Sex Roles

, Volume 60, Issue 11–12, pp 765–778 | Cite as

Ambivalent Sexism and Power-Related Gender-role Ideology in Marriage

Original Article

Abstract

Glick-Fiske’s (1996) Ambivalent Sexism Inventory(ASI) and a new Gender-Role Ideology in Marriage (GRIM) inventory examine ambivalent sexism toward women, predicting power-related, gender-role beliefs about mate selection and marriage norms. Mainland Chinese, 552, and 252 U.S. undergraduates participated. Results indicated that Chinese and men most endorsed hostile sexism; Chinese women more than U.S. women accepted benevolent sexism. Both Chinese genders prefer home-oriented mates (women especially seeking a provider and upholding him; men especially endorsing male-success/female-housework, male dominance, and possibly violence). Both U.S. genders prefer considerate mates (men especially seeking an attractive one). Despite gender and culture differences in means, ASI-GRIM correlations replicate across those subgroups: Benevolence predicts initial mate selection; hostility predicts subsequent marriage norms.

Keywords

Hostile sexism Benevolent sexism Mate selection Gender roles Marriage norms 

References

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blood, R., & Wolfe, D. (1960). Husbands and wives. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blumberg, R. L., & Coleman, M. T. (1989). A theoretical look at the gender balance of power in the American couple. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 225–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples: Money, work, and sex. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  5. Bond, M. H., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 205–235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brayfield, A. A. (1992). Employment resources and housework in Canada. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, Z. X. (1999). An investigation of university students’ love values. Psychology, 7, 78–53 (in Chinese). (陈志霞 (1999). 大学生恋爱价值观的调查分析.心理学, 7, 78–53).Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, D. H., & Straus, M. A. (1990). Marital power, conflict and violence in a nationally representative sample of American couples. In M. Straus, & R. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 287–304). Somerset, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  10. Coltrane, S. (1996). Family man: Fatherhood, housework and gender equity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cousineau, M.-M., & Rondeau, G. (2004). Toward a transnational and cross-culture analysis of family violence: issues and recommendations. Transnational and Cross-culture Research, 10, 935–949.Google Scholar
  12. Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Glick, P., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., Fiske, S. T., Blum, A., et al. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: a comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: a test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferree, M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: evidence from speed dating experience. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gillespie, D. (1971). Who has the power? The marital struggle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications of gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., 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
  28. Goldscheider, F. K., & Waite, L. J. (1991). New families, no families? The transformation of the American home. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gondolf, E. (2004). International research on family violence. Violence Against Women, 10, 705–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Gender ideology and perception of the fairness of the division of household labor: effects on marital quality. Social Forces, 74, 1029–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gutierres, S. E., Kenrick, D. T., & Partch, J. J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: the universal and the culturally specific. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 369–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1987). Social or evolutionary theories? Some observations on preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & West, S. G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: do nice guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kamo, Y. (1988). Determinants of household division of labor: resources, power, and ideology. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 177–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kenrick, D. T., & Trost, M. R. (1989). A reproductive exchange model of heterosexual relationships: Putting proximate economics in ultimate perspective. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships: Review of personality and social psychology, vol. 10 (pp. 92–118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Kim, J.-Y., & Emery, C. (2003). Marital power, conflict, norm consensus, and marital violence in a nationally representative sample of Korean couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kinnier, R. T., Katz, E. C., & Berry, M. A. (1991). Successful resolutions to the career-versus-family conflict. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 439–444.Google Scholar
  39. Kulik, L. (1999). Marital power relations, resources and gender role ideology: a multivariate model for assessing effects. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30, 189–207.Google Scholar
  40. Lueptow, L. B., Guss, M. B., & Hyden, C. (1989). Sex role ideology, marital status, and happiness. Journal of Family Issues, 10, 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ma, H. Q. (1997). The reality and countermeasures of Chinese women’s obtaining employment. Human Resource Development of China, 6, 25–28 (马焕琴(1997).我国妇女就业现状与对策.中国人力资源开发, 6, 25–28 ).Google Scholar
  42. McDonald, G. W. (1980). Family power: The assessment of a decade of theory and research, 1970–1979. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 841–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  44. Sartin, R. M., Hansen, D. J., & Huss, M. T. (2006). Domestic violence treatment response and recidivism: a review and implications for the study of family violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1967). A comparison of power structure and marital satisfaction in urban Greek and French families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scanzoni, J., & Szinovacz, M. (1980). Family decision-making: A developmental sex role model. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sprecher, S., & Toro-Morn, M. (2002). A study of men and women from different sides of earth to determine if men are from Mars and women are from Venus in their beliefs about love and romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 46, 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Warner, R. L., Lee, G. R., & Lee, J. (1986). Social organization, spousal resources, and marital power: a cross-culture study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Whyte, M. K. (1990). Dating, mating, and marriage. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  51. Wilkie, J. R., Ferree, M. M., & Ratcliff, K. S. (1998). Gender and fairness: marital satisfaction in two-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xu, A. Q. (2000). Mate selection criteria: 50 years flux and its cause. Sociology Research, 6, 18–30 (in Chinese). (徐安琪 (2000).择偶标准:五十年变迁及其原因分析.社会学研究, 6, 11–30).Google Scholar
  53. Yue, G. A., Chen, H., & Zhang, Y. Y. (2005). Verification of evolutionary hypothesis on human mate selection mechanism in cross-culture context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37, 561–568 (in Chinese). (乐国安,陈浩,张彦彦 (2005),.进化心理学择偶心理机制假设的跨文化检验———以天津、Boston两地征婚启事的内容分析为例.心理学报, 37, 561–568).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations