This study examined the nonverbal and verbal expressions of hostile and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism is sexist antipathy and benevolent sexism is a chivalrous belief that women are warm yet incompetent. We predicted that hostile sexist men would display less affiliative expressions but benevolent sexist men would display more affiliative expressions during mixed-gender interactions. Twenty-seven pairs of U.S. male and female undergraduates from a private university in New England participated in this study. These mixed-gender dyads participated in two social interactions: a structured trivia game followed by an unstructured conversation period. During the trivia game, men with more benevolent sexism were perceived to be more patient overall when waiting for the woman to answer the trivia questions. Furthermore, we examined the men’s nonverbal and verbal expressions during the unstructured interaction—naïve raters made impression ratings of the men’s nonverbal and verbal behavior, and trained coders counted the frequency of specific nonverbal cues (e.g., smiles). A word count software was used for verbal content analysis. As predicted, more hostile sexism was associated with less affiliative nonverbal and verbal expressions (e.g., less approachable, less friendly, and less smiling), but more benevolent sexism was associated with more affiliative nonverbal and verbal expressions (e.g., more approachable, more likely to smile, and more positive word usage). The effects held after controlling for men’s personality traits and partners’ nonverbal behavior. Differential behavioral expressions of benevolent and hostile sexism have theoretical importance as we can examine how sexism maintains the status quo at the interpersonal level.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abel, M. H. (Ed.). (2002). An empirical reflection on the smile. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (25th ed.). Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62–77. doi:10.1037/a0022615.
Begany, J. J., & Milburn, M. A. (2002). Psychological predictors of sexual harassment: Authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 119–126. doi:10.1037//1524-9220.127.116.11.
Bosson, J. K., Pinel, E. C., & Vandello, J. A. (2010). The emotional impact of ambivalent sexism: Forecasts versus real experiences. Sex Roles, 62, 520–531. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9664-y.
Catalyst (2012). 2012 Catalyst census: Fortune 500 women executive officers and top earners. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org.
Dovidio, J. F., & LaFrance, M. (2013). Race, ethnicity, and nonverbal behavior. In J. A. Hall & M. L. Knapp (Eds.), Nonverbal communication (pp. 671–695). Berlin: deGruyter Mouton.
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gartner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62–68. doi:10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168.
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 19–35). Malden: Blackwell.
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558. doi:10.1177/0146167289154008.
Gifford, R. (2013). Personality is encoded in, and decoded from, nonverbal behavior. In J. A. Hall & M. L. Knapp (Eds.), Nonverbal communication (pp. 369–402). Berlin: deGruyter Mouton.
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:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1241.
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.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., & Lόpez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1993.
Good, J. J., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: The costs of being a target of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 481–493. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9685-6.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
Gunnery, S. D., Hall, J. A., & Ruben, M. A. (2013). The deliberate Duchenne smile: Individual differences in expressive control. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37, 29–41. doi:10.1007/s10919-012-0139-4.
Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363–386. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.363.
Jennings, K. (2008). Ken Jennings’s trivia almanac: 8,888 questions in 365 days. New York: Villard Books.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.528.
Kehn, A., & Ruthig, J. C. (2013). Perceptions of gender discrimination across six decades: The moderating roles of gender and age. Sex Roles, 69, 289–296. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0303-2.
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.
Logel, C., Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J., Iserman, E. C., von Hippel, W., & Bell, A. E. (2009). Interacting with sexist men triggers social identity threat among female engineers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1089–1103. doi:10.1037/a0015703.
McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the Implicit Association Test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 435–442. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1470.
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109.
Murphy, J. D., Driscoll, D. M., & Kelly, J. R. (1999). Differences in the nonverbal behavior of men who vary in the likelihood to sexually harass. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 113–128.
National Science Foundation (2008). Thirty-three years of women in S&E faculty positions. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov.
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2007 [Computer software]. Austin: LIWC.net.
Quotaproject (2013). Global database of quotas for women. Retrieved from http://quotaproject.org/.
Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2004). Brief report: Thin slices of racial bias. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 75–86. doi:10.1007/s10919-004-0890-2.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rudman, L. A. (2005). Rejection of women? Beyond prejudice as antipathy. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 106–120). Malden: Blackwell.
Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493–517. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1022.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford Press.
Stephan, W. G. (2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 239–255. doi:10.1177/1088868314530518.
Swim, J. K., Mallett, R., & Stangor, C. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use of sexist language. Sex Roles, 51, 117–128. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000037757.73192.06.
Toosi, N. R., Babbitt, L. G., Ambady, N., & Sommers, S. R. (2012). Dyadic interracial interactions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1–27. doi:10.1037/a0025767.
Trawalter, S., Adam, E. K., Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Richeson, J. A. (2012). Concerns about appearing prejudiced get under the skin: Stress responses to interracial contact in the moment and across time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 682–693. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.003.
Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S., 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. doi:10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2068.
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101–126. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.101.
We thank Aria Rad, Julia Zuroff, Avery Cross, Adriana Jodoin, and Isabelle Nichols for their assistance in conducting the study. We also thank Mollie Ruben, Paul Condon, and Stephen Harkins for helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. This research was supported by a Clara Mayo Grant from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues to the first author.
About this article
Cite this article
Goh, J.X., Hall, J.A. Nonverbal and Verbal Expressions of Men’s Sexism in Mixed-Gender Interactions. Sex Roles 72, 252–261 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0451-7
- Benevolent sexism
- Hostile sexism
- Social interactions