Perceiving Partners to Endorse Benevolent Sexism Attenuates Highly Anxious Women’s Negative Reactions to Conflict

Abstract

Benevolent sexism prescribes that men are dependent on women in relationships and should cherish their partners. The current research examined whether perceiving male partners to endorse benevolent sexism attenuates highly anxious women’s negative reactions to relationship conflict. Greater attachment anxiety was associated with greater distress and insecurity during couples’ conflict discussions (Study 1), during daily conflict with intimate partners (Study 2), and when recalling experiences of relationship conflict (Study 3). However, this heightened distress and insecurity was attenuated when women (but not men) perceived their partner to strongly endorse benevolent sexism (Studies 1-3) and thus believed their partner could be relied upon to remain invested (Study 3B). These novel results illustrate that perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism alleviates anxious women’s insecure reactions to relationship threat by conveying partner’s continued reliability. Implications of these security-enhancing effects are considered in light of the role benevolent sexism plays in sustaining gender inequality.

Keywords

attachment anxiety relationship conflict benevolent sexism distress

Individuals high in attachment anxiety fear abandonment and so react with intense distress when their relationship is threatened, such as during relationship conflict (Simpson & Rholes, 2012). Benevolent sexism prescribes that men are dependent on the love of a woman to be happy, and that men should be chivalrous, protective, and reliable partners (Glick & Fiske, 1996). The care and devotion benevolent sexism promises women in romantic relationships may offer highly anxious women much needed security by addressing their abandonment concerns. We test this hypothesis in the current research by examining whether perceiving male partners to endorse benevolent sexism attenuates highly anxious women’s insecure reactions to relationship conflict.

Attachment Anxiety and Reactions to Relationship Conflict

Individuals high in attachment anxiety harbor deep-seated fears that they will eventually be rejected and abandoned (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). These fears create destructive reactions when relationship bonds are threatened. In particular, highly anxious individuals experience intense distress during relationship conflict (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005; Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996), partly because conflict activates concerns that they will lose their partner’s love (Campbell et al., 2005; Collins, 1996). Even when involved with committed partners, anxious individuals cannot overcome their distress and insecurity to deal with conflict in constructive ways (Simpson et al., 1996; Tran & Simpson, 2009), and their insecure reactions undermine long-term relationship success (Overall, Girme, Lemay, & Hammond, 2014).

Fortunately, recent research indicates that anxious individuals can feel more secure when their partners clearly convey care and availability (Overall & Simpson, 2015). Highly anxious individuals feel more secure and accepted when partners are overtly affectionate (Lemay & Dudley, 2011), and are happier when their marriages are characterized by satisfying sex, which enhances feelings that their partners are available (Little, McNulty, & Russell, 2010). Only one prior study, however, has examined whether evidence of the partner’s care quells anxious individuals’ insecurities within acute, threatening contexts that activate their concerns of abandonment. Tran and Simpson (2009, 2011) found that highly anxious individuals felt more accepted and behaved more constructively during conflict when their partners were highly committed and thus engaged in more accommodation behavior.

In the current studies, we extend prior research focusing on what relationship partners can do to alleviate attachment insecurity by considering whether social ideologies that stipulate partners’ sustained investment and devotion are effective in offsetting insecure reactions during conflict. In particular, we investigate whether highly anxious women feel less distress and insecurity during conflict when they perceive their partner endorses benevolent sexism—a set of attitudes that prescribes men should cherish, protect, and provide for female partners; prioritize relationships; and take such relationship obligations seriously. To test the relative importance of these attitudes, we also contrast the hypothesized effects of perceived partner’s benevolent sexism to other relationship-specific perceptions that are relevant to the buffering effects demonstrated in the prior research described above.

The Reassuring Nature of Benevolent Sexism for Highly Anxious Women

Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) describes how two sexist ideologies function to maintain gender inequality. Hostile sexism represents overtly hostile attitudes toward women who threaten men’s societal power, such as career women and feminists. Hostile sexism is effective at maintaining men’s societal dominance, but it undermines intimate relationships between men and women (e.g., Hammond & Overall, 2013; Overall, Sibley, & Tan, 2011). These costs necessitate a second, more benevolent, set of attitudes toward women.¹ Glick and Fiske (1996) describe benevolent sexism as a set of prejudicial, but subjectively positive, attitudes which promote heterosexual intimacy. Benevolent sexism prescribes that women possess positive interpersonal qualities (e.g., warmth, empathy) that complement men’s competence and strength (gender differentiation) and, thus, men are dependent on women to fulfill their intimacy, support, and reproduction needs (heterosexual intimacy), and should cherish, protect, and provide for women (protective paternalism). Together these components of benevolent sexism promote interdependence between men and women by emphasizing the value of intimate relationships and prescribing specific relationship roles, such as men cherishing and protecting their female partners (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Lee, Fiske, Glick, & Chen, 2010).

So how are such positive, intimacy-promoting attitudes sexist? By emphasizing women’s communal qualities and men’s ability to protect and provide, benevolent sexism encourages gender roles that confine women’s power to the interpersonal domain and support men’s societal dominance (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Benevolent sexism helps sustain gender inequality by undermining women’s ambition, independence, and competence, and fostering reliance on their male partner’s successes. For example, women who endorse benevolent sexism report lower personal ambition for educational/career attainment (e.g., Fernández, Castro, Otero, Foltz, & Lorenzo, 2006), believe their primary role is to support their partner’s goals and pursuits (e.g., Lee et al., 2010), and defer to their partners more when making career-based decisions (Moya, Glick, Expósito, de Lemus, & Hart, 2007). Exposure to benevolent attitudes also leads women to identify themselves in more relational terms (Barreto, Ellemers, Piebinga, & Moya, 2010), show less interest in independent thought and personal goals (Feather, 2004), and feel and perform less competently (Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007; Dumont, Sarlet, & Dardenne, 2010).

The positive tone of benevolent sexism is one reason why these attitudes are so effective at sustaining gender inequality; the romantic picture of relationships, and associated promises of care and adoration of women, masks the costs that benevolent sexism has for women (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Jackman, 1994). Indeed, women perceive benevolent sexism to be chivalrous, rather than “sexist” (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Viki, Abrams, & Hutchison, 2003), and rate men who personify the characteristics of benevolent sexism (e.g., a caring and gallant protector) as attractive (Bohner, Ahlborn, & Steiner, 2010; Kilianski & Rudman, 1998). Moreover, the interdependence benevolent sexism promotes does foster some actual relationship benefits, such as men who endorse benevolent sexism behaving in more caring ways when discussing relationship problems with their female partners (Overall et al., 2011).

Although the promise of security and intimacy within heterosexual relationships is critical to the way benevolent sexism functions (Glick & Fiske, 1996), very little empirical attention has been directed toward investigating these relationship processes. Endorsing benevolent sexism involves men identifying with the prescribed role of provider and protector, and believing that they need to fulfill this role to be satisfied and fulfilled (Glick & Fiske, 1996). These elements should not only be attractive to women (as indicated by the research described above) but also provide women a sense of security in their relationships. In particular, when women perceive their male partners to endorse benevolent sexism, this should indicate that their male partners believe women have special relationship-related qualities (gender differentiation), and their partners believe they are dependent on their relationship for personal fulfillment (heterosexual intimacy) and are obligated to cherish and protect them (protective paternalism). Thus, perceiving male partners to endorse benevolent sexism should signal to women that their partner is the kind of person who will prioritize their relationship, remain invested in the relationship, and feel less worthy and personally satisfied if they do not fulfill these relationship obligations.

The security-enhancing effect of perceiving male partners to endorse benevolent sexism should be particularly relevant to women high in attachment anxiety. Highly anxious individuals crave to be loved by loyal and dedicated partners, yet constantly doubt their partner’s continued devotion and fear they will eventually be abandoned (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Perceiving male partners to believe that men need women to be fulfilled and have a responsibility to be chivalrous and reliable partners (i.e., endorse benevolent sexism) should reassure highly anxious women that their partners will not abandon them in the future but instead will remain invested even when problems exist in the relationship. Thus, we predicted that perceiving partners to strongly endorse benevolent sexism would attenuate the distress and insecurity highly anxious women typically experience during conflict.

These security-enhancing benefits should occur for highly anxious women, and not highly anxious men. Benevolent sexism encourages women to adopt caring relationship-related roles, but does not prescribe women should revere, cherish, and protect men as men are stipulated to do for women (Glick et al., 2000). Rather than fostering security, perceiving female partners to endorse benevolent sexism should signal to men that female partners expect to be adored and protected. Moreover, relationship conflict might indicate to men that they are not living up to these standards (Hammond & Overall, 2013). Thus, perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism should not attenuate distress and insecurity for highly anxious men.

Current Research

In three studies, we tested whether perceiving male partners to endorse benevolent sexism attenuated highly anxious women’s distress and insecurity during relationship conflict. We assessed the association between attachment anxiety and distress/insecurity within couples’ conflict discussions (Study 1), daily conflict with partners (Study 2), and recalled experiences of relationship conflict (Study 3). Figure 1, Model 1, outlines our predictions. Greater attachment anxiety should be associated with greater distress/insecurity during relationship conflict, but perceiving male partners to strongly endorse benevolent sexism should attenuate this heightened distress/insecurity for highly anxious women, but not men (the Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism × Gender interaction depicted in Model 1).

Figure 1.

Models outlining the attenuating role of perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism on the association between attachment anxiety and greater distress/insecurity during conflict.

In Study 3B, we also examined the characteristics that perceived benevolent sexism should convey about partners that should reassure highly anxious women. Endorsing benevolent sexism involves internalizing a set of relationship prescriptions and obligations that will guide both current and future motivations and behaviors (e.g., Fernández et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2010; Overall et al., 2011). Perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism should attenuate highly anxious women’s highly distressed reactions to conflict by signaling that their partner is the kind of person who will remain strongly invested, sacrifice for the relationship, and will feel worthless if they do not fulfill their relationship obligations. These elements should directly address anxious women’s abandonment concerns. Thus, as outlined in Path A of Model 2, Figure 1, we expected perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism would lead women (and not men) to believe their partner is the kind of person who is a reliable and devoted partner and whose self-worth is tied to ensuring their partner is happy and provided for (a construct we called perceived partner reliability). In turn, as outlined in Path B (Model 2, Figure 1), perceived partner reliability should attenuate the heightened distress/insecurity highly anxious individuals typically feel during conflict.

Finally, we examined the relative power of perceived partners’ benevolent sexism (and associated investment in the relationship obligations prescribed by benevolent sexism) alongside other potential buffering factors, such as partners’ commitment. Commitment involves a long-term orientation and intention to sustain one’s relationship, and so partners’ commitment should provide some reassurance to highly anxious individuals (Tran & Simpson, 2011). However, commitment is also closely tied to specific conditions within the relationship, such as satisfaction and attractive alternatives, which change over time (Le & Agnew, 2003; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998). Accordingly, commitment and perceptions of partner’s commitment fluctuate depending on the relative state of the relationship (Arriaga, Reed, Goodfriend, & Agnew, 2006; Le & Agnew, 2003) and thus may not always provide highly anxious individuals enough reassurance to overcome their deep-seated abandonment concerns activated during conflict. Benevolent sexism, in contrast, encompasses a broader orientation toward relationships that is independent of current relationship evaluations. Perceiving male partners to identify with the role-based prescriptions of benevolent sexism should offer women greater reassurance of their partner’s continued availability as it indicates a sustained investment in their duty and obligations as a devoted, protective partner that is not conditional on current relationship conditions or evaluations. Accordingly, we expected perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism would more effectively attenuate highly anxious women’s insecure reactions to conflict.²

Study 1

In Study 1, heterosexual couples were video-recorded discussing two relationship problems arising from one partner (agent of change) wanting change in the other (target of change). Being targeted for change during conflict is threatening to anxious individuals because it highlights the partners’ dissatisfaction and signals potential rejection (Overall et al., 2014). To assess the threat-based reactions associated with attachment anxiety, we gathered a broad index of distress directly comparable to prior research examining anxious responses within conflict discussions (Campbell et al., 2005; Simpson et al., 1996). We expected that attachment anxiety would be associated with greater distress, but this association would be attenuated when highly anxious women (but not men) perceived their partners to strongly endorse benevolent sexism (see Model 1, Figure 1).

Method

Participants

Seventy-eight heterosexual couples (13% married, 44% cohabitating, 37% serious, 6% steady) responded to electronic and hardcopy advertisements posted across a large university and were reimbursed NZ$70.³ Participants were on average 22.12 years of age (SD = 4.10), and couples were together for 2.59 years on average (SD = 1.77).⁴

Procedure

Participants completed the scales described below, identified three aspects of their partner that they wanted improved, and ranked these aspects in order of importance. Following a warm-up interaction, couples engaged in two 7-min discussions about (a) the top-ranked feature the female partner wanted to change about the male partner, and (b) the top-ranked feature the male partner wanted to change about the female partner (order counterbalanced across couples). Following each discussion, targets of change reported on how distressed they felt during the discussion.

Measures

Attachment security

Participants completed the Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ; Simpson et al., 1996). Nine items assessed attachment anxiety (e.g., “I worry about my romantic partners leaving me”; 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree).

Satisfaction

Participants rated five items developed by Rusbult et al. (1998) to assess satisfaction (“I feel satisfied with our relationship”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), and the same five items reworded to assess perceptions of the partner’s satisfaction (e.g., “My partner feels satisfied with our relationship”).

Commitment

Participants rated five items developed by Rusbult et al. (1998) to assess commitment (“I want our relationship to last a very long time”; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), and the same five items reworded to assess perceptions of the partner’s commitment (e.g., “My partner wants our relationship to last a very long time”).

Sexist attitudes

The short-form version of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) assessed participants’ attitudes toward women. Six items assessed endorsement of benevolent sexism (e.g., “Women should be cherished and protected by men”; −3 = strongly disagree, 3 = strongly agree). This short-form scale has performed well in prior research (see Overall et al., 2011; Sibley & Perry, 2010).

Perception of partners’ sexist attitudes

Following prior adaptations to assess others’ sexist attitudes (e.g., Sibley et al., 2009), participants were then asked to consider their partner’s attitudes toward women and rated each item from the ASI according to the extent to which they thought their partners would agree or disagree.

Distress

Immediately after each discussion, targets rated two items (“how stressful did you find the discussion” and “how upset did you feel during the discussion,” 1 = not at all, 7 = extremely), which were averaged to index distress (r = .71).

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and correlations. Higher attachment anxiety was associated with greater distress, but we predicted this would be attenuated for women who perceived their partners to more strongly endorse benevolent sexism. We followed the guidelines by Kenny, Kashy, and Cook (2006) using the MIXED procedure in SPSS 21 to run dyadic regression models predicting targets’ distress during the discussion by targets’ attachment anxiety (mean-centered), perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism (mean-centered), and the interaction between attachment anxiety and perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism. We also modeled the main and all interaction effects of gender (coded −1 women, 1 men) to test whether perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism attenuated the distress associated with attachment anxiety for women, but not men (Gender × Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partner’s Benevolent Sexism interaction; see Figure 1, Model 1).

Table 1.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics Across All Measures (Study 1).

Questionnaire measures	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.
1. Attachment anxiety	.27**	−.24*	.02	−.38**	−.22	−.44**	−.46**	.47**
2. Perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism	.08	−.10	.37**	.30**	.10	.45**	.39**	−.16
3. Individuals’ benevolent sexism	−.02	.58**	.10	.02	.14	−.05	.01	−.06
4. Satisfaction	−.33**	.07	.09	.49**	.45**	.69**	.35**	−.33**
5. Commitment	−.05	−.04	.17	.56**	.36**	.26**	.50**	−.16
6. Perceptions of partners’ satisfaction	−.38**	.02	−.01	.75**	.27*	.42**	.60**	−.32**
7. Perceptions of partners’ commitment	−.39**	−.09	−.12	.50**	.38**	.52**	.28**	−.41**
8. Distress during discussion	.26*	.18	.10	−.08	−.10	−.04	−.10	.14
Reliability α	.84	.68	.65	.87	.86	.88	.83	—
Women M (SD)	3.28 (1.26)	−0.10 (1.12)	0.32 (1.07)	5.74 (0.94)	6.52 (0.74)	5.74 (1.06)	6.25 (0.98)	2.88 (1.75)
Men M (SD)	2.88 (1.00)	1.19 (0.98)	0.49 (1.06)	5.80 (0.90)	6.21 (0.89)	5.84 (1.00)	6.46 (0.69)	2.62 (1.47)
Gender difference t	−2.21*	7.66**	1.02	0.39	−2.28*	0.59	1.54	−0.99

Note. Correlations for women are above the diagonal. Correlations for men are below the diagonal. Bold correlations on the diagonal represent correlations across partners. Measures of benevolent sexism were assessed on a −3 to 3 scale, with a midpoint of 0. All other measures were assessed on a 1 to 7 scale. Gender difference t represents test of whether average levels of each variable significantly differed between women (coded −1) and men (coded 1).

p < .05. **p < .01.

As shown in Table 2, the predicted three-way interaction was significant. Decomposing this interaction revealed that the Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism interaction was significant for women (B = −.29, t = −2.29, p = .03, 95% CI [−.55, −.04], r = −.26), but not men (B = .18, t = 1.04, p = .30, 95% CI [−.17, .53], r = .12). Figure 2 displays the significant interaction for women. Greater attachment anxiety was associated with greater distress when women perceived their partner to weakly endorse benevolent sexism (see solid line; B = .80, t = 5.03, p < .001), but there was no difference in distress between women high versus low in attachment anxiety when they perceived their partner to strongly endorse benevolent sexism (see dashed line; B = .14, t = 0.55, p = .58). Focusing on the contrast for highly anxious women (right side of figure), highly anxious women experienced marginally less distress when they perceived partners to more strongly (versus weakly) endorse benevolent sexism (B = −.37, t = −1.78, p < .08). There were no differences in distress for women low in anxiety (left side of figure) according to level of perceived partners’ benevolent sexism (B = .04, t = 1.49, p = .14).

Table 2.

The Effects of Attachment Anxiety and Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism on Distress During Couples’ Conflict Discussions (Study 1).

	B	t	95% CI		r
	B	t	Low	High	r
Attachment anxiety	.36	2.92**	.12	.61	.23
Perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism	.15	1.23	−.09	.38	.10
Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	−.06	−0.52	−.27	.16	−.04
Gender	−.08	−0.54	−.36	.20	−.04
Gender × Attachment Anxiety	−.11	−0.86	−.35	.14	−.07
Gender × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	.14	1.20	−.09	.38	.10
Gender × Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	.24	2.20*	.02	.45	.18

Note. Predicted interaction presented in bold. Approximate effect sizes (r) were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t² / t² + df). CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of women’s perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism on the association between attachment anxiety and distress experienced when targeted for change during couples’ conflict discussions (Study 1).

Alternative explanations and discriminant analyses

Own and partners’ endorsement of benevolent sexism

Male partners’ benevolent sexism demonstrated the same effects as perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism (B = −.41, t = −3.07, p < .01) showing that partner’s actual endorsement also attenuated highly anxious women’s distress. As expected, women’s own benevolent attitudes did not attenuate the distress associated with attachment anxiety (B = .07, t = −.49, p = .63).

Satisfaction and commitment

Higher perceptions of partner’s benevolent sexism was associated with women perceiving partners to be more satisfied and committed, and greater perceived satisfaction and commitment were associated with lower distress (see Table 1). However, perceptions of partners’ satisfaction or commitment (ts < .48, ps > .63), partners’ actual satisfaction or commitment (ts < .27, ps > .79), or individuals’ own satisfaction or commitment (ts < 1.51, ps > .14), did not attenuate the link between women’s attachment anxiety and distress as perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism did.

Discussion

As predicted (see Model 1, Figure 1), attachment anxiety was associated with greater distress during couples’ conflict discussions, but this heightened distress was attenuated when highly anxious women perceived their partners to more strongly endorse benevolent sexism. Male partners’ reports of their own benevolent sexism also attenuated highly anxious women’s distress. Other potential buffering factors, including perceptions of partners’ satisfaction and commitment, did not have the same attenuating effects.

Study 2

In Study 2, couples reported on their daily experiences across a 21-day period and we tested whether perceived partner’s benevolent sexism attenuated the heightened distress and insecurity highly anxious women were expected to experience on days they encountered relationship conflict. Extending the broad assessment of distress in Study 1, we measured negative emotions that arise in response to relationship loss and rejection as well as relationship insecurities central to attachment anxiety. We predicted that greater anxiety would be associated with greater distress/insecurity on days individuals experienced conflict, but these negative reactions would be attenuated when highly anxious women (but not men) perceived their partners to endorse benevolent sexism (Model 1, Figure 1).

Method

Participants

Seventy-eight heterosexual couples (11% married, 33% cohabitating, 49% serious, 6% steady) responded to electronic and hardcopy advertisements posted across the campus of a large university and were reimbursed NZ$90.⁵ Participants were 22.26 years of age (SD = 4.64) and couples were together for 2.58 years on average (SD = 1.97).

Procedure and measures

During an initial session, participants completed the scales described below and were given detailed instructions for completing daily web-based records for the following 21 days.

Attachment anxiety

Participants completed the AAQ as in Study 1.

Satisfaction and commitment

Participants reported their (a) own and (b) perceptions of their partner’s satisfaction and commitment using the scales from Study 1.

Sexist attitudes

Participants completed the full 22-item ASI (Glick & Fiske, 1996) of which 11 items assessed their own benevolent sexism. As in Study 1, to assess perceptions of their partner’s benevolent sexism, participants also rated each item according to the extent to which they thought their partners would agree or disagree with each item.

Daily diary

At the end of each day for 21 days, participants completed a web-based questionnaire assessing daily relationship conflict, negative emotions, and relationship insecurity. On average, participants completed 19.3 diary entries. All items were rated on 7-point scales (1 = not at all, 7 = extremely).

Relationship conflict

Daily conflict was assessed with the item: “I experienced conflict or disagreement with my partner” (M across days = 2.99, SD = 2.06).

Distress/insecurity

Participants rated two items assessing negative emotions associated with relationship loss and rejection (“I was sad about our relationship”; “I was hurt by my partner”) and two items assessing relationship insecurity (“I feel confident that my partner loves me” [reverse-scored]; “I feel insecure about our relationship”). We combined items assessing negative emotions and insecurity (α = .93) to construct an overall score of distress/insecurity (M across days = 1.76, SD = 0.74).⁶

Results

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics and correlations across the questionnaire measures. To test our predictions (see Model 1, Figure 1), we followed Kenny et al.’s (2006) recommendations for analyzing repeated measures dyadic data using the MIXED procedure in SPSS 21. To illustrate, we first modeled distress/insecurity on day i as a function of (a) distress/insecurity on day i − 1, so that any effect represents residual decreases or increases in daily distress/insecurity, (b) relationship conflict on day i, (c) attachment anxiety, (d) perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism, and all two-way and three-way interactions. Predictor variables were grand-mean centered because our goal was to make comparisons across individuals high versus low in anxiety at levels of high versus low conflict (although similar results emerged using person-mean centering). The intercepts were treated as random coefficients, and errors were allowed to covary across men and women.

Table 3.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics Across All Measures (Study 2).

Questionnaire measures	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.
1. Attachment anxiety	−.06	.01	.05	−.27*	−.09	−.25*	−.31**
2. Perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism	.05	.14	.48**	.08	.09	.24*	.22
3. Individuals’ benevolent sexism	.30**	.71**	.17*	.04	−.03	.12	−.01
4. Satisfaction	−.22	.00	.12	.24**	.57**	.86**	.53**
5. Commitment	−.06	−.03	.18	.59**	.37**	.52**	.57**
6. Perceptions of partners’ satisfaction	−.35**	.06	.05	.80**	.38**	.19*	.69**
7. Perceptions of partners’ commitment	−.30**	.09	.08	.33**	.62**	.40**	.27**
Reliability α	.77	.82	.78	.86	.89	.90	.88
Women M (SD)	3.23 (1.04)	−0.03 (1.04)	−0.19 (1.00)	6.03 (0.89)	6.51 (0.67)	5.82 (1.00)	6.28 (0.96)
Men M (SD)	2.75 (1.00)	0.61 (1.10)	0.32 (0.98)	5.99 (.077)	6.22 (0.82)	5.95 (0.87)	6.38 (0.72)
Gender difference t	−2.92**	3.73**	3.19**	−0.30	−2.24*	0.85	0.72

p < .05. **p < .01.

We tested for gender differences across all effects by modeling the main and interaction effects for gender (−1 women, 1 men). Our prediction that perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism would attenuate the greater distress/insecurity associated with attachment anxiety on high conflict days for women, but not men, would be supported by a significant four-way interaction: Gender × Relationship Conflict × Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism. As shown in Table 4, this four-way interaction was significant. Decomposing this interaction revealed that the three-way Relationship Conflict × Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism interaction was significant for women (B = −.05, t = −3.82, p < .001, 95% CI [−.07, −.02], r = −.43), but not for men (B = .01, t = 1.19, p = .24, 95% CI [−.01, .03], r = .15). As shown in Figure 3, when women perceived their partner to weakly endorse benevolent sexism (see Panel A), the association between relationship conflict and distress/insecurity was more pronounced for women high (B = .43, t = 19.51, p < .001) versus low (B = .25, t = 10.90, p < .001) in attachment anxiety. However, when women perceived their partners to strongly endorse benevolent sexism (see Panel B), the link between conflict and distress/insecurity was not higher for women high (B = .21, t = 7.45 p < .001) compared with low (B = .24, t = 9.95, p < .001) in anxiety. Moreover, comparing distress/insecurity on days of high conflict (right side of each panel) confirmed that high (vs. low) anxious women reported more distress/insecurity when they perceived their partners to weakly endorse benevolent sexism (B = .35, t = 5.20, p < .001; Panel A), but this heightened distress/insecurity was eliminated when highly anxious women perceived their partners to strongly endorse benevolent sexism (B = −.03, t = −0.32 p = .75; Panel B).

Table 4.

The Effects of Daily Relationship Conflict, Attachment Anxiety, and Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism on Daily Levels of Distress and Insecurity (Study 2).

	B	t	95% CI		r
	B	t	Low	High	r
Relationship conflict	.27	30.55**	.25	.29	.94
Attachment anxiety	.09	2.60**	.02	.15	.24
Perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism	−.02	−0.67	−.09	.04	.06
Relationship Conflict × Attachment Anxiety	.06	7.28**	.04	.07	.56
Relationship Conflict × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	−.03	−3.72**	−.04	−.01	−.33
Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	−.05	−1.33	−.11	.02	−.12
Relationship Conflict × Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	−.02	−2.40*	−.03	.00	−.22
Gender	−.01	−0.47	−.07	.05	−.04
Gender × Relationship Conflict	−.01	−1.87	−.03	.00	−.17
Gender × Attachment Anxiety	.00	−0.13	−.07	.06	−.01
Gender × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	.04	1.36	−.02	.10	.12
Gender × Relationship Conflict × Attachment Anxiety	.02	2.21*	.00	.03	.20
Gender × Relationship Conflict × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	.03	3.62**	.01	.04	.32
Gender × Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	.04	1.34	−.02	.11	.12
Gender × Relationship Conflict × Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	.03	3.84**	.01	.05	.34

Note. Approximate effect sizes (r) were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t² / t² + df). Predicted interaction presented in bold. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 3.

The moderating effect of perceptions of partner’s benevolent sexism on the association between attachment anxiety and feelings of distress and insecurity on days of low and high conflict with partner (Study 2).

Alternative explanations and discriminant analyses

Own and partners’ endorsement of benevolent sexism

Unlike Study 1, the interaction of male partners’ own reported endorsement of benevolent sexism did not reach statistical significance (B = −.02, t = −1.56, p = .12). Women’s own benevolent sexism also did not show the same effects as perceived partner benevolent sexism. Instead, a significant three-way interaction with own endorsement of benevolent sexism (B = .03, t = 2.27, p = .02) revealed that highly anxious women who strongly endorsed benevolent sexism felt more (rather than less) distress/insecurity on days of high conflict. This pattern is consistent with previous findings that women who endorse benevolent sexism experience sharper declines in satisfaction when they face relationship problems (Hammond & Overall, 2013).

Commitment and satisfaction

Additional analyses revealed that highly anxious women did not experience as much distress/insecurity in response to conflict when they perceived their partner was highly committed (B = −.02, t = −2.20, p = .03), when partners were highly committed (B = −.03, t = −1.89, p = .06), and when they themselves were highly committed (B = −.03, t = −1.98, p = .05). Nonetheless, when running models simultaneously modeling the attenuating effect of each of these variables with perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism, the attenuating effect of perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism remained significant across all analyses (Bs > −.03, ts > −2.17, ps < .03) whereas only the effect of perceptions of partners’ commitment remained marginally significant (B = −.02, t = −1.76, p = .08). Individuals own, perceptions of partners’, or partners’ actual satisfaction did not demonstrate significant buffering effects (Bs < −.01, ts < −1.45, ps > .15) and thus controlling for each of these variables did not alter the attenuating effect of perceived partner benevolent sexism.

Discussion

Study 2 demonstrated that perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism helped alleviate the distress and insecurity highly anxious women experienced when encountering conflict during daily life. Moreover, the attenuating role of perceived partner benevolent sexism was robust when controlling for other potential buffering factors, including perceptions of partners’ commitment and satisfaction.

Study 3

Study 3 had two goals: (a) replicate the effects found in couples’ conflict discussions and daily interactions by assessing general self-reported reactions to conflict within a broader community sample, and (b) test the partner reliability that perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism should convey to women which we predict is responsible for alleviating the distress/insecurity of highly anxious women during conflict (Figure 1, Model 2).

Study 3A

Study 3A was an initial test using a sample of women to examine whether the attenuating effect of perceptions of benevolent sexism found in Studies 1 and 2 replicated in a community sample using online questionnaires of general reactions to conflict.

Method

Participants

Participants were 250 women who completed an online questionnaire via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and were compensated US$0.60. As in Studies 1 and 2, only participants who were in a committed heterosexual relationships of at least 1 year were included. Mean age was 35.92 years (SD = 10.93), average relationship length was 9.80 years (SD = 8.91), and most of the sample were married (59%) or cohabitating (20%).

Procedure and measures

Participation was described as answering questions on romantic relationships and gender-related beliefs, and involved completing the following measures.

Attachment anxiety

Participants completed the AAQ (see Studies 1 and 2).

Sexist attitudes

Participants rated the 11 ASI items assessing their own benevolent sexism (see Study 2). Participants then rated each item according to the degree they thought their partners agreed with each item to assess perceived partner’s benevolent sexism.

Distress/insecurity

Participants reported how they “generally think, feel, and behave when they experience conflict with their partner” by rating the same items tapping negative emotions and insecurity measured in Study 2 along with two additional items assessing the fears and relationship threat that conflict activates in highly anxious people (e.g., Campbell et al., 2005): “I think our relationship might end soon,” and “I feel like our relationship is in trouble/jeopardy” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). These six items were averaged to index distress/insecurity during conflict.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Table 5. Highly anxious women reported greater distress/insecurity but, as shown in Table 6, multiple regression analyses revealed that this effect was attenuated when women perceived their partners to endorse benevolent sexism (predicted interaction in bold). As shown in Figure 4, attachment anxiety was associated with greater distress/insecurity when partners were perceived to weakly endorse benevolent sexism (B = .83, t = 8.49, p < .001), but this association was attenuated when partners were perceived to strongly endorse benevolent sexism (B = .44, t = 4.20, p < .001). Thus, highly anxious women (see right side of figure) reported significantly less distress/insecurity when they perceived their partners strongly (vs. more weakly) endorsed benevolent sexism (B = −.38, t = −3.99, p < .001). Individuals’ own benevolent sexism did not have the same attenuating effect (B = .02, t = .41, p = .68).

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Across All Measures (Study 3A).

	α	M (SD)	1.	2.	3.	4.
1. Attachment anxiety	.89	2.75 (1.24)	—	−.18**	−.03	.52**
2. Perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism	.93	0.33 (1.41)		—	.67**	−.25**
3. Individuals’ benevolent sexism	.91	0.08 (1.54)			—	−.06
4. Distress/insecurity	.92	3.52 (1.62)				—

p < .01.

Table 6.

The Effects of Women’s Attachment Anxiety and Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism on Distress/Insecurity (Study 3A).

	B	t	95% CI		r
	B	t	Low	High	r
Attachment anxiety	.64	9.03**	.50	.77	.49
Perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism	−.21	−3.34**	−.33	−.09	−.20
Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	−.14	−2.68**	−.24	−.04	−.17

Note. All predictor variables were grand-mean centered. Predicted interactions are presented in bold. Approximate effect sizes (r) were computed using Rosenthal and Rosnow’s (2007) formula: r = √(t² / t² + df). CI = confidence interval.

p < .01.

Figure 4.

The moderating effect of women’s perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism on the association between attachment anxiety and feelings of distress and insecurity when experiencing relationship conflict (Study 3A).

Study 3B

In Study 3B, we used the same method and measures as Study 3A, but we (a) tested the effects for both women and men to show that the results are specific to women (as shown in Studies 1 and 2), and (b) assessed the reliability of relationship investment that should be conveyed by partners’ endorsement of benevolent sexism and be responsible for attenuating anxious women’s distress/insecurity (see Figure 1, Model 2). As shown in Path A of Model 2, Figure 1, perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism should lead women (and not men) to believe their partner is the kind of person who will sacrifice and remain invested even during tough times, and feel worthless if they do not fulfill their relationship obligations—a variable we call perceived partner reliability and measured in this study. As displayed in Path B (Figure 1, Model 2), by directly addressing fears of abandonment and reassuring women of their partners sustained investment, believing in the partners’ continued reliability should reduce the distress/insecurity anxious individuals typically feel during conflict. Notably, such perceptions of partner reliability should attenuate distress and insecurity for highly anxious men as well as women, and thus Path B should not be moderated by gender. Nonetheless, only women’s (not men’s) perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism should convey greater partner reliability, and so the indirect effects linking across Paths A and B (see Figure 1) should only be significant for women (not men). This pattern of predicted results would demonstrate that perceptions of partner’s benevolent sexism attenuates highly anxious women’s—but not men’s—distress/insecurity during conflict via perceptions of partner’s reliability.

Method

Participants

Participants (see Study 3A) included 347 individuals (189 women and 158 men) who completed the online questionnaire via MTurk for US$1.00 compensation. Average age was 34.68 (SD = 11.02), average relationship length was 7.69 years (SD = 8.19), and the majority of the sample were married (43%) or cohabiting (18%).

Procedure and measures

The description, measures, and procedure were identical to Study 3A, with two exceptions: participants also (a) reported their own and their perceptions of their partners’ satisfaction and commitment using the same measures as in Studies 1 and 2, and (b) completed a new measure assessing perceptions of partner’s reliability that we theorized is central to why perceiving the partner to endorse benevolent sexism attenuates highly anxious women’s negative reactions to conflict. The following five items were averaged to index perceived partner reliability: “My partner is the kind of person who will stick by me through good times and bad,” “My partner is the kind of person who will always put our relationship first,” “My partner is the kind of person who will make sacrifices to take care of me and our relationship,” “My partner would feel worthless if he/she thought I was unhappy with our relationship,” and “My partner would feel worthless if he/she could not provide a stable and secure life for us” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). See Table 7 for descriptive statistics and correlations.

Table 7.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics Across All Measures (Study 3B).

Questionnaire measures	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.
1. Attachment anxiety	—	−.06	−.18**	.05	−.24**	−.18*	−.25**	−.29**	.42**
2. Perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism	−.11	—	.33**	.61**	.08	.08	.21**	.15*	−.13
3. Perceptions of partners’ reliability	−.36**	.00	—	.06	.56**	.53**	.57**	.50**	−.40**
4. Benevolent sexism	.06	.65**	.02	—	−.03	−.06	.05	−.10	−.10
5. Satisfaction	−.51**	.05	.59**	.01	—	.70**	.82**	.53**	−.58**
6. Commitment	−.34**	.01	.50**	.13	.68**	—	.62**	.71**	−.40**
7. Perceptions of partners’ satisfaction	−.50**	.11	.67**	.06	.91**	.61**	—	.69**	−.51**
8. Perceptions of partners’ commitment	−.47**	.17*	.58**	.07	.75**	.74**	.83**	—	−.38**
9. Distress/insecurity	.56**	−.06	−.36**	.05	−.46*	−.33**	−.46**	−.38**	—
Reliability α	.80	.91	.84	.92	.95	.91	.93	.90	.91
Women M (SD)	2.78 (1.19)	0.30 (1.37)	5.59 (1.10)	−0.28 (1.50)	5.61 (1.28)	6.32 (1.05)	5.79 (1.20)	6.38 (0.90)	3.06 (1.53)
Men M (SD)	2.93 (1.11)	0.66 (1.31)	5.15 (1.20)	0.03 (1.31)	5.60 (1.20)	5.95 (1.07)	5.71 (1.20)	6.06 (1.12)	2.89 (1.46)
Gender difference t	1.19	2.51**	−3.57*	2.10**	0.14	−3.25*	0.59	−2.93*	−1.02

Note. Correlations for women are above the diagonal. Correlations for men are below the diagonal. Measures of benevolent sexism were assessed on a −3 to 3 scale, with a midpoint of 0. All other measures were assessed on a 1 to 7 scale. Gender difference t represents test of whether average levels of each variable significantly differed between women (coded −1) and men (coded 1).

p < .05. **p < .01.

Results

We first tested Path A in Model 2, Figure 1, which specifies that perceived partners’ benevolent sexism should lead women, but not men, to perceive that their partner’s endorsement means they are the type of person who will sacrifice for, and invest in their relationship, and feel worthless if they do not live up to their relationship obligations. As shown in Table 8, multiple regression analyses revealed that the effect of perceptions of partner’s benevolent sexism on perceived partner reliability was moderated by gender. The more that women (B = .26, t = 4.70, p < .001, 95% CI [.15, .37], r = .23), but not men (B = .00, t = 0.05, p = .96, 95% CI [−.14, .15], r = .00), perceived their partners to endorse benevolent sexism, the more they perceived their partner could be relied upon to remain invested and caring.

Table 8.

The Effects of Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism on Perceptions of Partners’ Reliability (Study 3B).

	B	t	95% CI		r
	B	t	Low	High	r
Perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism	.13	2.93**	.04	.22	.16
Gender	−.24	−3.98**	−.36	−.12	−.21
Gender × Perceptions of Partners’ Benevolent Sexism	−.13	−2.85**	−.22	−.04	−.15

p < .01.

The next set of analyses tested Path B of Model 2, Figure 1, which specifies that perceiving greater partner reliability should attenuate the negative reactions to conflict associated with attachment anxiety, and this should not differ across women and men. The results of multiple regression analyses were as expected: The interaction between attachment anxiety and perceived partner reliability predicting distress/insecurity was significant, and this interaction did not differ by gender (see Table 9). The significant interaction is displayed in Figure 5. As predicted, the distress/insecurity associated with attachment anxiety was attenuated when believing partners were very reliable (B = .32, t = 4.00, p <.001) compared with when partner’s reliability was perceived to be low (B = .75, t = 9.17, p < .001). So highly anxious women (right side of figure) reported significantly less distress/insecurity when they perceived their partner to be highly reliable because they are the kind of person who will sacrifice and remain invested, and feel worthless if they do not (B = −.50, t = −6.72, p < .001).

Table 9.

The Effects of Attachment Anxiety and Perceptions of Partner’s Reliability on Distress/Insecurity (Study 3B).

	B	t	95% CI		r
	B	t	Low	High	r
Attachment anxiety	.53	8.99**	.42	.65	.44
Perceptions of partner’s reliability	−.30	−4.98**	−.42	−.18	−.26
Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partner’s Reliability	−.19	−3.98**	−.28	−.09	−.21
Gender	−.24	−3.58**	−.38	−.11	−.19
Gender × Attachment Anxiety	.25	3.89**	.13	.38	.20
Gender × Perceptions of Partner’s Reliability	−.00	−0.08	−.14	.13	.00
Gender × Attachment Anxiety × Perceptions of Partner’s Reliability	−.09	−1.86	−.18	.00	−.10

p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 5.

The moderating effect of women’s perceptions of the partners’ reliability on the association between attachment anxiety and feelings of distress and insecurity when experiencing relationship conflict (Study 3B).

The above analyses confirm that (a) perceived partners’ benevolent sexism leads to stronger perceptions of the partners’ reliability for women, but not men (Path A, Model 2, Figure 1), and (b) perceiving partners as highly reliable, in turn, attenuates the conflict reactivity associated with attachment anxiety (Path B, Model 2). To test this mediation chain, we calculated the indirect effects testing whether women’s (but not men’s) perceived partner benevolent sexism leads to less distress/insecurity for participants higher in attachment anxiety because they perceived their partners to be the type of person who is reliable and will remain invested in living up to their relationship obligations. We used the PRODCLIN utility that calculates confidence interval for indirect effects accounting for the asymmetric distributions of the product of standard errors (MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood, 2007). As predicted, the indirect effect was significant for women (point estimate = −.05, 95% CI = [−.09, −.02]), but not men (point estimate = −.001, 95% CI = [−.03, .03]). Thus, although perceived partner benevolent sexism did not directly moderate the link between anxiety and distress/insecurity for women (t = −0.15, p = .88) or men (t = −1.35, p = .18), these results support that perceptions of partner’s benevolent sexism attenuated anxious women’s distress/insecurity to relationship conflict via perceptions of partner’s reliability.⁷

Commitment and satisfaction

Perceived partners’ reliability was positively associated with satisfaction, commitment, and perceived partners’ satisfaction and commitment (see Table 7). Nonetheless, the tests of Path A shown in Table 8 were not altered when controlling for any of these variables (ts > −2.95, ps < .003) showing that perceptions of the partners’ benevolent sexism was uniquely associated with perceived partners’ reliability for women. Moreover, individuals’ perceptions of their partner’s satisfaction and commitment did not attenuate anxious individuals’ distress/insecurity (Bs < −.10, ts < −1.59, ps > .11) as perceived partner reliability did (Path B). A marginal interaction emerged for individuals’ own commitment (B = −.08, t < −1.75, p = .082) but not satisfaction (B = −.06, t < −1.44, p = .15). Nonetheless, controlling for own or partners’ satisfaction or commitment did not alter the Path B effects shown in Table 9 (ts > −2.24, ps < .03).

Discussion

Study 3B replicated and extended Studies 1 to 3A by testing the core qualities that partners’ endorsement of benevolent sexism should convey to women about their partners’ reliability and that, in turn, should be responsible for attenuating anxious women’s distress/insecurity (see Figure 1, Model 2). As expected, perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism was associated with women (but not men) perceiving their partner to be the type of person who will sacrifice for, and invest in their relationship, and feel worthless if they do not uphold their relationship obligations (Figure 1, Model 2, Path A). These qualities reflecting the partner’s reliability, in turn, attenuated the greater distress/insecurity associated with attachment anxiety (Path B). Moreover, neither Path A or B were due to one’s own or perceptions of partners’ satisfaction and commitment. Thus, Study 3B demonstrated that perceived partners’ benevolent sexism attenuates highly anxious women’s distress/insecurity when faced with conflict because their partners’ endorsement of benevolent sexism indicates their partner will remain personally invested in fulfilling their relationship obligations.

General Discussion

One of the central reasons highly anxious individuals tend to be involved in less satisfying and stable relationships is because their doubts about their partner’s continued devotion produce destructive reactions to relationship conflicts (Simpson & Rholes, 2012). However, the current studies reveal that perceiving partners to endorse beliefs that men should prioritize relationships and be invested and cherishing partners can buffer anxious reactions to conflict. Across three studies, perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism attenuated highly anxious women’s distress and insecurity when they experienced relationship conflict (Model 1, Figure 1). The results also supported that these security-enhancing effects occurred because perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism led women to believe that their partners were the type of person who will prioritize and remain invested in their relationship, and feel worthless if they fail to live up to their relationship obligations (Model 2, Figure 1). These novel results (a) advance understanding of attachment processes by uniquely demonstrating that broad gender-role attitudes can attenuate the threat-based reactions associated with attachment anxiety, and (b) extend the sexism literature by illustrating the relationship security benevolent sexism offers women in intimate contexts.

The Promise of a Reliable Partner: Why Perceived Partner’s Benevolent Sexism Attenuates Anxious Women’s Insecurity

Benevolent sexism involves a broad orientation toward heterosexual relationships that emphasizes mutual interdependence between men and women along with promises that women will be adored, protected, and provided for by devoted male partners (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Our studies provide evidence that these promises directly address highly anxious women’s core concerns regarding their partner’s continued investment and availability. Perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism led women to perceive their partners could be relied upon to remain personally invested in fulfilling their relationship obligations even during difficult times. And, by offering such reassurance, perceiving male partners to endorse benevolent sexism alleviated the heightened distress and insecurity anxious women tend to experience when conflict threatens their relationship.

The unique nature of the promises benevolent sexism offers highly anxious women is shown by the contrasting pattern for men: Men’s perceptions that female partners endorsed benevolent sexism did not alleviate their insecure reactions, and did not promote evaluations that partners were more reliable (Study 3B). Benevolent sexism prescribes that men should be dedicated and invested partners who protect and cherish women, and so offers assurances for women, but not men. Moreover, the reassuring effect of partners’ benevolent sexism was restricted to highly anxious women who doubt their partner’s continued devotion and desperately need to believe that their partner is reliable and will remain invested in the future. Less anxious women, who approach relationship threats with confidence and security, do not need reassurance of their partner’s continued reliability, and thus did not benefit from perceiving their partners to endorse benevolent sexism.

These results join and extend recent research showing that important qualities of relationships (e.g., satisfying sex) and partners (e.g., committed, accommodating) can buffer the damaging effects of attachment anxiety (see Overall & Simpson, 2015). Consistent with this prior research, we found that greater perceptions of the partners’ commitment attenuated the heightened distress/insecurity associated with attachment anxiety on days couples experienced conflict (Study 2), as was the case when individuals themselves reported high levels of commitment (Study 2 and 3B). However, in addition to these relationship-specific factors, our results uniquely demonstrate that partners’ wider social attitudes regarding men’s and women’s gender roles also contain highly anxious women’s insecure reactions to conflict. Moreover, not only did the security-enhancing effects of perceived partner benevolent sexism remain significant controlling for these relationship-specific evaluations, across all three studies perceptions of the partners’ benevolent sexism played a stronger and more consistent buffering role.

Why does perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism offer more potent reassurance than more relationship-specific evaluations, such as partners’ commitment? Although commitment reflects a future orientation and intention to remain in the relationship, commitment fluctuates according to how rewarding the relationship is (Arriaga et al., 2006; Rusbult et al., 1998), and highly anxious individuals believe that their partner could eventually become dissatisfied (Simpson & Rholes, 2012). In contrast, benevolent sexism encompasses broader attitudes about heterosexual relationships that are less specific to the current conditions of one’s relationship. Rather, benevolent sexism highlights men’s dependence on intimate relationships and prescribes that men should always cherish and protect women. Thus, benevolent sexism binds men to fulfilling relationship obligations and therefore conveys that male partners will remain personally invested and sacrifice for the relationship, even during difficult times, and will feel worthless if they do not. Indeed, it is because the prescriptive and obligatory investment associated with benevolent sexism is not contingent on the partner’s love and satisfaction that perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism is likely so powerful in alleviating anxious women’s distress and insecurity during conflict.

We are not suggesting, however, that the security-enhancing effects of perceived partner benevolent sexism render more relationship-specific processes and evaluations inconsequential. Instead, the qualities that benevolent sexism convey offer valuable insight regarding the kind of factors that will alleviate anxious insecurity. In particular, we think the deep-seated beliefs of eventual abandonment associated with attachment anxiety make it difficult for even overtly positive and comforting relationship experiences to completely alleviate concerns regarding partner’s continued love. However, attitudes and responses that emphasize sustained investment because of the partners’ own personal needs, beliefs, dependence, and self-worth (as men’s benevolent sexism does) may provide the strongest reassurance that partners’ will continue to be invested and fulfill relationship obligations even when partners become dissatisfied as anxious people expect. Identifying features of partners and relationships that convey these elements, such as high levels of partner dependence or relationship-contingent self-worth, is a valuable direction for future research.

Implications for Understanding the Relationship Benefits and the Personal Costs of Benevolent Sexism

The current research advances the sexism literature by (a) showing that benevolent sexism provides women security within relationships, and by (b) identifying the partner characteristics that underpin these security-enhancing effects. Ambivalent sexism theory proposes that the promise of a protective caring provider to women in heterosexual relationships is why benevolent sexism is so attractive and effective at sustaining gender inequality, and why the detrimental consequences of these attitudes are often overlooked (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Prior research, however, has not put these hypothesized relationship benefits to the test. In particular, if relationship security is central to the function of benevolent sexism, then any security-enhancing benefits should be most relevant within relationship threatening situations, such as conflict, and be most evident when women need assurance of their partner’s reliability and continued investment. The current research is the first to test and show this pattern: Benevolent sexism alleviated distress and insecurity precisely when it was needed by anxious women who possess entrenched concerns about their partner’s reliability. We also expanded the sexism literature by identifying the features of benevolent sexism that provide this security: partners’ benevolent sexism signals to women that partners are personally invested in living up to their relationship obligations.

The results demonstrate that examining relationship and attachment processes are central to understanding the function of benevolent sexism. In particular, it is the security-enhancing benefits illustrated in the current studies that enable benevolent sexism to contribute to the maintenance of gender inequality. By promising relationship security and reverence, benevolent sexism encourages women to focus on their relationship-related qualities and roles, including supporting their male partner’s personal ambitions and success rather than their own (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Moreover, it is well-established that exposure to benevolent sexism undermines women’s well-being, competence, and career aspirations (Barreto et al., 2010; Dardenne et al., 2007; Dumont et al., 2010; Feather, 2004; Glick et al., 2000). Thus, the security-enhancing effects of perceiving male partners to endorse benevolent sexism are likely to be accompanied by costs for highly anxious women, including magnifying the tendency for anxious individuals to prioritize relationships over independent goals and achievements (Impett & Gordon, 2010). These costs, however, may be less apparent for secure women who are not so in need of the comfort benevolent sexism offers.

Highly anxious women may also be more likely to adopt benevolent sexism (see Hart, Glick, & Dinero, 2013). Prior research indicates that women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism is strongly linked to the advantages benevolent sexism promises. For example, women who view themselves as special and deserving of praise endorse benevolent sexism more strongly (Hammond, Sibley, & Overall, 2014), and women accept benevolent sexism more when the relationship benefits benevolent sexism offers are personally relevant (Hammond & Overall, 2014; Hammond, Overall, & Cross, 2016). Given the needed security that partners’ benevolent sexism provides them, highly anxious women are also more likely to endorse benevolent sexism when they perceive their partner to endorse these attitudes. In contrast, secure individuals who already trust in their partners’ continued investment are less likely to be lured by the reverence and security benevolent sexism promises. Thus, by showing that the impact of perceived partner benevolent sexism differs according to women’s relationship security, the current results not only support central tenets regarding the way benevolent sexism functions but also identify key interpersonal characteristics that are likely to moderate the costs of benevolent sexism and thus the degree to which benevolent sexism functions to sustain gender inequality.

Caveats and Directions for Future Research

The attenuating effect of perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism replicated when assessing reactions within couples’ conflict discussions (Study 1), more routine experiences of daily conflict (Study 2), and recalled experiences of conflict (Study 3). However, all three studies involved correlational data, which prevent causal conclusions. The reverse causal directions are less theoretically plausible; responding less negatively to conflict should not increase attachment anxiety or perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism. Moreover, although establishing the causal role of perceived partners’ benevolent sexism should provide additional evidence for these effects, we believe such an approach will pose difficulties. Not only are highly anxious women particularly attentive to their partner’s beliefs, manipulated perceptions of partner’s benevolent sexism will need to be sustained as highly anxious women encounter relationship threatening contexts when their attachment concerns are activated and assurances of partner reliability are crucial. Our approach to investigating how perceptions of partners’ benevolent sexism impact responses to naturalistic conflict is important to ascertain how these consequential perceptions influence people’s actual reactions to conflict in ongoing relationships.

Nonetheless, the attenuating effects of perceived partners’ benevolent sexism may vary across relationship contexts. For example, although the current results demonstrate these perceptions alleviate negative reactions to acute and daily experiences of conflict, the assurance that perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism provides may not be powerful enough to reduce the threat of major problems that indicate that the relationship is in dire jeopardy, such as major partner transgressions. Similarly, the attenuating effects demonstrated in the current studies may not generalize across all conflicts. Individuals who endorse benevolent sexism report less tolerance and more negative reactions toward women who challenge benevolent ideals (e.g., Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner, & Zhu, 1997; Viki & Abrams, 2002). Accordingly, perceived partners’ benevolent sexism may not attenuate women’s insecurity when challenges to gender roles produce conflict, such as women wanting more independence. Investigating whether the attenuating effect of perceived partners’ benevolent sexism varies depending on the severity and type of conflict is a valuable topic for future research.

Conclusion

Benevolent sexism prescribes that men should prioritize their relationships and be invested, devoted partners. The current studies illustrate that these prescriptions offer highly anxious women security regarding their partner’s reliability and thus attenuate their negative reactions to relationship conflict. Highly anxious women (but not men) who perceived their partners to strongly endorse benevolent sexism felt less distressed and insecure when they experienced (Study 1 and 2) and recalled (Study 3A) conflict with their partners because perceiving partners to endorse benevolent sexism led women to believe their male partners could be relied on to remain personally invested in the relationship (Study 3B). Believing partners will adhere to prescriptions of invested and devoted partners was more effective at alleviating anxious reactions to conflict than perceiving partners to be highly satisfied or committed. This pattern reveals that the obliged investment benevolent sexism promises is particularly effective in attenuating anxious insecurity during conflict because it bypasses anxious fears that their partners’ love and satisfaction will eventually wane. The results also support principal tenets regarding the functioning of benevolent sexism by showing that the relationship benefits benevolent sexism promises do enhance relationship security, but do so to the extent that women need reassurance of their partner’s reliability.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund Grant (UOA0811) and UoA FRDF Grants (UOA3607021; UOA3626244) awarded to Nickola C. Overall.

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental material is available at .

Notes

References

Arriaga

X. B.

Reed

J. T.

Goodfriend

Agnew

C. R.

(2006). Relationship perceptions and persistence: Do fluctuations in perceived partner commitment undermine dating relationships? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1045-1065.

Barreto

Ellemers

(2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 633-642.

Barreto

Ellemers

Piebinga

Moya

(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.

Bohner

Ahlborn

Steiner

(2010). How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response profiles in the ambivalent sexism inventory. Sex Roles, 62, 568-582.

Campbell

Simpson

J. A.

Boldry

Kashy

D. A.

(2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 510-531.

Collins

N. L.

(1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810-832.

Dardenne

Dumont

Bollier

(2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764-779.

Dumont

Sarlet

Dardenne

(2010). Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel incompetent: Benevolent sexism shifts self-construal and autobiographical memories toward incompetence. Sex Roles, 62, 545-553.

Feather

N. T.

(2004). Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes toward gender relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 3-12.

10.

Fernández

Castro

Otero

Foltz

Lorenzo

(2006). Sexism, vocational goals, and motivation as predictors of men’s and women’s career choice. Sex Roles, 55, 267-272.

11.

Glick

Diebold

Bailey-Werner

Zhu

(1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323-1334.

12.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.

13.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536.

14.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

Mladinic

Saiz

Abrams

Masser

. . . López

W. L.

(2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775.

15.

Glick

Lameiras

Fiske

S. T.

Eckes

Masser

Volpato

. . . Wells

(2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713-728.

16.

Hammond

M. D.

Overall

N. C.

(2013). 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.

17.

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.

18.

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.

19.

Hammond

M. D.

Overall

N. C.

Cross

E. J.

(2016). Internalizing sexism within close relationships: The perceived sexism of intimate partners maintains women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 214-238.

20.

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.

21.

Hart

Glick

Dinero

R. E.

(2013). She loves him, she loves him not: Attachment style as a predictor of women’s ambivalent sexism toward men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 507-518.

22.

Impett

E. A.

Gordon

A. M.

(2010). Why do people sacrifice to approach rewards versus to avoid costs? Insights from attachment theory. Personal Relationships, 17, 299-315.

23.

Jackman

M. R.

(1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

24.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press

25.

Kilianski

S. E.

Rudman

L. A.

(1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333-352.

26.

Agnew

C. R.

(2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta–analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37-57.

27.

Lee

T. L.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

Chen

(2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583-602.

28.

Lemay

E. P.

Jr. Dudley

K. L.

(2011). Caution: Fragile! Regulating the interpersonal security of chronically insecure partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 681-702.

29.

Little

K. C.

McNulty

J. K.

Russell

(2010). Sex buffers intimates against the negative implications of attachment insecurity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 484-498.

30.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Fritz

M. S.

Williams

Lockwood

C. M.

(2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384-389.

31.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53-152). New York: Academic Press.

32.

Moya

Glick

Expósito

de Lemus

Hart

(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.

33.

Overall

N. C.

Girme

Y. U.

Lemay

E. P

Jr. Hammond

M. D.

(2014). Attachment anxiety and reactions to relationship threat: The benefits and costs of inducing guilt in romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 235-256.

34.

Overall

N. C.

Sibley

C. G.

Tan

(2011). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 271-290.

35.

Overall

N. C.

Simpson

J. A.

(2015). Attachment and dyadic regulation processes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 61-66.

36.

Rosenthal

Rosnow

R. L.

(2007). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

37.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

J. M.

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

38.

Sibley

C. G.

Overall

N. C.

Duckitt

Perry

Milfont

T. L.

Khan

S. S.

. . . Robertson

(2009). Your sexism predicts my sexism: Perceptions of men’s (but not women’s) sexism affects one’s own sexism over time. Sex Roles, 60, 682-693.

39.

Sibley

C. G.

Perry

(2010). An opposing process model of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 438-452.

40.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic relationships. In Devine

Plant

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 279-328). New York, NY: Elsevier North-Holland.

41.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Phillips

(1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899-914.

42.

Tran

Simpson

J. A.

(2009). Pro-relationship maintenance behavior: The joint roles of attachment and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 685-698.

43.

Tran

Simpson

J. A.

(2011). Attachment, commitment and relationship maintenance: When partners really matter. In Campbell

La Guardia

Olson

Zanna

(Eds.), The Ontario Symposium: Vol. 10. The science of the couple (pp. 95-117). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

44.

Viki

G. T.

Abrams

(2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289-293.

45.

Viki

G. T.

Abrams

Hutchison

(2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533-537.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.36 MB