Change Among Women?

Despite the ongoing shift in societal norms and gender-discriminatory practices toward more equality, many heterosexual women worldwide, including in many Western societies, choose to replace their birth surname with the family name of their spouse upon marriage. Previous research has demonstrated that the adherence to sexist ideologies (i.e., a system of discriminatory gender-based beliefs) among women is associated with their greater endorsement of practices and policies that maintain gender inequality. By integrating the ideas from the system justification theory and the ambivalent sexism theory, we proposed that the more women adhere to hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs, the more likely they would be to justify existing gender relations in society, which in turn, would positively predict their support for traditional, husband-centered marital surname change. We further argued that hostile (as compared to benevolent) sexism could act as a particularly strong direct predictor of the support for marital surname change among women. We tested these possibilities across three cross-sectional studies conducted among women in Turkey (Study 1, N=118, self-identified feminist women; Study 2, N=131, female students) and the United States (Study 3, N=140, female students). Results of Studies 1 and 3 revealed that higher adherence to hostile (but not benevolent) sexism was associated with higher support for marital surname change indirectly through higher gender-based system justification. In Study 2, the hypothesized full mediation was not observed. Consistent with our predictions, in all three studies, hostile (but not benevolent) sexism was found to be a direct positive predictor of the support for marital surname change among women. We discuss the role of dominant ideologies surrounding marriage and inegalitarian naming conventions in different cultures as obstacles to women’s birth surname retention upon marriage.

Allies Against Sexism: The Impact of Men’s Egalitarian Versus Paternalistic Confrontation on Women’s Empowerment and Well-Being

Men as advantaged group members can be involved in actions against inequality. But how do women experience men’s confrontation of sexism? We examine how women perceive men’s egalitarian versus paternalistic confrontation of sexism. We hypothesized that women would be more likely to report empowerment and well-being (i.e., more happiness and less anger) after egalitarian confrontation than after paternalistic confrontation, which should increase their future intention to confront sexism. Using hypothetical scenarios, the results of three studies conducted in Spain, Germany, and Mexico confirmed our hypotheses. They also highlighted that empowerment (but not happiness) triggered by egalitarian confrontation, as well as anger triggered by paternalistic confrontation, lead women to express greater future intention to confront sexism. Our findings suggest that male confronters motivated by egalitarian reasons are more likely perceived as allies of women because they not only make women feel better but also empower them to keep fighting. Further, women may react against men motivated by paternalistic reasons (especially if they are strongly identified as feminist or endorse low benevolent sexist beliefs). Implications for activists, policymakers, and practitioners who are interested in involving men in fighting gender inequality are discussed.

The Chivalrous Bystander: The Role of Gender-Based Beliefs and Empathy on Bystander Behavior and Perceived Barriers to Intervention.

Despite substantial evidence demonstrating a relation between gender-based beliefs and violence against women, there has been little research examining whether sexist attitudes are related to prosocial bystander behavior. Understanding psychosocial influences on bystanders' behavior could inform bystander training programs on college campuses, and so the current study examined the unique and joint effects of three gender-based attitudes (rape myth acceptance, hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism) and empathy in predicting bystander behavior and perceived barriers to intervention in situations that undergraduates (N = 500; 70% female; Mage = 18.86 years) had experienced in the prior year. Benevolent sexism was the only gender-based attitude consistently associated with bystander behavior and perceived barriers. After accounting for participant empathy, benevolent sexism uniquely predicted less intervention in post-assault situations, greater perceived barriers in pre- and post-assault situations, and greater Failure to Perceive Responsibility and Skill Deficit barriers across situations. Associations between gender-based attitudes and bystander behavior also differed for men and women, with rape myth acceptance predicting greater Failure to Perceive Responsibility barriers and benevolent sexism predicting greater Skill Deficit barriers for women but not men. These results suggest that existing bystander education programs can be improved by explicitly addressing benevolent sexist beliefs and promoting empathy for victims of assault.

Religiosity, Religious Fundamentalism, and Ambivalent Sexism Toward Girls and Women Among Adolescents and Young Adults Living in Germany.

The New Year’s Eve 2015 mass sexual assaults in Germany led to a broader debate about whether the perpetrators, most of them self-identifying as Muslims, were encouraged to such acts by particularly sexist attitudes toward girls and women. Here, we argue that it is not the specific religious affiliation of individuals per se that predicts sexism. Rather it should be the extent to which they are involved in their religion, i.e., their religiosity and their endorsement of religious fundamentalism. In line with the theory of ambivalent sexism, we distinguish hostile and benevolent sexism, while controlling for right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. In two Pilot Studies, we explored differences in ambivalent sexism (a) between male and female individuals of Muslim faith, Christian faith, Muslim faith, Christian faith, and no religious affiliation residing in Germany, while at the same time (b) differentiating between sexism directed toward girls and sexism directed toward women. In our Main Study, we tested the interrelations between religiosity, religious fundamentalism, and ambivalent sexism in our religious subsamples of male Christians, female Christians, male Muslims, and female Muslims using a multigroup multivariate moderated mediation analysis. In all three studies, Muslims were more religious, endorsed religious fundamentalism more strongly, and held stronger benevolent sexist beliefs toward girls and women as well as stronger hostile sexist beliefs toward women than Christians and non-religious participants. In our Main Study, with female Christians as the reference group, male Muslims’ stronger benevolent and hostile sexist beliefs toward girls were mediated by religiosity and fundamentalism. Female Muslims’ stronger endorsement of benevolent sexism toward girls could be explained by their higher level of fundamentalism. While our findings show that differences in ambivalent sexism between religious groups were partly due to different levels of religiosity and fundamentalism, they also suggest that there are factors other than those investigated in our studies responsible for male Muslims’ particularly strong sexism. We discuss specific contents of Islamic religious teachings and honor beliefs as possible causes to be investigated further in future research.

Sexism and sexual risk behavior in adolescents: Gender differences

Background/Objective: This study examines whether there are differences in the maintenance of ambivalent sexist beliefs on the basis of gender and sexual experience in adolescents. The study also investigates whether the sexist beliefs themselves are linked to sexual risk behaviors. Method: A representative sample of 2,703 Spanish adolescents was carried out in public and private secondary schools, with an age range of 14 to 20 years old (M = 15.89; SD = 1.29). Results: Males maintain more hostile, benevolent and ambivalent sexist beliefs compared to females. Sexual experience (both coital and non-coital) is linked to a greater degree of hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs, but only within the male group. In males, greater benevolent sexism is linked to vaginal sex initiation at an earlier age, while greater hostile sexism is linked to a lower proportion of condom use. In females, greater hostile sexism is linked to a greater number of sex partners. Conclusions: It is necessary to include specific actions on sexist beliefs in programs for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections and HIV.

Perceptions of Male and Female STEM Aptitude

This study investigated evaluations and advice communicated to male and female technology interns experiencing work difficulties, using a 2 (workplace issue: ability or interpersonal) ×2 (intern gender: male vs. female) between-subjects experimental design. Technology professionals rated hypothetical interns on competence, qualifications, intelligence, and potential field issues. Results suggest that female interns with ability issues are viewed as having lower field aptitude than male interns with ability issues, when judged by individuals holding both hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs. Rater gender was not a significant predictor of aptitude rating. Aptitude assessments of male and female interns with interpersonal issues did not differ; however, open-ended analyses revealed that male interns were expected to be agentic and dissuaded from help seeking when facing interpersonal issues, while female interns were expected to find mentors and control their emotions. Findings show how sexist beliefs, workplace issues, and intern gender can affect responses and assessments by potential mentors.

When sexual threat cues shape attitudes toward immigrants: the role of insecurity and benevolent sexism.

Drawing on psychological and political science research on individuals’ sensitivity to threat cues, the present study examines reactions to political posters that depict male immigrants as a sexual danger. We expect anti-immigrant attitudes to be more strongly predicted by feelings of insecurity or representations of men and women as strong and fragile when individuals are exposed to sexual threat cues than when they are not. Results from two online experiments conducted in Switzerland and Germany largely confirmed these assumptions. Comparing two anti-immigrant posters (general and non-sexual threat vs. sexual threat), Experiment 1 (n = 142) showed that feelings of insecurity were related to an increased support for expelling immigrants from the host country in both cases. However, only in the sexual threat cues condition and among female participants, were perceptions of women as fragile—as measured with benevolent sexism items—related to support for expelling immigrants. Further distinguishing between different forms of violence threat cues, Experiment 2 (n = 181) showed that collective feelings of insecurity were most strongly related to support for expelling immigrants when a male immigrant was presented as a violent criminal. In contrast, benevolent sexist beliefs were related to anti-immigrant stances only when participants were exposed to a depiction of a male immigrant as a rapist. In both cases attitudes were polarized: on the one hand, representations of immigrants as criminals provoked reactance reactions—that is, more positive attitudes—among participants scoring low in insecurity feelings or benevolent sexism. On the other hand, those scoring high in these dimensions expressed slightly more negative attitudes. Overall, by applying social psychological concepts to the study of anti-immigrant political campaigning, the present study demonstrated that individuals are sensitive to specific threat cues in posters.

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

AbstractMuch 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.

It's fair for us: Diversity structures cause women to legitimize discrimination

Three experiments tested the hypothesis that the mere presence (vs. absence) of diversity structures makes it more difficult for women to detect sexism. In Experiment 1, even when a company's hiring decisions disadvantaged women, women perceived the company as more procedurally just for women and were less supportive of sexism litigation when the company offered diversity training, compared to when it did not. In Experiment 2, women perceived a company as more procedurally just for women and as less likely to have engaged in sexism when the company offered diversity training, compared to when it did not. This effect was not moderated by women's endorsement of status legitimizing beliefs. In Experiment 3, women perceived a company as more procedurally just and less discriminatory when the company had been recognized for positive gender diversity practices compared to when it had not. Additionally, these effects were most pronounced among women who endorsed benevolent sexist beliefs and mitigated among those who rejected benevolent sexist beliefs. Together, these experiments demonstrate that diversity structures can make it difficult for women to detect and remedy discrimination, especially women who hold benevolent sexist beliefs.

Why did Italians protest against Berlusconi's sexist behaviour? The role of sexist beliefs and emotional reactions in explaining women and men's pathways to protest

By taking advantage of the Italian protest in 2009 in reaction to the behaviour of then Prime Minister Berlusconi, in this research, we investigated the role of sexist beliefs (i.e., hostile sexism, complementary gender differentiation, protective paternalism, and heterosexual intimacy) and group-based emotional reactions (i.e., anger, humiliation, and sadness) to women's and men's action mobilization against public forms of sexism. The findings of this study suggest that women and men engaged in this protest for different reasons. Women mobilized to express their anger at Berlusconi's sexist behaviour, an emotion related to the condemnation of hostile sexist views and benevolent sexist beliefs about heterosexual intimacy. In contrast, the strength of men's participation in the protest was affected by humiliation, an emotion related to the condemnation of hostile sexist beliefs and support for complementary gender differentiation. This emotional path suggests that men likely protested to restore their reputations. These findings underline the role of sexist beliefs and group-based emotions in transforming the condemnation of a sexist event into action mobilization against sexism for both women and men.

Benevolent Sexist Beliefs Predict Perceptions of Speakers and Recipients of a Term of Endearment

ABSTRACT 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.

Prescription of Protective Paternalism for Men in Romantic and Work Contexts

Behavioral prescription specifies how people ought to act. Five studies investigated prescription for men of protective paternalism, a particular form of benevolent sexism, depending on contextual and individual factors. In Studies 1 and 2, female participants prescribed for men more protective paternalistic behavior toward women in a romantic than in a work context. In Study 3, male participants prescribed the same level of protective paternalistic behavior as female participants did. Conversely, more gender egalitarianism was prescribed for men in a work than in a romantic context (Studies 1–3). In Study 4, the same protective paternalistic behavior was labeled as intimacy in a romantic context but was identified to the same extent as intimacy and as sexism in a work context. In Study 5, female participants’ benevolent sexist beliefs predicted their prescription of protective paternalistic behavior for men in both contexts. These studies demonstrated that prescription of protective paternalism for men is a complex phenomenon because it depends on contextual as well as individual variables. These findings need to be added to the list of factors explaining how this particular form of sexism is maintained within gender relationships and how it contributes to women’s subordination.

Reducing Endorsement of Benevolent and Modern Sexist Beliefs

In two experiments, the present research identifies basic mechanisms for reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs. Responses to attitudinal measures and a collective action measure on policy beliefs in Study 1 (N = 164) as well as to dating profiles in Study 1 and Study 2 (N = 159) support the hypothesis that endorsement of benevolent sexist beliefs can be reduced by providing information about its harmful consequences. Moreover, women and men become more aware of the full scope of gender discrimination and reduce their endorsement of modern sexist beliefs when they are provided with information about the harmful nature and pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Theoretical implications regarding the linkage between benevolent and modern sexist beliefs and practical implications for reducing sexism are discussed.

Intergenerational Transmission of Benevolent Sexism from Mothers to Daughters and its Relation to Daughters’ Academic Performance and Goals

A questionnaire study addressed the intergenerational transmission of benevolent sexist beliefs (BS) from mothers to adolescent daughters and influences of BS on daughters’ traditional goals, academic goals (i.e., getting an academic degree), and academic performance. In addition, the role of mothers’ educational level and job status as predictors of their BS was explored. One hundred sixty-four pairs of female adolescents and their mothers from Granada (Spain) completed questionnaires independently. Hypotheses were tested in a path model. Results suggest that mothers’ BS is negatively predicted by their education but not their job status. Mothers’ BS predicted daughters’ BS, which in turn negatively predicted daughters’goal to get an academic degree and positively predicted daughters’ traditional goals. Daughters’ academic performance was positively predicted by their goal to get an academic degree and negatively predicted by mothers’ BS. Results are discussed in terms of the socializing influence of mothers’ sexist ideology on their daughters and its implications for the maintenance of traditional roles that perpetuate gender inequalities.

Sexism and Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Language

We examined the relationships between three forms of sexism (modern, benevolent, and hostile) and two components of attitudes toward gender-neutral language (attitudes toward gender-related language reforms and recognition of sexist language) across different contexts. A questionnaire study (N = 446) was conducted among students in the United Kingdom and in two (French- and German-speaking) regions of Switzerland. While we expected to find that all forms of sexism are generally related to negative attitudes toward gender-neutral language, we expected attitudes to be more positive and less related to sexist beliefs in a context in which gender-neutral language is firmly established (the UK) compared to contexts in which the use of gender-neutral language was introduced only recently (the German-speaking part of Switzerland) or is still seldom (the French-speaking part of Switzerland). We found that, across all contexts, modern and hostile sexist beliefs were indeed related to negative attitudes toward gender-related language reforms, while, intriguingly, benevolent sexist beliefs were related to positive attitudes in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. Recognition of sexist language was significantly related to modern sexism only. Finally, British students were found to express more positive attitudes toward gender-neutral language (both components) than Swiss students.

Seeing the Unseen

Three experiments were conducted in the United States and Germany to test whether women and men endorse sexist beliefs because they are unaware of the prevalence of different types of sexism in their personal lives. Study 1 ( N = 120) and Study 2 ( N = 83) used daily diaries as a method to encourage individuals “to see the unseen.” Results revealed that encouraging women to pay attention to sexism, in comparison to attention to other social interactions, led to a stronger rejection of Modern Sexist, Neosexist, and Benevolent Sexist beliefs (Studies 1 and 2) and to negative evaluations of Modern and Benevolent Sexist men described in profiles as well as to more engagement in collective action on behalf of women (Study 2). In contrast, for men, paying attention to sexism did not have these effects. Results from Study 2 suggest, and from Study 3 ( N = 141) confirm, that men’s endorsement of Modern and Neosexist beliefs can be reduced if attention to sexism and emotional empathy for the target of discrimination is encouraged. Finally, a follow-up survey indicated that the attitude change in women and men was stable over time. The implications of these findings for interventions to reduce women’s versus men’s endorsement of sexist beliefs are discussed.

Demographic factors and sexist beliefs as predictors of condom use among Latinos in the USA

Based on a survey conducted among 198 Latinos in Central Illinois, USA, this study shows that income, education, and language skills were important predictors of condom use. In addition, hostile and benevolent sexist ideas had a differing impact on condom use. Hostile sexist ideas, such as the belief that women try to control men, increased condom use with both main and occasional partners. Benevolent sexism, for example, the idea that women should be cherished and protected, was negatively and significantly correlated with condom use with main partner. In this sense, benevolent sexism, an apparently less harmful type of prejudice against women, seems to out them at higher risk of HIV/AIDS infection. Therefore, HIV/AIDS prevention interventions designed for Latinos should not only address the dangers of hostile sexist beliefs in reproducing negative feelings about women but also the problems associated with benevolent sexist beliefs, which seem to decrease condom use.

Why Do Women Endorse Hostile and Benevolent Sexism? The Role of Salient Female Subtypes and Internalization of Sexist Contents

The present research aims to explain women’s endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs. Based on a convenience sample of N = 92 women in the general public in Germany, Study 1 demonstrated that women endorse hostile sexist beliefs when they do not think about themselves when completing the hostile sexism scale but about non-traditional female subtypes (feminists or career women). In contrast, women were more likely to agree with benevolent sexist beliefs the more they internalize these beliefs and the more they think about traditional subtypes (housewives) while completing the scale. A follow-up experimental study using a convenience sample of N = 123 German women further demonstrated that these results depend on women’s identification with the respective subtypes.

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

AbstractThis 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.