Sex Roles

, Volume 62, Issue 7–8, pp 468–480 | Cite as

Social Dominance and Sexual Self-Schema as Moderators of Sexist Reactions to Female Subtypes

Original Article

Abstract

Theoretically, ambivalent sexism maintains gender hierarchy through benevolence toward conforming women but hostility toward nonconforming women. Men have shown ambivalent sexism to sex-typed vignettes describing “chaste” and “promiscuous” women (Sibley and Wilson 2004). This study of 117 Florida male and female undergraduate participants examined whether, benefiting more from gender hierarchy, men respond more extremely. If sexism supports gender hierarchy, social dominance also should moderate ambivalent sexism. Sexual self-schema (detailed, self-confident sexual information-processing) might moderate men’s and women's hostility. Supporting ambivalent sexism theory, women's hostility targeted the promiscuous character, but their benevolence targeted the chaste character, with men unexpectedly differentiating less. Social dominance enhanced Hostile Sexism and its differentiating the two female subtypes. Sexual self-schema moderated women’s but not men’s hostility.

Keywords

Ambivalent sexism Female subtype Social dominance Sexual self-schema Gender differences 

References

  1. Anderson, B. L., & Cyranowski, J. M. (1994). Women’s sexual self schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1079–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. L., Cyranowski, J. M., & Espindle, D. (1999). Men’s sexual self schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 645–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Cyranowski, J. M., & Anderson, B. L. (1998). Schemas, sexuality, and romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1364–1379.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, A. R. (2006). Women's benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 410–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social perception: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 33, (pp. 115–188)). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  12. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2003). Sexism. In S. Plous (Ed.), Understanding prejudice and discrimination (pp. 224–231). Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes towards women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Bertram, F. M. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  20. Sibley, C., & Wilson, M. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sibley, C., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007a). When women become more hostiley sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 57, 743–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sibley, C., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007b). 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 845–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tavris, C., & Wade, C. (1984). The longest war: Sex differences in perspective (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MAST AcademyMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational and Psychological StudiesUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations