Ambivalent Sexism in the Twenty-First Century

doi:10.1017/9781316161579.013

13 - Ambivalent Sexism in the Twenty-First Century

from Part II - Prejudice in Specific Domains

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 November 2016

Rachel A. Connor ,

Peter Glick and

Susan T. Fiske

Edited by

Chris G. Sibley and

Fiona Kate Barlow

Show author details

Rachel A. Connor: Affiliation:
Princeton University
Peter Glick: Affiliation:
Lawrence University
Susan T. Fiske: Affiliation:
Princeton University
Chris G. Sibley: Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Fiona Kate Barlow: Affiliation:
University of Queensland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Gender-based inequality is pervasive. Historically and cross-culturally, men have held more resources, power, and status than women. Despite general trends toward gender equality, male dominance remains a global reality. As of 2014, the global gender gap in economic participation and opportunity, which includes gender gaps in income, labor force participation, and professional advancement, stood at 60% (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2014). If progress toward gender equality continues at the same pace, it will take until 2095 to completely close this gap. Yet in contrast to characterizations of intergroup relations as hostile and competitive, gender relations are predominantly cooperative – individual men and women consistently engage in and sustain close relationships with members of the other sex, whether friends, parents, siblings, or significant others. Herein lies the gender relationship paradox. How is the tension between male hegemony and male-female intimacy reconciled?

Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) recognizes that sexism entails a mixture of antipathy and subjective benevolence:

• Hostile sexism corresponds to classic definitions of prejudice as antipathy (Allport, 1954) and reflects the hostile derogation of women who pose a threat to the gender hierarchy (e.g., feminists).
• Benevolent sexism is “a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling (for the perceiver)” (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491). Benevolent sexism bestows affection on women who embrace limited but traditional gender roles (e.g., housewives). Hence, although benevolent sexism may appear positive, it presumes and reinforces women's subordinate status.

Ambivalent sexism theory argues that hostile and benevolent sexism are, in fact, not conflicting but complementary ideologies that present a resolution to the gender relationship paradox. By offering male protection and provision to women in exchange for their compliance, benevolent sexism recruits women as unwitting participants in their own subjugation, thereby obviating overt coercion. Hostile sexism serves to safeguard the status quo by punishing those who deviate from traditional gender roles.

This chapter discusses ambivalent sexism as a coordinated system of control that serves male dominance and limits women's power across personal, economic, and political domains. First, we review ambivalent sexism theory, focusing on ambivalent sexism's system-justifying functions. The second section addresses how ambivalent sexism polices women's bodies through the threat of rape, sexual harassment, and violence, as well as oppressive beauty ideals.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice , pp. 295 - 320

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.013 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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.Google Scholar

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashburn-Nardo, L., Blanchar, J. C., Petersson, J., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2014). Do you say something when it's your boss? The role of perpetrator power in prejudice confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 615–636.Google 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(5), 633–642.Google 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(7–8), 532–544.Google Scholar

Becker, J. C., Glick, P., Ilic, M., & Bohner, G. (2011). Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't: Consequences of accepting versus confronting patronizing help for the female target and male actor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(6), 761–773.Google Scholar

Becker, J. C., & Swim, J, K. (2011). Seeing the unseen attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 227–242.Google Scholar

Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: Differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Social Psychology, 43(3), 127–137.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Becker, J. C., & Barreto, M. (2014). Ways to go: Men's and women's support for aggressive and nonaggressive confrontation of sexism as a function of gender identification. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 668–686.Google Scholar

Belliveau, M. A. (2012). Engendering inequity? How social accounts create vs. merely explain unfavorable pay outcomes for women. Organization Science, 23(4), 1154–1174.Google Scholar

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T. … Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). Atlanta, GA: NCIPC, CDC.

Biernat, M., Tocci, M. J., & Williams, J. C. (2012). The language of performance evaluations: Gender-based shifts in content and consistency of judgment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 186–192.Google Scholar

Bosson, J. K., Pinel, E. C., & Vandello, J. A. (2010). The emotional impact of ambivalent sexism: Forecasts versus real experiences. Sex Roles, 62(7–8), 520–531.Google Scholar

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103.Google Scholar

Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1413–1418.Google Scholar

Breines, J. G., Crocker, J., & Garcia, J. A. (2008). Self-objectification and well-being in women's daily lives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(5), 583–598.Google Scholar

Browne, A., Williams, K. R. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethal violence: Trends from 1976 through 1987. Gender & Society, 7(1), 78–98.Google Scholar

Calogero, R. M. (2013). On objects and actions: Situating self-objectification in a system justification context. In Gervais, S. J. (Ed.), Objectification and (de) humanization (pp. 97–126). New York: Springer.

Calogero, R. M., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 211–228.Google Scholar

Chen, Z., Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2009). Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology in marriage. Sex Roles, 60(11–12), 765–778.Google Scholar

Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 223–230.Google Scholar

Cihangir, S., Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2014). Men as allies against sexism. SAGE Open. doi: 10.1177/2158244014539168

Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(3), 540–551.Google Scholar

Connell, R. W. (2005). Change among the gatekeepers: Men, masculinities, and gender equality in the global arena. Signs, 40(1), 1801–1825.Google Scholar

Connelly, K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Why is benevolent sexism appealing? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(4), 432–443.Google Scholar

Connor, R. A., & Fiske, S. T. (2016). Not minding the gender income gap: Hostile sexism, conservatism, and attributed choice in a moral framework. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Cundiff, J. L., Zawadzki, M. J., Danube, L., & Shields, S. A. (2014). Using experiential learning to increase the recognition of everyday sexism as harmful: The WAGES intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 703–721.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(4), 532–544.Google Scholar

Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784–803.Google Scholar

Dall'Ara, E., & Maass, A. (1999). Studying sexual harassment in the laboratory: Are egalitarian women at higher risk? Sex Roles, 41, 681–704.Google 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(5), 764–779.Google Scholar

Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., Phillips, C., Balteau, E,. Degueldre, C. … Collette, F. (2013). Benevolent sexism alters executive brain responses. Neuroreport, 24(10), 572–577.Google Scholar

de Lemus, S., Navarro, L., Velásquez, M. J., Ryan, E., & Megías, J. L. (2014). From sex to gender: A university intervention to reduce sexism in Argentina, Spain, and El Salvador. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 741–762.Google Scholar

Drury, B. J., & Kaiser, C. R. (2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 637–652.Google Scholar

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(7–8), 545–553.Google Scholar

Durán, M., Moya, M., & Megías, J. L. (2011). It's his right, it's her duty: Benevolent sexism and the justification of traditional sexual roles. Journal of Sex Research, 48(5), 470–478.Google Scholar

Durán, M., Moya, M., & Megías, J. L. (2014). Benevolent sexist ideology attributed to an abusive partner decreases women's active coping responses to acts of sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(8), 1380–1401.Google Scholar

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L, L. (2007). Through the labyrinth. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.Google Scholar

Eagly, A, H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In Van Lange, P., Kruglanski, A. W. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–476). London: Sage.

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(1), 36–42.Google Scholar

Feather, N. T., & Boeckmann, R. J. (2007). Beliefs about gender discrimination in the workplace in the context of affirmative action: Effects of gender and ambivalent attitudes in an Australian sample. Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 31–42.Google Scholar

Fehr, J., & Sassenberg, K. (2009). Intended and unintended consequences of internal motivation to behave nonprejudiced: The case of benevolent discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 1093–1108.Google Scholar

Fischer, A. R. (2006). Women's benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(4), 410–416.Google Scholar

Fiske, S. T., & North, M. S. (2015). Measures of stereotyping and prejudice: Barometers of bias. In Boyle, G. & Saklofske, D. (Eds.), Measures of personality & social psychological constructs (pp. 684–718). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press.

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(3), 236–261.Google Scholar

Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 44(3–4), 177–188.Google Scholar

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206.Google Scholar

Gervais, S. J., & Hillard, A. L. (2011). A role congruity perspective on prejudice toward Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11(1), 221–240.Google Scholar

Gervais, S. J., Hillard, A. L., & Vescio, T. K. (2010). Confronting sexism: The role of relationship orientation and gender. Sex Roles, 63(7–8), 463–474.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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536.Google Scholar

Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., 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(5), 763–775.Google Scholar

Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C. … & Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713–728.Google Scholar

Glick, P., Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & de Souza, M. A. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 292–297.Google Scholar

Glick, P., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41(3), 177–185.Google Scholar

Good, J. J., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Sanchez, D. T. (2012). When do we confront? Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 210–226.Google Scholar

Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2013). Men's hostile sexism and biased perceptions of intimate partners: Fostering dissatisfaction and negative behavior in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1585–1599.Google Scholar

Hammond, M. D., & Sibley, C. G. (2011). Why are benevolent sexists happier? Sex Roles, 65(5–6), 332–343.Google Scholar

Hammond, M. D, Sibley, C. G, & Overall, N. C. (2013). The allure of sexism: Psychological entitlement fosters women's endorsement of benevolent sexism over time. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 422–429.Google Scholar

Harber, K. D. (1998). Feedback to minorities: Evidence of a positive bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 622–628.Google Scholar

Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., Bekhouche, Y., & Zahidi, S. (2014). The global gender gap report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

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.Google Scholar

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674.Google Scholar

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427.Google Scholar

Holcomb, J. E., Williams, M. R., & Demuth, S. (2004). White female victims and death penalty disparity research. Justice Quarterly, 21(4), 877–902.Google Scholar

Hyers, L. L. (2007). Resisting prejudice every day: Exploring women's assertive responses to anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, and sexism. Sex Roles, 56(1–2), 1–12.Google Scholar

Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Johnson, C., Dowd, T. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 53–78.Google Scholar

Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence against Women, 12(11), 1003–1018.Google Scholar

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263.Google Scholar

Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823–837.Google Scholar

Kilianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39(5–6), 333–352.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Lauritsen, J. L., & Heimer, K. (2008). The gender gap in violent victimization, 1973–2004 Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(2), 125–147.Google Scholar

Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths in review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164.Google Scholar

Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 853–870.Google Scholar

Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51(9–10), 609–615.Google Scholar

Masser, B., Lee, K., & McKimmie, B. M. (2010). Bad woman, bad victim? Disentangling the effects of victim stereotypicality, gender stereotypicality and benevolent sexism on acquaintance rape victim blame. Sex Roles, 62(7–8), 494–504.Google Scholar

Masser, B., Viki, G. T., & Power, C. (2006). Hostile sexism and rape proclivity amongst men. Sex Roles, 54(7–8), 565–574.Google 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(10), 1421–1434.Google Scholar

Nadler, A. (2002). Inter–group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 487–502.Google Scholar

Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., & Jost, J. T. (2010). The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relation to subjective well-being. Sex Roles, 62(7–8), 405–419.Google Scholar

Okimoto, T. G., & Brescoll, V. L. (2010). The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(7), 923–936.Google Scholar

Oswald, D. L., Franzoi, S. L., & Frost, K. A. (2012). Experiencing sexism and young women's body esteem. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 31(10), 1112–1137.Google 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(2), 271–290.Google Scholar

Parker, K., Horowitz, J. M., Wang, W., Brown, A., & Patten, E. (2015). Women and leadership. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 406–413.Google Scholar

Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn't be, are allowed to be, and don't have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281.Google Scholar

Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510–531.Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645.Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–176.Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010.Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762.Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A., & Heppen, J. B. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women's interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11), 1357–1370.Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A., & Mescher, K. (2012). Of animals and objects: Men's implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 734–746.Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1315–1328.Google Scholar

Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2012). Reactions to vanguards: Advances in backlash theory. In Devine, P. G. & Plant, E. A. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 45, pp.167–227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Russell, B. L., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50(7–8), 565–573.Google Scholar

Sakallı, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44(9–10), 599–610.Google Scholar

Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., & Beydogan, B. (2002). Turkish college students’ attitudes toward women managers: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and gender differences. Journal of Psychology, 136(6), 647–656.Google Scholar

Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., & Glick, P. (2003). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey. Journal of Sex Research, 40(3), 296–302.Google Scholar

Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., Salman, S., & Turgut, S. (2010). Predictors of Turkish women's and men's attitudes toward sexual harassment: Ambivalent sexism, and ambivalence toward men. Sex Roles, 63(11–12), 871–881.Google Scholar

Shepherd, M., Erchull, M. J., Rosner, A., Taubenberger, L., Queen, E.F., & McKee, J. (2011). “I'll get that for you”: The relationship between benevolent sexism and body self-perceptions. Sex Roles, 64(1–2), 1–8.Google Scholar

Shelton, J. N., & Stewart, R. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 215–223.Google 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(5), 589–601.Google 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(9–10), 743–754.Google Scholar

Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51(11–12), 687–696.Google 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(2), 160–172.Google Scholar

Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., 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(4), 658–672.Google Scholar

Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2003). Infra-humanization: Ambivalent sexism and the attribution of primary and secondary emotions to women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 492–499.Google Scholar

Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Masser, B. M. (2004). Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence length. Law and Human Behavior, 28(3), 295–303.Google Scholar

Wood, J. T. (2004). Monsters and victims: Male felons’ accounts of intimate partner violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(5), 555–576.Google Scholar

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.

Yamawaki, N. (2007). Rape perception and the function of ambivalent sexism and gender-role traditionality. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(4), 406–423.Google Scholar

Yamawaki, N., Darby, R., & Queiroz, A. (2007). The moderating role of ambivalent sexism: The influence of power status on perception of rape victim and rapist. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(1), 41–56.Google Scholar

Zawadzki, M. J., Shields, S. A., Danube, C. L., & Swim, J. K. (2013). Reducing the endorsement of sexism using experiential learning: The workshop activity for gender equity simulation (WAGES). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 75–92.Google Scholar