Sex Roles

, Volume 62, Issue 7–8, pp 545–553 | Cite as

Be Too Kind to a Woman, She’ll Feel Incompetent: Benevolent Sexism Shifts Self-construal and Autobiographical Memories Toward Incompetence

Original Article

Abstract

The present study investigated how benevolent (BS) and hostile sexism (HS) shift women’s self-construal and autobiographical memory. Belgian undergraduates (only women, N = 45, mean age = 21.8) were confronted either by BS, HS or neutral comments in the context of a job interview. After performing a cognitive task, participants reported the intrusive thoughts that came to their mind during the task. Later, autobiographical memory for self-incompetence was assessed. Performance response latencies were slower after BS than HS. Also, BS generated more disturbing mental intrusions related to the idea of being incompetent than HS. Autobiographical memory similarly indicated greater access for incompetence after BS. Although HS was more aggressive in tone, it did not shift women’s self-construal and autobiographical memories toward incompetence.

Keywords

Sexism Self-construal Incompetence Autobiographical memory Performance 

References

  1. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: how it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cose, E. (1993). Race as a privileged class. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  4. Dardenne, B., Delacollette, N., Grégoire, C., & Lecocq, D. (2006). Latent structure of the French validation of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: l’Echelle de Sexisme Ambivalent. L’Annee Psychologique, 106, 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764–779.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dumont, M., & Dardenne, B. (2008). Lessening women’s readiness to accept the status quo helps avoiding benevolent sexism’s deleterious impact on performance. (in press).Google Scholar
  7. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1993). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research an attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgment of competence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 1–35). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from the perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social perception: warmth, then competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. The American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Haines, E. L., & Jost, J. T. (2000). Placating the powerless: effects of legitimate and illegitimate explanation on affect, memory, and stereotyping. Social Justice Research, 13, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackman, M. (1994). The Velvet Glove: paternalism and conflict in gender, class and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 1–27.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899–913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kervyn, N., Yzerbyt, V. Y., Judd, C. M., & Nunes, A. (2009). A question of compensation: the social life of the fundamental dimensions of social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
  21. Moya, M., Glick, P., Exposito, F., de Lemus, S., & Hart, J. (2007). It’s for your own good: benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1421–1434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Robinson, J. A. (1992). First experience memories: context and functions in personal histories. In M. A. Conway, D. C. Rubin, H. Spinnler, & W. A. Wagenaar (Eds.), Theoretical perspective on autobiographical memory (pp. 223–239). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Rudman, L. A., & Heppen, J. B. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: a glass slipper effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1357–1370.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: an intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Wegner, D. M., & Erber, R. (1992). The hyperaccessibility of suppressed thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 903–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Kervyn, N., & Judd, C. M. (2008). Compensation versus halo: the unique relations between the fundamental dimensions of social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1110–1123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive SciencesUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  2. 2.Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique (FRS–FNRS)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations