Sex Roles

, 57:743 | Cite as

When Women Become More Hostilely Sexist toward their Gender: The System-Justifying Effect of Benevolent Sexism

  • Chris G. Sibley
  • Nickola C. Overall
  • John Duckitt
Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Ambivalent Sexism System justification theory Hostile Sexism Benevolent Sexism Right-Wing Authoritarianism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Peter Glick and Andrew Robertson for their helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian spectre. London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna, (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007a). A dual process model of ideological attitudes and system justification. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification. In press.Google Scholar
  6. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007b). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, A. R. (2006). Women’s benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 410–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glick, P. (2006). Ambivalent sexism, power distance, and gender inequality across cultures. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup relations, and culture (pp. 283–302). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001a). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies: Differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice. In J. T. Jost & B Major, (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 278–306). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001b). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Masser, B., Manganelli, A. M., Huang, L., Castro, Y. R., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 1–27.Google Scholar
  22. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sibley, C. G., Robertson, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2006). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27, 755–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and BS attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007a). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007b). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a five-month period. Political Psychology, 28, 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Tavris, C., & Wade, C. (1984). The longest war: Sex differences in perspective (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  31. Van Hiel, A., Pandelaere, M., & Duriez, B. (2004). The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: Differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 824–837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris G. Sibley
    • 1
  • Nickola C. Overall
    • 1
  • John Duckitt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations