Dynamics Within Intimate Relationships and the Causes,Consequences,and Functions of Sexist Attitudes

Men’s Hostile Sexism Disrupts Intimate Relationships

Hostile sexism functions to sustain gender inequality by advocating aggression toward women who challenge men’s social power, including career women and feminists (e.g., Glick et al., 1997; Masser & Abrams, 2004). The power-maintaining concerns central to hostile sexism also arise within intimate relationships because men are dependent on women for fundamental needs, including support, intimacy, and reproduction. Such dependence challenges the power motives that are central to hostile sexism, which are underlain by fears that women will use men’s relationship dependence to control and exploit men (Glick & Fiske, 1996). As shown in Path A of Figure 1, the motivation to sustain power and reduce dependence leads men who endorse hostile sexism to aggress toward female partners. Men who more strongly endorse hostile sexism report more physical and verbal aggression toward their partners (e.g., Forbes, Adams-Curtis, & White, 2004; Martinez-Pecino & Durán, 2016). Moreover, revealing that power and dependence concerns underlie this link, men’s hostile sexism predicts greater relationship aggression when female partners are low in commitment and therefore men are more vulnerable to hurt, rejection, and exploitation by their partners (Cross, Overall, Hammond, & Fletcher, 2016).

The aggression associated with men’s hostile sexism has obvious and important costs for female partners and children, but it also undermines men’s ability to fulfill important relationship needs (Fig. 1, Path B). Overall, Sibley, and Tan (2011) found that men’s hostile sexism predicted greater hostility during couples’ conflict discussions, which resulted in men who endorsed hostile sexism being less successful in obtaining desired changes from their partner. Our research has also shown that men’s hostile sexism leads to negative perceptual biases, such as perceptions of female partners as critical and unloving, and these negative biases predict more aggression and reduced relationship satisfaction (Hammond & Overall, 2013a; also see Herrera, Expósito, & Moya, 2012, for experimental evidence of negative perceptual biases). Thus, hostile sexism might protect men’s societal-level advantages, but research investigating processes within intimate relationships has revealed that hostile sexism comes with the cost of forestalling the fulfillment of men’s intimacy needs. As shown in Figure 1, the need to counterbalance these relationship costs is precisely why benevolent sexism arises (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2000; see Fig. 1, “Need for Counterbalance”).

Men’s Benevolent Sexism Offsets the Relationship Costs of Hostile Sexism

Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) describes how benevolent sexism functions to offset the costs of hostile sexism by promoting the fulfillment of men’s relationship needs while also sustaining gender inequality. One key component of this process is the complementary relationship traits and roles that benevolent sexism prescribes for men and women: Men are “completed” by cherishing and protecting female partners who, in turn, adopt the role of warm, supportive caregivers (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Prior research on benevolent sexism has typically focused on how the promotion of these different roles negatively impacts women in career settings, such as by impeding women’s work-related performance, felt competence, and career ambitions (e.g., Barreto, Ellemers, Piebinga, & Moya, 2010; Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007; Dumont, Sarlet, & Dardenne, 2010). However, the focus on the effects of benevolent sexism outside relationships overlooks a key reason why benevolent sexism arises: because it facilitates heterosexual intimacy within relationships.

Relationship science has demonstrated ways that benevolent sexism facilitates men’s intimacy, influence, and access to support in intimate relationships (Fig. 1, Paths C and D). Men’s endorsement of benevolent sexism predicts more open and caring behavior within couples’ conflict discussions, which produces more success in influencing female partners (Overall et al., 2011; also see Goh & Hall, 2015, for evidence of more friendly behavior in initial cross-gender interactions). Men’s benevolent sexism is also associated with more positive perceptions of partners and their own greater relationship satisfaction (Hammond & Overall, 2013a; Sibley & Becker, 2012). Importantly, the positive responses toward partners linked with benevolent sexism are independent of the aggressive and derogative behaviors linked with hostile sexism, despite the fact that people tend to endorse (or disagree with) both hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Thus, endorsing benevolent sexism counterbalances rather than annuls the costs of hostile sexism by promoting behaviors that facilitate men’s influence and satisfaction within relationships even when those same men hold hostile attitudes toward women. Moreover, the caring behavior that benevolent sexism prescribes in men encourages women to adopt benevolent sexism, which also leads to behaviors by women that fulfill men’s relational needs.

Men’s Benevolent Sexism Fosters Women’s Benevolent Sexism

The devotion, protection, and care promised by men’s benevolent sexism offer incentives to women to adopt sexist attitudes (see Fig. 1, “Offer of Incentives”). These incentives are most relevant within the context of a romantic relationship (Glick & Fiske, 1996) but are only relevant and available to women if their male partner endorses these attitudes (and thus believes he should be the caring, devoted partner benevolent sexism promises). Accordingly, Hammond, Overall, and Cross (2016) demonstrated that women (but not men) endorsed benevolent sexism more strongly over time when they perceived that their partner endorsed benevolent sexism. Moreover, experimental evidence indicated that women (but not men) felt more cared for and secure when they perceived that their partner endorsed benevolent sexism, and it was this relationship security that encouraged alignment with their partners’ sexist attitudes (Hammond et al., 2016). In contrast, when women perceived that their partner disagreed with benevolent sexism, their endorsement of benevolent sexism tended to decline over time (Hammond et al., 2016).

These results reveal how relationship dynamics promote women’s endorsement of sexism. Benevolent sexism offers women access to a cherished position in relationships, and this relationship security incentivizes women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism. Understanding the processes that underlie women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism is particularly important because, as we discuss next, benevolent sexism functions to maintain gender inequality via encouraging women’s investment in their relationships at the expense of independent success (see Fig. 1, Paths E, G, and H).

Benevolent Sexism Fulfills Men’s Intimacy Needs but Restricts Women’s Competence

Benevolent sexism promotes the adoption of gender-differentiated behaviors and roles: Men are providers and protectors for women, who are supportive caregivers. Women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism and adherence to these roles also promote men’s access to intimacy and support within relationships. Women who endorse benevolent sexism internalize the prescriptions that women should be affectionate, warm, and supportive of their male partner’s success (Chen, Fiske, & Lee, 2009; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Ramos, Barreto, Ellemers, Moya, & Ferreira, 2016). Recent research has shown that this investment in their relationship role is evident in the support they actually provide their partner. Our research demonstrated that women who endorsed benevolent sexism provided greater relationship-oriented support, characterized by affection and emphasizing the relationship as a secure base, during heterosexual couples’ discussion of their personal goals (Hammond & Overall, 2015; Fig. 1, Path E). Such relationship-oriented support, in turn, led male partners to perceive greater regard and intimacy in their relationship (Fig. 1, Path F).

The support that benevolent sexism prompts in men, however, does not provide women the same relationship benefits. Instead, benevolent sexism functions to legitimize men’s access to high-status roles, and men who endorse benevolent sexism internalize prescriptions to be successful providers (Chen et al., 2009; Glick & Fiske, 1996). Support that is delivered from high-status positions tends to encompass behaviors that emphasize the recipients’ dependence on receiving support (Nadler & Chernyak-Hai, 2014). Within intimate relationships, we have found that men who endorsed benevolent sexism exhibited greater dependency-oriented support—which involves directly providing plans and solutions for female partners and neglecting partners’ abilities (Hammond & Overall, 2015; Fig. 1, Path C). These types of support, in turn, led their female partners to feel less competent and less regarded (Fig. 1, Path G; also see Shnabel, Bar-Anan, Kende, Bareket, & Lazar, 2016, for experimental evidence showing dependency-oriented support in cross-gender interactions). These gender-differentiated support behaviors illustrate how the relationship dynamics arising from benevolent sexism fulfill men’s relationship needs while simultaneously undermining both women’s competence and women’s relational needs.

Women’s Benevolent Sexism Creates Vulnerability (Not Security) in Relationships

The relationship benefits promised by benevolent sexism also prompt women to invest in their relationships at the expense of their competence, career ambitions, and work-related performance (Dumont et al., 2010; Rudman & Heppen, 2003), resulting in personal costs for women that have been widely documented. However, unlike for men, these costs of sexism are not counterbalanced by the promised relationship benefits. Not only does the support fostered by benevolent sexism undermine women’s personal and relational needs, the greater focus and investment in the relationship (versus personal) domain fostered by benevolent sexism means that women who endorse benevolent sexism are more vulnerable to dissatisfaction when their relationships do not live up to the idealized version promised (Fig. 1, Path H). In particular, our research has shown that women who endorse benevolent sexism experience magnified drops in relationship satisfaction and react with more hostility when they encounter relationship problems or when their partner does not also endorse benevolent sexism (Casad, Salazar, & Macina, 2015; Hammond & Overall, 2013b; Overall et al., 2011). These costs are likely to be felt more acutely by people who need the security that benevolent sexism offers. For example, perceiving that their partners endorse benevolent sexism helps women who harbor deep insecurities about their partners’ commitment feel less threatened during relationship conflict (Cross, Overall, & Hammond, 2016). This is consistent with the security and regard that benevolent sexism offers women. Yet more insecure women are also more likely to invest in their relationships at the expense of independent success, which leaves them more vulnerable if the relationship dissolves. In sum, relationship research has illustrated how the cherished position benevolent sexism offers women does not live up to its promise. Instead, benevolent sexism secures men’s power by heightening women’s dependence on male partners and does so at the cost of women’s relationship satisfaction (Fig. 1, Path I).

Conclusion

The relationship dynamics summarized in Figure 1 illustrate the important contributions of relationship science to our understanding of how sexist attitudes develop, are reinforced, and influence men and women. Men’s hostile sexism might function to obstruct women’s access to social power, but it undermines men’s influence and satisfaction within their intimate relationships. Benevolent sexism arises to counterbalance these costs, prompting positivity and care toward female partners. These relationship benefits are also why benevolent sexism is so powerful in reinforcing gender inequality. The promises of men’s devotion, protection, and provision are appealing and are a key reason why women endorse benevolent sexism despite the ensuing costs. Indeed, women’s subsequent investment in intimate relationships undermines their competence and personal success while also making them more vulnerable to dissatisfaction and instability in their intimate relationships.

In sum, research at the intersection of intergroup attitudes and intimate relationships has propelled knowledge in both of these important domains. The relationship dynamics we have reviewed reveal how positive outcomes in intimate relationships can be a critical barrier to gender equality: The promised relationship reverence and care at the heart of benevolent sexism function to deter women’s independence. These findings also indicate how societal attitudes shape functioning within intimate relationships and therefore shape a powerful predictor of the well-being of men and women.