Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:46:17.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Sexism in Intimate Contexts: How Romantic Relationships Help Explain the Origins, Functions, and Consequences of Sexist Attitudes

from Part II - Prejudice in Specific Domains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2016

Matthew D. Hammond
Affiliation:
Victoria University of Wellington
Nickola C. Overall
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Chris G. Sibley
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Fiona Kate Barlow
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

How can we characterize and understand the relationship between men and women? One answer to this question involves group membership, including the relative social roles men and women “ought to” occupy and thus the extent to which men versus women hold status and power in society. Another involves intimate heterosexual relationships, such as how men and women “ought to” care for each other in their close, personal relationships. These answers highlight the complexities of the relationship between men and women, which can be considered as both intergroup and competitive and interpersonal and cooperative.

As outlined by ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001) these conflicting concerns of power and intimacy produce two related forms of sexist attitudes toward women (see Connor, Glick, & Fiske, Chapter 13, this title). Hostile sexism encompasses competitive attitudes that cast women as incompetent, overly emotional, and attempting to unfairly undermine men's power. These attitudes reinforce men's advantaged societal status by threatening and denigrating women who could challenge men's power. However, protecting societal-level advantages in this manner comes at the expense of men attaining security and satisfaction within intimate heterosexual relationships. Benevolent sexism arises to offset these costs and facilitate men's relationship needs. Benevolent sexism characterizes the relationship between men and women as mutually beneficial and based on complementary traits and social roles: Men are “completed” by cherishing and protecting female partners who, in turn, adopt the role of warm, supportive caregivers.

In their chapter, Connor et al. examined how ambivalent attitudes restrict women's political, economic, and personal power. On the basis of that foundational chapter, here we take a more fine-grained look at the central role that dynamics within romantic relationships play in the emergence, functions, and consequences of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women. Tables 14.1 and 14.2 summarize the principles derived from ambivalent sexism theory and associated research that we review in this chapter. We begin by examining men's endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexism (Table 14.1). We first outline the difficulties that men's hostile sexism creates in romantic relationships and consider how these deficits necessitate benevolent sexism. We then consider the ways men's benevolent sexism functions within intimate relationships to facilitate men's intimacy needs while maintaining and promoting their power. In the second half of the chapter, we turn to women's endorsement of benevolent and hostile sexism (Table 14.2).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perception of a 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: 10.1177/1077801206291663Google Scholar
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. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.270Google Scholar
Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Piebinga, L., & Moya, M. (2010). How nice of us and how dumb of me: The effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women's task and relational self-descriptions. Sex Roles, 62, 532–544. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9699-0Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497Google Scholar
Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and personalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles, 62, 453–467. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9707-4Google Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162. doi: 10.1037/h0036215Google Scholar
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-xGoogle Scholar
Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22, 1413–1418. doi: 10.1177/0956797611420445Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616Google Scholar
Casad, B. J., Salazar, M. M., & Macina, V. (2015). The real versus the ideal: Predicting relationship satisfaction and well-being from endorsement of marriage myths and benevolent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 119–129. doi: 0361684314528304Google Scholar
Chen, Z., Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60, 765–778. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9585-9Google Scholar
Cihangir, S., Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2014). Men as allies against sexism. SAGE Open, 4, doi: 2158244014539168.Google Scholar
Czopp, A. M., & Monteith, M. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–544. doi: 10.1177/0146167202250923Google Scholar
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: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764Google Scholar
de Lemus, S., Moya, M., & Glick, P. (2010). When contact correlates with prejudice: Adolescents’ romantic relationship experience predicts greater benevolent sexism in boys and hostile sexism in girls. Sex Roles, 63, 214–225. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9786-2Google Scholar
Drury, B. J., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 637–652. doi: 10.1111/josi.12083Google Scholar
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 41–114. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2601(01)80004-6
Durán, M., Moya, M., Megías, J. L., & Viki, G. T. (2010). Social perception of rape victims in dating and married relationships: The role of perpetrator's benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 505–519. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9676-7Google Scholar
Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A., Glick, P., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., Fiske, S. T., Blum, A. M. B.Volpato, C. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603–614. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9027-xGoogle Scholar
Expósito, F., Herrera, M. C., Moya, M., & Glick, P. (2010). Don't rock the boat: Women's benevolent sexism predicts fears of marital violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 36–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01539.xGoogle Scholar
Fernández, M., Castro, Y., Otero, M., Foltz, M., & Lorenzo, M. (2006). Sexism, vocational goals, and motivation as predictors of men's and women's career choice. Sex Roles, 55, 267–272. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9079-yGoogle Scholar
Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1981). Disabled women: Sexism without the pedestal. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 8, 233–248.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. R. (2006). Women's benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 410–416. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00316.xGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2013). The science of intimate relationships. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell.
Fletcher, G. J., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72Google Scholar
Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. (2004). First-and second-generation measures of sexism, rape myths, and related beliefs, and hostility toward women: Their interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating aggression and sexual coercion. Violence Against Women, 10, 236–261. doi: 10.1177/1077801203256002Google Scholar
Forbes, G. B., Jobe, R. L., White, K. B., Bloesch, E., & Adams-Curtis, L. E. (2005). Perceptions of dating violence following a sexual or nonsexual betrayal of trust: Effects of gender, sexism, acceptance of rape myths, and vengeance motivation. Sex Roles, 52, 165–173. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1292-6Google Scholar
Ford, T. E., Wentzel, E. R., & Lorion, J. (2001). Effects of exposure to sexist humor on perceptions of normative tolerance of sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 677–691. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.56Google Scholar
Frye, N. E., & Karney, B. R. (2002). Being better or getting better? Social and temporal comparisons as coping mechanisms in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1287–1299. doi: 10.1177/01461672022812013Google Scholar
Garaigordobil, M., & Aliri, J. (2013). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Standardization and normative data in a sample of the basque country. Behavioral Psychology-Psicologia Conductual, 21, 173–186.Google Scholar
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: 10.1177/01461672972312009Google Scholar
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//0022-3514.70.3.491Google Scholar
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.56.2.109Google Scholar
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B.López, 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//0022-3514.79.5.763Google Scholar
Glick, P., & Hilt, L. (2000). Combative children to ambivalent adults: The development of gender prejudice. In Eckes, T. & Trautner, M. (Eds.), Developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 243–272). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goh, J. X. & Hall, J. A. (2015). Nonverbal and verbal expressions of men's sexism in mixed-gender interactions. Sex Roles, 72, 252–261. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0451-7Google Scholar
Greenwood, D., & Isbell, L. M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men's and women's reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 341–350. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00073Google Scholar
Grubbs, J. B., Exline, J. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2014). Psychological entitlement and ambivalent sexism: Understanding the role of entitlement in predicting two forms of sexism. Sex Roles, 70, 209–220. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0360-1Google Scholar
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2013a). Men's hostile sexism and biased perceptions of intimate partners: Fostering dissatisfaction and negative behavior in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1585–1599. doi: 10.1177/0146167213499026Google Scholar
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2013b). When relationships do not live up to benevolent ideals: Women's benevolent sexism and sensitivity to relationship problems. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 212–223. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1939Google Scholar
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N.C. (2014). Endorsing benevolent sexism magnifies willingness to dissolve relationships when facing partner-ideal discrepancies. Personal Relationships, 21, 272–287. doi: 10.1111/pere.12031Google Scholar
Hammond, M. D., Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2014). The allure of sexism: Psychological entitlement fosters women's endorsement of benevolent sexism over time. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 421–428. doi: 10.1177/1948550613506124Google Scholar
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Benevolent sexism and support of romantic partner's goals: Undermining women's competence while fulfilling men's intimacy needs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1180–1194. doi: 10.1177/0146167215593492Google Scholar
Hammond, M. D., Overall, N. C., & Cross, E. J. (2016). Internalizing sexism in close relationships: The perceived sexism of partners maintains women's endorsement of benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 214–238. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000043Google Scholar
Hart, J., Hung, J. A., Glick, P., & Dinero, R. E. (2012). He loves her, he loves her not: Attachment style as a personality antecedent to men's ambivalent sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1495–1505. doi: 10.1177/0146167212454177Google Scholar
Herrera, M. C., Expósito, F., & Moya, M. (2012). Negative reactions of men to the loss of power in gender relations: Lilith vs. Eve. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 4, 17–42. doi: 10.1037/e506052012-248Google Scholar
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
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:1018814924402Google Scholar
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41–55. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0701_3Google Scholar
Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P., & Chen, Z. (2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583–602. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9770-xGoogle Scholar
McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: Should couples expect the best or brace for the worst? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 729–743. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.729Google Scholar
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. doi: 10.1177/0146167207304790Google Scholar
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 641–666. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641Google Scholar
Obeid, N., Chang, D. F., & Ginges, J. (2010). Beliefs about wife beating: An exploratory study with Lebanese students. Violence Against Women, 16, 691–712. doi: 10.1177/1077801210370465Google Scholar
Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. (2011). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 271–290. doi: 10.1037/a0022727Google Scholar
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191Google Scholar
Riemer, A., Chaudoir, S., & Earnshaw, V. (2014). What looks like sexism and why? The effect of comment type and perpetrator type on women's perceptions of sexism. The Journal of General Psychology, 141, 263–279. doi: 10.1080/00221309.2014.907769Google Scholar
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204. doi: 10.1177/026540759301000202Google Scholar
Sakalli, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44, 599–610. doi: 10.1080/00223980209604825Google Scholar
Salomon, K., Burgess, K. D., & Bosson, J. K. (2015). Flash fire and slow burn: Women's cardiovascular reactivity and recovery following hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 469–479. doi: 10.1037/xge0000061Google Scholar
Sarlet, M., Dumont, M., Delacollette, N., & Dardenne, B. (2012). Prescription of protective paternalism for men in romantic and work contexts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 444–457. doi: 10.1177/0361684312454842Google Scholar
Shnabel, N., Bar-Anan, Y., Kende, A., Bareket, O., & Lazar, Y. (2016). Help to perpetuate traditional gender roles: Benevolent sexism increases engagement in dependency-oriented cross-gender helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 55–75. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000037Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., & Becker, J. C. (2012). On the nature of sexist ambivalence: Profiling ambivalent and univalent sexists. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 589–601. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1870Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2011). A dual-process motivational model of ambivalent sexism and gender differences in romantic partner preferences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 303–317. doi: 10.1177/0361684311401838Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 57, 743–754. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9306-1Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., & Perry, R. (2010). An opposing process model of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 438–452. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9705-6Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). 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. doi: 10.1177/0146167206294745Google Scholar
Sinclair, S., Huntsinger, J., Skorinko, J., & Hardin, C. D. (2005). Social tuning of the self: Consequences for the self-evaluations of stereotype targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 160–175. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.160Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents’ gender schemas related to their children's gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 38, 615–630. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.38.4.615Google Scholar
Thomas, C. A., & Esses, V. M. (2004). Individual differences in reactions to sexist humor. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 89–100. doi: 10.1177/1368430204039975Google Scholar
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York: Simon & Schuster.
United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Human development report 2014. Retrieved from hdr.undp.org/en/2014-report/download
Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289–293. doi: 10.1023/A:1021342912248Google Scholar
Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533–537. doi: 10.1023/A:1025888824749Google Scholar
Yakushko, O. (2005). Ambivalent sexism and relationship patterns among women and men in Ukraine. Sex Roles, 52, 589–596. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-3727-5Google Scholar
Yamawaki, N., Ostenson, J., & Brown, R. C. (2009). The functions of gender role traditionality, ambivalent sexism, injury, and frequency of assault on domestic violence perception: A study between Japanese and American college students. Violence Against Women, 15, 1126–1142. doi: 10.1177/1077801209340758Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×