Sex Roles

, Volume 62, Issue 7–8, pp 568–582 | Cite as

How Sexy are Sexist Men? Women’s Perception of Male Response Profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

  • Gerd BohnerEmail author
  • Katrin Ahlborn
  • Regine Steiner
Original Article


In Studies 1 to 3, German female students (total N = 326) rated the likability and typicality of male targets: a nonsexist, a benevolent sexist, a hostile sexist, and (in Studies 2 and 3) an ambivalent sexist. When targets were presented as response profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick and Fiske 1996) (Studies 2 and 3), the benevolent sexist was rated to be most likable but least typical, whereas the ambivalent sexist was rated to be highly typical. Thus, women were aware of a link between benevolent and hostile sexism and approved of men’s benevolent sexism, especially when it was not paired with hostile sexism. Likability ratings were moderated by participants’ own benevolent sexism and feminist attitude.


Ambivalent sexism Attraction Feminist attitudes Gender relations Person perception 



Preliminary reports of this research were given as invited presentations at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile (September 2004), the University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany (June 2006), the University of Basel, Switzerland (April 2007), the University of Magdeburg, Germany (May 2007), the Universities of Cape Town and Pretoria, South Africa (August 2007), and the University of Graz, Austria (March 2008). We thank Caroline Erdmann for her help with the data collection and analyses in Study 1, and the "Astoria" cinema, Bielefeld, for providing free tickets as incentives for participants in Study 2. Thanks also to Friederike Eyssel and Nina Vanselow, who provided helpful comments on a previous draft.


  1. Abrams, D., Viki, G. T. N., 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.Google 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. Branscombe, N. R., & Deaux, K. (1991). Feminist attitude accessibility and behavioral intentions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 411–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary pespective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: science and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Harpercollins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Ditto, P. H., & Jemmott, J. B. I. I. I. (1989). From rarity to evaluative extremity: Effects of prevalence information on evaluations of positive and negative characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 16–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Eckes, T. (2001). Ambivalenter Sexismus und die Polarisierung von Geschlechterstereotypen [Ambivalent sexism and the polarization of gender stereotypes]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 32, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1999). Hostilität und Benevolenz: Eine Skala zur Erfassung des ambivalenten Sexismus [Hostility and benevolence: A scale for the assessment of ambivalent sexism]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 30, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause sexual harassment: A theory with implications for organizational change. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Kilianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Morgan, B. L. (1996). Putting the feminism into feminism scales: Introduction of a liberal feminist attitude and ideology scale (LFAIS). Sex Roles, 34, 359–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  23. Siebler, F., Sabelus, S., & Bohner, G. (2008). A refined computer harassment paradigm: Validation, and test of hypotheses about target characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Swim, J. K., Mallett, R., Russo-Devosa, Y., & Stangor, C. (2005). Judgments of sexism: A comparison of the subtlety of sexism measurs and sources of variability in judgments of sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 406–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. United Nations (2008). Human development report 2007/2008. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from the United Nations Development Programme Web site:
  26. Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The "true" romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Abteilung für PsychologieUniversität BielefeldBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations