jost_j_t_kay_a_c_thorisdottir_n_social_and_psychological_bas

Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 293–348). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Major, B., & Forcey, B. (1985). Social comparisons and pay evaluations: Preferences for same-sex and same-job wage comparisons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 393–405.

Major, B., Gramzow, R., McCoy, S. K., Levin, S., Schmader, T., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 269–282.

Major, B. N., Kaiser, C. K., O’Brien, L. T., & McCoy, S. K. (2007). Fairing well in an unfair world: How worldviews moderate the impact of perceived discrimination on self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1399–1412.

Major, B., & Testa, M. (1989). Social comparison processes and judgments of entitlement and satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 101–120.

McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 43, 341–351.

O’Brien, L. T., & Major, B. N. (2005). System-justifying beliefs and psychological well-being: The roles of group status and identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1718–1729.

O’Brien, L. T., & Major, B. N. (2006, August). System-justifying beliefs and group status: Implications for personal entitlement. Paper presented at the bi-annual meeting of the International Society for Justice Research. Berlin, Germany.

Olson, J. M., & Hafer, C. L. (2001). Tolerance of personal deprivation. In J. T. Jost & B. Major, (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 157–175). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pelham, B. W., & Hetts, J. J. (2001). Underworked and overpaid: Elevated entitlement in men’s self pay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 93–193.

Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). The emergence of status beliefs: From structural inequality to legitimizing ideology. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 257–277). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ridgeway, C. L., Boyle, E. H., Kuipers, K. J., & Robinson, D. T. (1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experience. American Sociological Review, 62, 331–350.

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

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1991). Black Americans’ views of inequality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660–1672.

Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176.

Weber, M. (1904/1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (T. Parsons, Trans.) New York: Scribner.

There are spheres in which feeling should be paramount . . . the realm of gentler and holier and kindlier attributes that make the name of wife, mother and sister . . . but it is not in harmony with suffrage and has no place in government.

—Nebraska Men’s Association Opposed

to Woman Suffrage, Omaha, 1914

Giving women the vote created neither heaven nor hell on earth. Nevertheless, we cite this admittedly quaint but sexist manifesto to illustrate the main themes of our chapter. In ambivalent sexist ideology, women are viewed as adorable and sweet, subjectively positive traits that suit them to hearth and home, but also as too emotional and insufficiently logical to accomplish the work of the world (the writers blamed even the French Revolution on women’s passions). Ambivalent sexism theory (AST) reveals, like the quotation above, how attitudes about women within heterosexual romantic relationships are part and parcel of the justifications (both subjectively benevolent and hostile) that exclude women from high-status roles outside the home. Indeed, we argue that subjectively benevolent views about women within heterosexual relationships help to make sexist ideologies acceptable (and even attractive) to many women. Although contemporary women’s (and men’s) attitudes are less extreme than those of the “woman of high standing” who feared that women’s suffrage “would let loose the wheels of purgatory,” ambivalent sexism continues to justify limiting women’s roles in the public sphere.

In this chapter, we review how benevolent and hostile attitudes toward women complement one another and give rise to discrimination against women, according to AST (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001). We also consider empirical findings that help to illustrate the relationship between sexism and system justification, as endorsed and enacted by men and women. Next, we examine how hostile and benevolent beliefs map onto romanticized ideals about what men and women ought (and ought not) to be, and how these beliefs shape people’s mate preferences. Finally, we review how these systemjustifying beliefs spill over into the workplace and how they work to block women’s progress in the public sphere.

AMBIVALENT SEXISM: THEORY AND FINDINGS

Ambivalent sexism theory contends that sexism is not rooted in unalloyed antipathy. Rather, sexism is the combination of complementary gender ideologies, held by both men and women worldwide (Glick, et al., 2000), which serve to maintain the present social hierarchy. Benevolent sexism (BS) is a paternalistic ideology in which women are subordinate beings,

best suited for traditional, low-status roles, who need to be protected, cherished, and revered for their virtue. Hostile sexism (HS), which does express antipathy, is a combative ideology that is hostile toward women, who are viewed as seeking to control men, whether by using their sexuality or feminist ideology as a means to achieving status and power. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) is a 22-item self report measure, which includes both benevolent and hostile subscales and assesses the extent to which people maintain benevolent and hostile attitudes toward women. Examples of benevolent items are “Men are incomplete without women,” “Women should be cherished and protected by men,” and “Many women have a quality of purity that few men posses.” Hostile items include statements such as “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men,” “Many women get a kick out of teasing men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances,” and “When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against.”

Hostile and benevolent sexism are the predictable products of the power differences and interdependence between men and women, which determine the nature of patriarchy, gender differentiation, and heterosexual relations; each domain reinforces the structural foundations of ambivalent sexism. Patriarchy yields paternalism, the ideological justification of male dominance. The hostile elements of patriarchy are based in dominative paternalism, the belief that men ought to have more power than women and the fear that women might usurp men’s power. In complement, the benevolent elements of patriarchy are based in protective paternalism, the belief that men need to protect and provide for the women on whom they depend.

Gender differentiation refers to the social distinctions all cultures make between men and women and the importance of gender identity in social hierarchy (Harris, 1991). Competitive gender differentiation justifies women’s lower status through stereotypes of their inherent inferiority and incompetence, consistent with the assumptions of antipathy theories of prejudice (e.g., social identity theory; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). On the other hand, complementary gender differentiation stresses the functionality of women in gender-conventional roles and accounts for the view that women are “wonderful” because they are nurturing and supportive (Eagly & Mladinic, 1993).

Finally, heterosexual relations and sexual reproduction highlight the interpersonal interdependence of men and women. The hostile interpretation of this interdependence is that women are purportedly able to “use” sex to control men, whereas the benevolent interpretation asserts that women are a

valuable resource (e.g., essential for true happiness), even if they are (in some ways) inferior.

Both men and women report subscribing to these ideologies, albeit to varying degrees (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Kilianski & Rudman, 1998). Specifically, across six U.S. samples, men consistently scored higher than women on HS, presumably because it is not in women’s self-interest to endorse the hostile components of patriarchy, gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy. Men also scored higher than women on BS (in five out of six samples); however, the gender gap for BS was significantly smaller (Glick & Fiske, 2001). More important, the two subscales were positively correlated in U.S. and cross-cultural samples. The HS–BS correlation, however, was significant for women in 18 out of 19 samples, whereas, it was significant for men in 13 out of 19 samples. Moreover, averaging across the 19 samples, the correlation was significantly higher for women as compared to men (average r = .37 versus .23; t(18) = 5.02, p < .01), suggesting that the relationship is stronger and more universal among female participants. Why do these attitudes persist even in the face of considerable social changes in gender relations? How, in particular, are women induced to accept these beliefs (even if to a lesser degree than men)?

Men are socially dominant by many measures (e.g., presence in highstatus roles, greater income) (United Nations Development Programme, 2006). According to system justification theory, people are motivated to create beliefs that reinforce the status quo, so that they can see the social system in which they live as fair and legitimate ( Jost & Banaji, 1994). Therefore, system-justifying gender ideologies emerge that reflect and stabilize the current system. Hostility alone, however, is a difficult strategy for keeping subordinates in check. This leads dominant groups to prefer paternalistic ideologies toward subordinates in order to justify the hierarchy, through conferring benefits upon subordinates to keep them complacent ( Jackman, 1994). Subordinates, ever sensitive to their position and the cultural view, are influenced by status beliefs in their own behavior, and cooperate to maintain amicable conditions (Sechrist & Stangor, 2001). The preference for paternalism as a system-justifying strategy is energized and made particularly necessary in the case of gender because the dominant group has especially strong incentives to reward and mollify the subordinate group members on whom they rely, encouraging warmth and cooperation within intimate heterosexual relationships. Thus, BS is strongly rooted in the intimate interdependence of men and women (i.e., within heterosexual romantic relationships). Overtly paternalistic ideologies toward racial and ethnic groups have largely broken down and been exposed as exploitative in contemporary societies (e.g., consider how antiquated as well as racist older depictions of Blacks—e.g., the

“Uncle Tom” type of character in films that preceded the Civil Rights movement or White entertainers’ use of “black-face”—now seem). In contrast, paternalism toward women remains quite strong (e.g., the notion that women ought to be rescued first in emergencies), especially within the context of romantic relationships (e.g., consider the likely reaction to a husband who takes the last seat in the lifeboat, abandoning his wife on a sinking ship).

These paternalistic beliefs about men and women probably also generate acceptance because they can be viewed as flattering toward both sexes. For men, being a “protector and provider” is a much more subjectively positive identity than being an “exploiter” and provides greater legitimacy for their social dominance. For women, the view that they are pure, morally superior, and deserving of men’s protection is also a subjectively positive (even if patronizing) view of their group. Thus, for women, BS potentially solves the conflict between ego justification, group justification, and system justification that Jost and Banaji (1994) suggest afflicts many subordinated groups (for whom justifying the system typically would entail embracing a negative view of themselves and/or their group).

Ambivalent sexism theory builds on the existing theories of genderbased system justification by demonstrating why it is that both hostile and benevolent ideologies contribute to persistent prejudice and discrimination against women. First, although BS is seemingly innocuous, and in certain situations is perceived as beneficial by women as well as men, it is problematic because it is yoked to HS. At the societal level, BS does not exist without HS and the resulting gender inequality. Comparisons of national averages from 19 countries illustrate that benevolent and hostile sexism are highly correlated with one another, and negatively correlated with other indicators of gender equality in economic and political life (Glick, Fiske, et al., 2000). Second, BS is selectively favorable toward women who occupy traditional female roles. Ambivalent sexists reconcile their presumably conflicting ideologies about women by directing benevolent beliefs toward traditional women (idealizing homemakers) and hostile beliefs toward nontraditional women (disliking career women) (Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner, & Zhu, 1997). Lastly, BS reduces women’s resistance to prejudice and discrimination, because benevolence can be used effectively to justify discriminatory acts (Moya, Glick, Expósito, De Lemus, & Hart, 2007).

Further, recent work reveals that benevolent and hostile sexism are related to a variety of correlates of political ideology. The evidence suggest that these individual differences validate sexism as system support, but in two distinct ways. Hostile sexism relates more to competition for status and power, whereas BS relates more to controlling women. For example, social dominance orientation and the Protestant work ethic (both of which relate

to concerns for status and intergroup competition) predict individuals’ endorsement of HS (Christopher & Mull, 2006; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007). A symbolic example of how HS relates to diminishing women’s status is that it predicts the likelihood of passing on femaleand male-disparaging jokes, as well as how funny men think they are (Thomas & Esses, 2004). In contrast, right-wing authoritarianism, which has been shown to relate to concerns with maintaining control and traditional values, predicts BS (Christopher & Mull, 2006). Also along the lines of control and ambiguity intolerance, intrinsic religiosity, extrinsic religiosity, and scriptural literalism all positively relate to BS, but not HS (Burn & Busso, 2005), as does Catholicism (Glick, Lameiras, Castro, 2002).

Ambivalently sexist ideologies work together not only to justify gender hierarchy, but to maintain it by providing incentives (BS) for women to fulfill gender-traditional ideals and punishments (HS) for those who seek “too much” status and power. Further, AST, the content of Glick and Fiske’s (1996) measure of ambivalent sexism, and the findings described earlier, are all consistent with the notion that BS accomplishes this goal mainly through the idealization of women within heterosexual romantic relationships and HS by derogating women who pose a threat to men’s status and power, especially in the workplace (where women have increasingly assumed positions of authority). This is not to say that HS is irrelevant within relationships or that BS has no effect on how women are treated in the workplace. Indeed, we argue here that although BS is primarily sustained in contemporary society because of its connection to heterosexual romance, it both serves to legitimize HS and also itself spills over to the treatment of women at work. First, we consider how ambivalent sexism (especially BS) is related to how men and women conceive of and behave in heterosexual romantic relationships. We then consider how the idealization of women in the private realm plays into their exclusion from power and status in the public realm of the workplace.

AMBIVALENT SEXISM AT HOME,

IN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

Formed out of partners’ interdependence, BS functions to maintain that interdependence by depicting men and women as complementary to each other: men need women as caretakers and mothers to their offspring; women need men to provide for them and keep them safe. These benevolent gender ideologies allow people to express positive views of their romantic partners while nevertheless endorsing system-justifying beliefs that perpetuate the power differential between men and women by idealizing traditional partners, transplanting men’s greater power in society to heterosexual close relationships.

Benevolent sexism is associated with traditionalism (Christopher & Mull, 2006; Sibley et al., 2007). Specifically, BS is negatively related to Schwartz’s (1992) self-direction values and positively associated with traditional values (Feather, 2004). Self-direction values include prioritizing independent thought and action, freedom, and choosing one’s own goals. Traditional values, on the other hand, concern one’s cultural and religious customs. Such traditionalism has very different consequences for women and men. Traditional values within heterosexual romantic relationships emphasize men’s role as protector and provider, which requires success in the wider world. In contrast, traditional values idealize women as homemakers who place home life above worldly success, and BS promises them that they will achieve security and be provided for if they do so. Women high in BS, for example, are more likely to use cosmetics, presumably because they feel dependent on attracting a man who will provide (Franzoi, 2001). Furthermore, women who implicitly associate their partner with chivalrous images show less interest in education and career goals (Rudman & Heppen, 2003). In other words, a woman who tends to think of her partner as a kind of Prince Charming is less likely to pursue high-status or high-paying work. Not surprising then, BS is associated with paternalistic chivalry (Viki, Abrams, & Hutchison, 2003).

Benevolent sexism also predicts evaluations of women (and presumably, men also) depending on how they meet expectations of their gender. They predict both positive responses to women who fulfill traditional female roles (Glick, et al. 1997; Sibley & Wilson, 2004), and negative evaluations of women who violate societal expectations of a chaste and virtuous female, such as women who engage in premarital sex (Sakalli-Ugurlu & Glick, 2003). Benevolent sexism is also related to people’s blaming of victims of acquaintance rape when their initial behavior violates ideals of feminine virtue (Abrams, Viki, Masser, & Bohner, 2003; Viki & Abrams, 2002). Thus, benevolently sexist ideology serves as a control strategy to keep women in check. Within close relationships themselves, this is especially evident in the prescriptions and proscriptions, or rules, that people hold about ideal romantic partners.

Lee, Fiske, and Glick (2007) investigated the intersection of sexist ideologies and close relationship ideals, especially how benevolent ideologies guide personal relationship preferences (in terms of prescriptive and proscriptive expectations of an ideal partner). Previous research has documented consistent gender differences in mate preferences, with men preferring younger women and women preferring men with resources and status (Buss, 1989; Eagly & Wood, 1999). Two studies have empirically linked BS to these gender differences. In one, BS predicted women’s preferences for an older man with good earning potential and men’s preferences for a younger woman who can cook (Eastwick et al., 2005). Likewise, BS predicted women’s tendency to

look for a man with good earning potential and for men to look for a chaste partner ( Johannesen-Schmidt & Eagly, 2002). Lee and colleagues (2007) examined, in addition to these gender differences in close relationship preferences, the rules that individuals establish for their partner, both the desired aspects and the boundaries for undesired characteristics.

Specifically, Lee and colleagues (2007) asked undergraduate students to describe the ideal close relationship partner’s characteristics, including appearance (e.g., face, attractiveness), attributes (e.g., nice, funny), behavior (e.g., communicates with me, challenges me to be better), roles (e.g., confidante, caretaker), and origins (e.g., a particular ethnicity, a particular religious background). A reduced list of prescriptions was compiled from these responses. Likewise, a list of proscriptions was created from participants’ responses to what the ideal partner should not be like or do. A different sample of participants rated the importance of these prescriptions and proscriptions, as well as their agreement with items from the short version of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996).

Factor analysis revealed a great deal of overlap between women and men on prescriptive ideals, revealing a few common concerns among men and women. First, a prescription for a traditional partner emerged. In addition, both men and women had some version of a strength prescription (e.g., assertive). A warmth prescription describing a considerate and caring person, and an attractiveness prescription, including general descriptions of physical appeal (e.g., good-looking, striking appearance), were similar for both genders. Finally, women’s preferences revealed a fifth dimension, a romantic prescription for the male partner to be good with kids and to complete her— also consistent with the notion that, due to dependence on men for resources, women have a strong need to assess how willing the male partner is to invest in her and her offspring.

Proscriptive ideals (i.e., clusters of undesirable traits prohibited in partners) received less agreement between the sexes. Both men and women did uphold some “general rejection” criteria, various characteristics that eliminated a potential partner on the spot. For example, an uncaring or manipulative partner would call for prompt rejection. Another concern men and women shared was a partner too stereotypically feminine (e.g., too girly).

The women were generally less likely to endorse sexist ideologies (such as HS and BS) than men. However, to the degree that they were sexist, it more strongly guided women’s partner preferences than it did men’s. Further, BS more strongly related to relationship ideals than did HS. Correlational and regression analyses showed that the perceived importance of most relationship ideals (both prescriptive and proscriptive) held by the female participants related to their belief in BS. The general pattern that emerged from