Sex Roles

, Volume 51, Issue 11–12, pp 687–696 | Cite as

Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexist Attitudes Toward Positive and Negative Sexual Female Subtypes

Article

Abstract

Expressions of hostile and benevolent sexism toward a female character whose behavior was consistent with either a positive (i.e., chaste) or negative (i.e., promiscuous) sexual female subtype were examined. Consistent with the theory that benevolent and hostile sexism form complementary ideologies that serve to maintain and legitimize gender-based social hierarchies, men expressed increased hostile, but decreased benevolent,sexism toward a female character who fit a negative subtype, whereas they expressed increased benevolent, but decreased hostile, sexism toward a female character who fit a positive subtype that was consistent with traditional gender roles. Furthermore, men’s sexual self-schema moderated expressions of hostile sexism across subtypes, whichsuggests that men who think of themselves in sexual terms (i.e., those who are sexuallyschematic) may be predisposed to (a) interpret information about women in sexual terms and categorize women into positive or negative sexual female subtypes on the basis of limited information, which leads to (b) increased hostile sexist attributions when womenare perceived as fitting a negative sexual subtype. These findings emphasize the role of both social dominance motives and the more subtle sociocognitive processes underlyinggender stereotyping in the expression of ambivalent sexism.

ambivalent sexism masculinity self-concept prejudice 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbey, A., & Harnish, R. J. (1995). Perception of sexual intent: The role of gender, alcohol consumption, and rape supportive attitudes. Sex Roles, 32, 297–313.Google Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, B. L., Cyranowski, J. M., & Espindle, D. (1999). Men’s sexual self-schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 645–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach for representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 35–67.Google Scholar
  5. Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron, R. M., & Kenney, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter, S., & Trentham, S. (1998). Subtypes of women and men: A new taxonomy and an exploratory categorical analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 679–696.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, S., & Trentham, S. (2001). Should we take “gender” out of gender subtypes? The effects of gender, evaluative valence, and context on the organization of person subtypes. Sex Roles, 45, 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cyranowski, J. M., & Andersen, B. L. (1998). Schemas, sexuality, and romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1364–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cyranowski, J. M. & Andersen, B. L. (2000). Evidence of self-schematic cognitive processing in women with differing sexual self-views. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 519–543.Google Scholar
  11. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckes, T. (1994a). Explorations in gender cognition: Content and structure of female and male subtypes. Social Cognition, 12, 37–60.Google Scholar
  13. Eckes, T. (1994b). Features of men, features of women: Assessing stereotypic beliefs about gender subtypes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 107–123.Google Scholar
  14. Eckes, T. (2001). Ambivalenter sexismus und die polarisierung von geschlechterstereotypen [Ambivalent sexism and the polarization of gender stereotypes]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 32, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faludi, S. (1992). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  16. Fong, G. T., & Markus, H. (1982). Self-schemas and judgments about others. Social Cognition, 1, 191–204.Google Scholar
  17. Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., White, K. B., & Holmgren, K. M. (2003). The role of hostile and benevolent sexism in women’s and men’s perceptions of the menstruating woman. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. García, L. T. (1999). The certainty of the sexual self-concept. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 8, 263–270.Google Scholar
  19. García, L. T., & Kushnier, K. (1987). Sexual inferences about female targets: The use of sexual experience correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 252–256.Google Scholar
  20. Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334.Google Scholar
  21. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.Google Scholar
  23. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2002). Ambivalent responses. American Psychologist, 57, 444–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1994). Preferring “housewives” to “feminists”: Categorization and the favorability of attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 25–52.Google Scholar
  27. Hollingshead, A. B., & Fraidin, S. N. (2003). Gender stereotypes and assumptions about expertise in transactive memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kendzierski, D., Sheffield, A., & Morganstein, M. S. (2002). The role of self-schema in attributions for own versus other’s exercise lapse. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewicki, P. (1983). Self-image bias in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewicki, P. (1984). Self -schema and social information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1177–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Markus, H., Crane, M., Bernstein, S., & Siladi, M. (1982). Self-schemas and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Markus, H., & Smith, J. (1981). The influence of self-schemas on the perception of others. In N. Cantor & J. Kihlström (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction(pp. 233–262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Markus, H., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Role of the self-concept in the perception of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1494–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism: The relationships among hostility, benevolence, and neosexism . Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 503–517.Google Scholar
  35. Pek, J. C. X., & Leong, F. T. L. (2003). Sex-related self- concepts, cognitive styles, and cultural values of traditionality-modernity as predictors of general and domain-specific sexism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petrocelli, J. V. (2002). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Where’s the ambivalence? American Psychologist, 57, 443–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Russell, B. L., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50, 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Six, B., & Eckes, T. (1991). A closer look at the complex structure of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tavris, C., & Wade, C. (1984). The longest war: Sex differences in perspective (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  41. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Vélez-Blasini, C. J., & Brandt, H. J. (2000). Expectancies, setting, age, and beverage choice as predictors of sexual behaviors in hypothetical dating situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1954–1976.Google Scholar
  43. Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victoria University of WellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations