The authors argue that individual differences in men’s Benevolent Sexism (BS) stem from a threat-driven security-cohesion motivation, indexed by Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), whereas Hostile Sexism (HS) stems from a competitively driven motivation for intergroup dominance, indexed by Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). In Study 1, meta-analysis indicated that men’s SDO (controlling for RWA) was moderately positively associated with HS (r = .35) but not BS (r = .05), whereas men’s RWA (controlling for SDO) was moderately associated with BS (r = .36) but only weakly associated with HS (r = .16). Study 2 replicated and extended these results by also modeling the dual personality traits and world-views underlying HS and BS. In Study 3, longitudinal analyses demonstrated that SDO predicted increases in HS (but not BS) and RWA predicted increases in BS (but not HS) throughout a 5-month period. Relations between the sociostructural and individual difference bases of men’s ambivalent sexism are discussed.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
2.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian spectre. London: Harvard University Press.
3.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41-113). New York: Academic Press.
5.
Duckitt, J. (2003). Prejudice and intergroup hostility. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 559-600). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
6.
Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 684-696.
7.
Duckitt, (2006). [SDO, RWA, sexism, and attractiveness attitudes in a student sample]. Unpublished data.
8.
Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on world-view and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24, 199-222.
9.
Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual-process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75-93.
10.
Feather, N. T. (2004). Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes toward gender relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 3-12.
11.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
12.
Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473-489.
13.
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.
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.
15.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001a). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115-188). New York: Academic Press.
16.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001b). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies: Differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice. In J. T. Jost & B Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 278-306). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Masser, B., Manganelli, A. M., Huang, L., Castro, Y. R., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713-728.
18.
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.
19.
Hu, L. -T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
20.
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.
21.
Kreindler, S. A. (2005). A dual group processes model of individual differences in prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 90-107.
22.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. London: Sage Ltd.
23.
McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996, July). An omnibus study of personality, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, Canada.
24.
Phalet, K., & Poppe, E. (1997). Competence and morality dimensions of national and ethnic stereotypes: A study of six eastern-European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 703-723.
25.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social Dominance Orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.
26.
Sibley, C. G. (2006a). [SDO, RWA and sexism in a female student sample #1]. Unpublished data.
27.
Sibley, C. G. (2006b). [SDO, RWA and sexism in a female student sample #2]. Unpublished data.
28.
Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Social Dominance Orientation: An expression of the global motivational goal for dominance and superiority in intergroup relations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
29.
Sibley, C. G., Robertson, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2006). Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27, 755-768.
30.
Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687-696.
31.
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, C. M., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 307-331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Thomas, C. A., & Esses, V. M. (2004). Individual differences in reactions to sexist humor. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 89-100.
34.
Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126-134.
