Abstract
In the present study, we draw from ambivalent sexism and frameworks centering marginalization to investigate how individuals’ marginalized race or gender identity influences their perceptions of benevolent sexism. We conducted an experimental scenario study during which a sample of Black and White adult participants (n = 325; Mage = 25.89 years) read a vignette about an interaction where a man student (perpetrator) gives a protective justification for restricting a woman student’s (target) involvement in one of two tasks for a class project. Participants were then asked about how dangerous they believed the tasks were, how they believed the woman target felt after her behavior was restricted, and whether they believed the man perpetrator had benevolent or malevolent motivations behind his restrictive behavior. We theorized that participants with marginalized race-gender identities would be more sensitive to threat, and consequently, that they would be more accepting of paternalistic behaviors. Our results supported the hypotheses: we found that compared to White men, participants with marginalized race and/or gender identities perceived the restricted task described in the vignettes as more dangerous and were consequently more likely to perceive the woman target as feeling more positively about her treatment and to perceive the man perpetrator as having more benevolent (and less malevolent) motivations for his behavior. These results suggest that individuals’ marginalized race or gender identities may influence their perceptions of benevolent sexism through their impact on how members from these groups perceive threat. The implications of study findings for future research and policy are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The data from this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
References
Austin, D. E. J., & Jackson, M. (2019). Benevolent and hostile sexism differentially predicted by facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.002.
Bareket, O., & Fiske, S. T. (2023). A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles. Psychological Bulletin, 49(11–12), 637–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul000040.
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(5), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.270.
Basford, T. E., Offermann, L. R., & Behrend, T. S. (2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313511420.
Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles, 62(7), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9707-4.
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(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615.
Bleich, S. N., Findling, M. G., Casey, L. S., Blendon, R. J., Benson, J. M., SteelFisher, G. K., Sayde, J. M., & Miller, C. (2019). Discrimination in the United States: Experiences of black americans. Health Services Research, 54(S2), 1399–1408. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13220.
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(7), 568–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x.
Bowleg, L. (2013). Once you’ve blended the cake, you can’t take the parts back to the main ingredients: Black gay and bisexual men’s descriptions and experiences of intersectionality. Sex Roles, 68(11), 754–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0152-4.
Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5(4), 437–474. https://doi.org/10.2307/1161993.
Calogero, R. M., Tylka, T. L., Siegel, J. A., Pina, A., & Roberts, T. A. (2020). Smile pretty and watch your back: Personal safety anxiety and vigilance in objectification theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(6), 1195–1222. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000344.
Campbell, J. T., Hudson, S. K. T. J., & Ratliff, K. A. (2023). The influence of Perceiver and Target Race in hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes. Sex Roles, 89(11), 644–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01421-6.
Causadias, J. M., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2018). Reframing marginalization and youth development: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 73(6), 707–712. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000336.
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(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00407.x.
Comas-Díaz, L., Hall, G. N., & Neville, H. A. (2019). Racial trauma: Theory, research, and healing: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 74(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000442.
Connelly, K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Why is benevolent sexism appealing? Associations with system justification and life satisfaction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312456369.
Cowden Hindash, A. H., Lujan, C., Howard, M., O’Donovan, A., Richards, A., Neylan, T. C., & Inslicht, S. S. (2019). Gender differences in threat biases: Trauma type matters in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 32(5), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22439.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608.
Cross, E. J., & Overall, N. C. (2018). Women’s attraction to benevolent sexism: Needing relationship security predicts greater attraction to men who endorse benevolent sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2334.
Davis, T. M., Settles, I. H., & Jones, M. K. (2022). Standpoints and situatedness: Examining the perception of benevolent sexism in black and white undergraduate women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 46(1), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211043108.
Dong, Y., & Peng, C. Y. J. (2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-222. Article 222.
Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., & Dardenne, B. (2010). Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel incompetent: Benevolent sexism shifts self-construal and autobiographical memories toward incompetence. Sex Roles, 62(7), 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9582-4.
Fischer, A. R. (2006). Women’s benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(4), 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00316.x.
Gaunt, R. (2013). Ambivalent sexism and perceptions of men and women who violate gendered family roles. Community Work & Family, 16(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2013.779231.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.
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(12), 1323–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972312009.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Annetje, B., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Expósito, F., & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis, second edition: A regression-based approach (2nd edition). The Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028.
Hayes, E. R., & Swim, J. K. (2013). African, Asian, Latina/o, and European americans’ responses to popular measures of sexist beliefs: Some cautionary notes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(2), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313480044.
Hicken, M. T., Lee, H., Ailshire, J., Burgard, S. A., & Williams, D. R. (2013). Every shut eye, ain’t sleep: The role of racism-related vigilance in racial/ethnic disparities in sleep difficulty. Race and Social Problems, 5(2), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-013-9095-9.
Hideg, I., & Ferris, D. L. (2016). The compassionate sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and undermines gender equality in the workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 706–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000072.
Hopkins-Doyle, A., Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & Calogero, R. M. (2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.
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(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.
King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A. (2012). Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1835–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365902.
Kirkman, M. S., & Oswald, D. L. (2020). Is it just me, or was that sexist? The role of sexism type and perpetrator race in identifying sexism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 160(2), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1634505.
Lamarche, V. M., Seery, M. D., Kondrak, C. L., Saltsman, T. L., & Streamer, L. (2020). Clever girl: Benevolent sexism and cardiovascular threat. Biological Psychology, 149, 107781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2019.107781.
Lee, H., & Hicken, M. T. (2016). Death by a thousand cuts: The health implications of black respectability politics. Souls, 18(2–4), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999949.2016.1230828.
May, D. C., Rader, N. E., & Goodrum, S. (2010). A gendered assessment of the ‘Threat of victimization’: Examining gender differences in fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Criminal Justice Review, 35(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016809349166.
McMahon, J. M., & Kahn, K. B. (2018). When sexism leads to racism: Threat, protecting women, and racial bias. Sex Roles, 78, 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0828-x.
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(10), 1421–1434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207304790.
Ogletree, S. M., Diaz, P., & Padilla, V. (2019). What is feminism? College students’ definitions and correlates. Current Psychology, 38(6), 1576–1589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9718-1.
Osborne, D., & Davies, P. G. (2009). Social dominance orientation, ambivalent sexism, and abortion: Explaining pro-choice and prolife attitudes. In L. B. Palcroft, & M. V. Lopez (Eds.), Personality assessment: New research (pp. 309–320). Nova Science.
Phelan, J. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Broccoli, T. L. (2010). The danger in sexism: The links among fear of crime, benevolent sexism, and well-being. Sex Roles, 62(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9711-8.
Rostosky, S. S., Richardson, M. T., McCurry, S. K., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2021). LGBTQ individuals’ lived experiences of hypervigilance. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 9(3), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000474.
Rudman, L. A., & Fetterolf, J. C. (2014). How accurate are metaperceptions of sexism? Evidence for the illusion of antagonism between hostile and benevolent sexism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213517272.
Settles, I. H., & Buchanan, N. T. (2014). Intersectionality: Multiple categories of identity and difference. In V. Benet-Martinez, & Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Multicultural Identity (pp. 160–180). Oxford University Press, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199796694.013.017.
Shepherd, M., Erchull, M. J., Rosner, A., Taubenberger, L., Queen, F., E., & McKee, J. (2011). I’ll get that for you: The relationship between benevolent sexism and body self-perceptions. Sex Roles, 64(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9859-2.
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a five-month period. Political Psychology, 28(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00572.x.
Stoetzler, M., & Yuval-Davis, N. (2002). Standpoint theory, situated knowledge and the situated imagination. Feminist Theory, 3(3), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/146470002762492024.
Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & McClellan, L. M. (2011). Benevolent sexism, perceived health risks, and the inclination to restrict pregnant women’s freedoms. Sex Roles, 65(7–8), 596–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9869-0.
West, C. (2019). Race matters. In R. Dagger, & D. I. O’Neill (Eds.), Ideals and ideologies (pp. 383–386). Routledge.
Zacharek, S., Dockterman, E., & Sweetland Edwards, H. (2017). TIME person of the year 2017: The silence breakers. Time. https://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017-silence-breakers/.
Acknowledgements
Not Applicable.
Funding
The authors did not receive funding support from any organization for the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Isis Settles. The first drafts of the manuscript were written by Tangier Davis and Kathrina Robotham, and then fully revised by Martinique Jones and Solangel C. Troncoso. All authors edited and commented on various iterations of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
The current study was reviewed by the intuition’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and in compliance with the IRB, all participants in the study were required to complete an informed consent.
Consent for Publication
Not Applicable.
Human and Animal Ethics
The current study is a human subject study. All researchers working on the study have received training on how to conduct human subject research. There are no animals involved in this study.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
The current study is a human subject study. All researchers working on the study have received training on how to conduct human subject research.
Informed Consent
The current study was reviewed by the intuition’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and in compliance with the IRB, all participants in the study were required to complete an informed consent.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Davis, T., Troncoso, S.C., Jones, M.K. et al. Dangerous Motivations: Understanding How Marginalization Relates to Benevolent Sexism Through Threat Perceptions. Sex Roles (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01466-1
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01466-1