Sex Roles

, Volume 51, Issue 9–10, pp 609–615 | Cite as

Reinforcing the Glass Ceiling: The Consequences of Hostile Sexism for Female Managerial Candidates

  • Barbara M. Masser
  • Dominic Abrams
Article

Abstract

Previous research has established that benevolent sexism is related to the negative evaluation of women who violate specific norms for behavior. Research has yet to document the causal impact of hostile sexism on evaluations of individual targets. Correlational evidence and ambivalent sexism theory led us to predict that hostile sexism would be associated with negative evaluations of a female candidate for a masculine-typed occupational role. Participants completed the ASI (P. Glick & S. T. Fiske, 1996) and evaluated a curriculum vitae from either a male or female candidate. Higher hostile sexism was significantly associated with more negative evaluations of the female candidate and with lower recommendations that she be employed as a manager. Conversely, higher hostile sexism was significantly associated with higher recommendations that a male candidate should be employed as a manager. Benevolent sexism was unrelated to evaluations and recommendations in this context. The findings support the hypothesis that hostile, but not benevolent, sexism results in negativity toward individual women who pose a threat to men's status in the workplace.

hostile sexism glass ceiling discrimination 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125.Google Scholar
  2. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.Google Scholar
  3. Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 662–669.Google Scholar
  4. Equal Opportunities Commission. (2002). Women and men in Britain: Management (ISBN number: 1 84206 018 X). Retrieved November 11, 2003, from http://www.eoc.org.uk/ EOCeng/dynpages/research stats.aspGoogle Scholar
  5. Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause sexual harassment: A theory with implications for organizational change. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 97–117.Google Scholar
  6. Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., Hamm, N. R., & White, K. B. (2003). Perceptions of the woman who breastfeeds: The role of erotophobia, sexism, and attitudinal variables. Sex Roles, 49, 379–387.Google Scholar
  7. Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 44, 177–188.Google Scholar
  8. Glick, P., Diebold, J., Balley-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
  9. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.Google Scholar
  10. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as a simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & de Souza, M. A. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes towards wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 292–297.Google Scholar
  13. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935–942.Google Scholar
  14. Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Martin, C. L. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 489–499.Google Scholar
  16. Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism: The relationships among hostility, benevolence, and neosexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 503–517.Google Scholar
  17. Masser, B., Brands, R., Viki, G. T. N., & Abrams, D. (2003, September). Generalising beyond acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in accounting for reactions towards women who violate norms and the men who help put them back in their place. Paper presented at the meeting of the Social Section of the British Psychological Society, London, UK.Google Scholar
  18. Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, 177–193.Google Scholar
  19. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rudman, L.A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.Google Scholar
  21. Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328.Google Scholar
  22. Sakalli, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44, 599–610.Google Scholar
  23. Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., & Beydogan, B. (2002). Turkish college students’ attitudes toward women managers: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and gender differences. Journal of Psychology, 136, 647–656.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schein,V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schein, V. E., Ruediger, M., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager—think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41.Google Scholar
  26. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 199–214.Google Scholar
  27. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.Google Scholar
  28. Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neo sexism: Plus ca change, plus c'est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849.Google Scholar
  29. Viki, G. T. N., & 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.Google Scholar
  30. Viki, G. T. N., Massey, K., & Masser, B. (2003). When chivalry backfires: Benevolent sexism and attitudes toward Myra Hindley. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara M. Masser
    • 1
  • Dominic Abrams
    • 2
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of QueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KentCanterbury, KentUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations