Sex Roles

, Volume 62, Issue 7–8, pp 438–452 | Cite as

An Opposing Process Model of Benevolent Sexism

Original Article

Abstract

An Opposing Process Model outlining the pathways through which individual differences in Benevolent Sexism (BS) simultaneously enhance and attenuate support for gender equality of income and employment opportunity is presented. Results from a New Zealand electoral sample (N = 336) indicated that BS predicted Hostile Sexism (HS), and thus indirectly opposition toward gender-related policies (a hierarchy-enhancing effect). For women, BS also directly predicted attitudes toward gender equality in the opposing, supportive direction (a hierarchy-attenuating effect). Analyses of a 9-month longitudinal sample of undergraduate women substantiated these results (Study II; N = 170). In stable societies, the dual opposing effects of BS seem to form a system where hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating processes tend toward homeostasis or equilibrium within the population.

Keywords

Ambivalent sexism Social policy System justification Moderated mediation Homeostatic system Equilibrium 

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Christopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Huddy, L. (2004). Contrasting theoretical approaches to intergroup relations. Political Psychology, 25, 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Kilianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Labour on Women’s Issues. (2005). Summary of policy proposed by The Labour Party of New Zealand in 2005.Google Scholar
  14. O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 32, 396–402.Google Scholar
  15. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.Google Scholar
  16. Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007a). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: the system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 57, 743–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sibley, C. G., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., Duckitt, J., Perry, R., Milfont, T. L., Khan, S. S., et al. (2009). Your sexism predicts my sexism: perceptions of men’s (but not women’s) sexism affects one’s own sexism over time. Sex Roles, 60, 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Statistics New Zealand. (2006). 2006 census of populations and dwellings. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.Google Scholar
  22. Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2003). Infra-humanization: ambivalent sexism and the attribution of primary and secondary emotions to women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 492–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations