Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 67, Issue 1–2, pp 69–82 | Cite as

Are People Better at Recognizing Ambivalent Sexism on the Basis of the Non-standard Profiles than the Standard ASI Ones?

  • Tadios ChisangoEmail author
  • Gwatirera Javangwe
Original Article

Abstract

Kilianski and Rudman (1998) developed “standard” profiles of a benevolent and a hostile sexist man from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and tested if a U.S. sample of female students would perceive them as referring to the same person (i.e. an ambivalent sexist). Results showed that although they appraised the benevolent sexist profile favourably, and the hostile sexist one unfavourably, they considered it unlikely that they could refer to the same man. We developed “non-standard” profiles similar to those used by Kilianski and Rudman, with the major difference that they were not made directly from the ASI, but on the basis of attitudes and actions of a realistic soap-opera character, and tested if they would be considered as referring to the same individual by a sample of 238 undergraduate students (81 males and 157 females) at the University of Zimbabwe. Our results showed that both male and female participants found it as difficult to detect ambivalent sexism on the basis of non-standard ASI profiles as on the basis of standard ASI profiles.

Keywords

Ambivalent sexism Benevolent sexism Hostile sexism Standard ASI aprofiles Non-standard ASI profiles 

References

  1. Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K., & Wohlers, A. J. (1986). Sex stereotypes. In R. D. Ashmore & F. K. Del Boca (Eds.), The social psychology of male-male relations (pp. 69–120). Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Bohner, G., Ahlborn, K., & Steiner, R. (2010). How sexy are sexist men? Women's perception of male response profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Sex Roles, 62, 568–582. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x.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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Domestic Violence Act of 2006, 24. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.kubatana.net/docs/legisl/dom_viol_act_ch5_16_act%2014_2006_070226.pdf .
  6. Dosekun, S. (2007). Defending feminism in Africa. Postamble, 3, 41–47.Google Scholar
  7. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behaviour: A social-role interpretation. Hillside: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.56.2.109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. doi: 10.1177/01461672972312009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Good, J. J., & Sanchez, D. T. (2009). Communal stereotypes prime men’s benevolent sexism: Implications for romance and family. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 88–94. doi: 10.1037/a0013427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Good, J. G., & Woodzicka, J. A. (2010a). Reducing approval of benevolent sexism: An educational intervention. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 7, 16–30.Google Scholar
  15. Good, J. J., & Woodzicka, J. A. (2010b). Reducing approval of benevolent sexism: An educational intervention. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 7, 16–30.Google Scholar
  16. Kambarami, M. (2006). Femininity, sexuality and culture: Patriarchy and female subordination in Zimbabwe. South Africa: Africa Regional Sexuality Resource Centre.Google Scholar
  17. Kilianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333–352. doi: 10.1023/A:1018814924402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuran, J. (2003). Why is self-enhancement low in certain collectivistic cultures. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 34, 496–510. doi: 10.1177/002202210325674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Longhurst, B. (1987). Realism, naturalism and television soap opera. Culture and Society, 4, 297–320. doi: 10.1177/026327687004004004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pearce, C. (1990). Tsika, Hunhu and the moral education of primary school children. Zambezia, 17, 145–160.Google Scholar
  21. Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. (1995). A social-psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 69–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01309.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Samkange, S., & Samkange, T. M. (1980). Hunhuism or Ubuntuism: A Zimbabwe indigenous political philosophy. Harare: Graham.Google Scholar
  23. Soanes, C., & Hwaker, S. (Eds.). (2005). Compact Oxford English dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972a). Who likes competent women? Competence, sex role congruence of interest, and subjects’ attitudes toward women as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 197–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1972.tb01272.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972b). The Attitudes Towards Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66–67 (Ms. 153). doi:  10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00098.x
  26. Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism and collectivism: Past, present, and future. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 35–50). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchinson, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533–537. doi: 10.1023/A:1025888824749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Community and Human DevelopmentWits UniversityJohannesburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ZimbabweHarareZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations