Sex Roles

, Volume 62, Issue 7–8, pp 481–493 | Cite as

When Female Applicants Meet Sexist Interviewers: The Costs of Being a Target of Benevolent Sexism

Original Article

Abstract

American undergraduate participants (N = 205) read an interview transcript and then evaluated male interviewers and a female job applicant to investigate perceptions of women who receive benevolent or hostile sexism (relative to non-sexist controls). As predicted, positive evaluations of the male interviewer in the benevolent and hostile sexist conditions negatively predicted participants’ hiring decisions—an effect that was fully mediated by low ratings of applicant competence. In accord with ambivalent sexism theory’s claim that women who challenge male dominance are not eligible for protective paternalism, participants’ hostile sexism scores predicted lower ratings of applicant competence and hireability, but only when the interviewer was a benevolent sexist. Implications for workplace discrimination are discussed.

Keywords

Ambivalent sexism Gender attitudes Sex discrimination Employment discrimination 

References

  1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, R. S., Burgess, M. L., & Kao, C. E. (1991). Detecting and labeling prejudice: do female perpetrators go undetected? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer, A. R. (2006). Women’s benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 410–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Singletary, S. L., & Kazama, S. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1499–1511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Inman, M. L., & Baron, R. S. (1996). Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 727–739.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kilianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: the consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51, 609–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, 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
  17. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  18. Rudman, L. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2007). From the laboratory to the bench: Gender stereotyping research in the courtroom. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 83–102). Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. (2005). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: the stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 658–672.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. von Baeyer, C. L., Sherk, D. L., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Impression management in the job interview: when the female applicant meets the male (chauvinist) interviewer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weinstock v. Columbia University. (2000). 224 F.3d33 2nd Cir.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations