Forbes Et Al 2004

VIOLENCE AGAINST
ARTICLEForbes etWOMEN
al. / FIRST-
/ March
AND2004
SECOND-GENERATION
10.1177/1077801203256002
MEASURES
First- and Second-Generation Measures of

Sexism, Rape Myths and Related Beliefs,
and Hostility Toward Women
Their Interrelationships and Association With College Students’
Experiences With Dating Aggression and Sexual Coercion
GORDON B. FORBES
LEAH E. ADAMS-CURTIS
KAY B. WHITE
Millikin University
Sexist attitudes and rape-supporting beliefs have long been linked to relationship aggres-
sion and sexual coercion. This study investigates how recent developments in the concep-
tualization and measurement of these variables are related to each other and how they are
related to aggressive and coercive behaviors. Second-generation measures of sexism and
rape-supporting beliefs were found to be related to each other and to aggressive and sexu-
ally coercive behaviors. Relationships between attitude measures appeared to be based
primarily on shared belief systems, whereas relationships between attitude measures and
aggressive behavior appeared to be based primarily on generalized hostility toward
women.
Keywords: hostility toward women; relationship aggression; sexism; sexual coercion
Dating aggression and sexual coercion are all too common aspects of
the college experience (e.g., Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987;
Sanday, 1996). Efforts to understand these phenomena have often
focused on two sets of attitudinal and cognitive variables. The
first of these are beliefs defining differential roles and privileges
as a function of gender. Such belief systems are usually described
as sexist and have been identified as central elements in a campus
AUTHORS’ NOTE: Nicole R. Hamm, Peter E. Jaberg, Larry Lovell-Troy, Brooke Rade,
and Linda Shinke-Llano provided valuable assistance in one or more phases of this
research.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, Vol. 10 No. 3, March 2004 236-261
DOI: 10.1177/1077801203256002
© 2004 Sage Publications
236
Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Forbes et al. / FIRST- AND SECOND-GENERATION MEASURES 237
climate that objectifies women and facilitates sexual coercion

(Sanday, 1990, 1996). The second are sets of beliefs associated with
the nature and meaning of sexual coercion. These belief systems
are most often described as rape myths and serve to deny or
minimize the nature and consequences of sexual coercion (Brown-
miller, 1975). There is a large and important literature demonstrat-
ing an association between sexism and/or rape-supporting
beliefs and dating aggression and/or sexual coercion. Recent
developments in the conceptualization of both sexism and rape-
supporting beliefs have greatly expanded our understanding of
these constructs. In the mid-1990s these new understandings led
to the development of new, second-generation measures of these
constructs. However, little is known about how these second-
generation measures relate to each other or how they relate to
dating aggression and sexual coercion. We will review the devel-
opment of these new measures, investigate the relationships
between them, and study their association with relationship
aggression and sexual coercion. In addition, second-generation
measures will be used to help distinguish between aggression
associated with specific sexist or rape-supporting beliefs and
aggression associated with a generalized hostility toward
women.
A crucial development in the understanding of sexism
occurred in 1972 with the introduction of the Attitudes Toward
Women Scale (Spence & Helmreich, 1972) as a measure of atti-
tudes about women’s rights and women’s roles. The brief version
of this scale (Spence & Helmreich, 1978) soon became the most
frequently used measure of sexist attitudes about women
(McHugh & Frieze, 1997).
In the three decades following the introduction of the Attitudes
Toward Women Scale there have been marked changes in the
social roles, expectations, and privileges of women. One would
expect that these changes would have been accompanied by
reductions in sexist attitudes, and there is some evidence that this
is the case. For example, college students’ scores on measures of
sexism, particularly the Attitudes Toward Women Scale, have
clearly declined (e.g., Spence & Hahn, 1997; Twenge, 1997).
Although changing scores on attitude measures may reflect
actual declines in sexism, as McHugh and Frieze (1997) have dis-
cussed, alternative interpretations of these results cannot be
excluded.

238 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN / March 2004
One alternative interpretation is based on the observation that

the successes of feminism have meant that it is increasingly
socially unacceptable, particularly among well-educated per-
sons, to express overt sexist beliefs. Because blatantly sexist
answers on the Attitudes Toward Women Scale and related mea-
sures are socially unacceptable or may generate cognitive disso-
nance with a self-structure of being a fair and unbiased person,
individuals may not reveal their sexist values on these instru-
ments. To the extent that this is true, the declines in test scores are
not valid measures of changes in sexist attitudes (McHugh &
Frieze, 1997).
Another alternative interpretation suggests that the manifesta-
tions of sexism have changed. Benokraitis and Feagin (1995)
argued that declines in overt sexism are not necessarily paralleled
by declines in either sexist beliefs or sexist behaviors. They argued
that the overt sexism of the past has been replaced by a less obvi-
ous, but equally pernicious, covert or subtle sexism. Because of
their indirect and subtle nature, the person holding these beliefs
may not be fully aware of their sexist nature (Swim, Aikin, Hall, &
Hunter, 1995).
These and other concerns with traditional measures of sexism
have produced several important new theoretical and psycho-
metric approaches to research on sexism. Although it has long
been recognized that sexism is a complex construct (McHugh &
Frieze, 1997), these second-generation approaches place renewed
emphasis on the multidimensional nature of sexism.
The first of these approaches is consistent with the position of
Benokraitis and Feagin (1995) and draws on similarities between
racism and sexism. The influential work of McConahay (1986)
and Sears (1988) suggested that the strong social pressures
against blatantly racist attitudes and behaviors have led to more
subtle forms of prejudice that are sometimes (e.g., Swim et al.,
1995) described as modern racism. This form of racism asserts
that racial discrimination no longer exists. Based on this premise,
it is then argued that complaints about discrimination are unjusti-
fied and programs such as affirmative action are unnecessary,
inappropriate, and ultimately unfair. Using similar logic, Swim
et al. (1995) developed the Modern Sexism Scale to measure subtle
sexist attitudes. They also developed the Old-Fashioned Sexism
Scale to measure more traditional, blatantly sexist attitudes.

Along the same line, Tougas, Brown, Beaton, and Joly (1995)
developed the Neosexism Scale, a measure that specifically
focuses on opposition to affirmative action types of programs.
Both the Modern Sexism Scale and the Neosexism Scale were
designed to measure subtle forms of sexism that are not mea-
sured, or are poorly measured, by more traditional instruments.
The second-generation approach of Glick and Fiske (1996,
1997, 2001), ambivalent sexism theory, also emphasizes the multi-
dimensional nature of sexism. They observed that traditional
measures of sexism make the assumption that sexism reflects hos-
tility toward women. Although much sexism, particularly blatant
sexism, is unquestionably hostile, Glick and Fiske (1996, 2001),
like Eagly and Mladinic (1989, 1993), point out that all traditional
sexist attitudes are not hostile. For example, the principle that
women should be saved first in a disaster is certainly sexist, but it
is very difficult to argue that it is hostile. Unlike racism or other
prejudices that may contain only hostile components, Glick and
Fiske argued that sexism is inherently ambivalent because men
and women are biologically and psychologically interdependent.
Although men hold structural power in patriarchal societies,
women have appreciable dyadic power through men’s depend-
ence on them as wives, mothers, daughters, and as romantic and
sexual objects. Unlike racists, who may be strongly motivated to
avoid all contact with the individuals they depreciate, even
extreme misogynists rarely want to avoid all contact with women.
This multidimensional interdependency makes sexism much
more complicated than most other forms of prejudice.
Glick and Fiske (1996) identified two kinds of sexism. The first,
hostile sexism, justifies patriarchy and men’s sexual exploitation
of women by denigrating and objectifying women. As the term
implies, the central element in this form of sexism is hostility. The
second, benevolent sexism, is more complex and more subtle. It
recognizes, often to the point of idealizing or romanticizing, tradi-
tional women’s roles and men’s dependency on women. This
form of sexism often elicits feelings of protectiveness and affec-
tion. However, these feelings, and the actions they may elicit, are
based on perceptions of women’s inferiority and inadequacy.
Glick and Fiske suggested these benevolently sexist attitudes are
often elicited by women in traditional roles and are particularly
common toward mothers, wives, and daughters. The Hostile Sex-

ism Scale and the Benevolent Sexism Scale of the Ambivalent Sex-
ism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1997) are designed to measure
these two types of sexism.
The second-generation work of Swim et al. (1995), Tougas et al.
(1995), and Glick and Fiske (1996) appear to be significant
advances in the conceptualization and measurement of sexism.
However, the relationship between these measures and relation-
ship aggression or sexual coercion has not been established.
Forbes and Adams-Curtis (2001) appear to be the only published
study of the relationship between second-generation measures of
sexism and sexual coercion. They reported significant but small
correlations between the use of sexual coercion by men and scores
on the Neosexism Scale and the Hostile Sexism Scale.
Traditionally, sexism has been viewed as including two ele-
ments (Glick & Fiske, 1996). The first is support for narrowly
defined and restrictive social roles based on specific beliefs con-
cerning women’s inferiority to men. The second is hostility
toward women. Consequently, the concept of sexism includes
both a cognitive component (beliefs about inferiority and differ-
ential privileging of women and men) and an affective compo-
nent (hostility). Unfortunately, this means that when relation-
ships are demonstrated between measures of sexism and sexual
coercion, it is usually impossible to determine the relative contri-
bution of the affective and cognitive components. This distinction
is not simply a matter of theoretical concern. If it can be demon-
strated that one of the elements is more important than the other,
this knowledge may be used to develop more focused and effec-
tive programs to prevent sexual coercion or to treat individual
perpetrators.
In addition to sexism, another set of specific beliefs may be
important contributors to sexual aggression and coercion.
Brownmiller (1975) identified a series of false beliefs about sexual
coercion that are used to justify sexual violence and trivialize its
effects on the victim. Burt (1980) operationalized Brownmiller’s
concept with the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. This scale, along
with the related Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence and
Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scales also developed by Burt, has
inspired an extensive and extremely influential body of research.
This research has reported reasonably consistent relationships
between scores on the Attitudes Toward Women Scale, accep-

tance of rape myths, acceptance of adversarial sexual beliefs, tol-

erance for interpersonal aggression, and measures of sexual coer-
cion (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994).
However, determining the theoretical and practical signifi-
cance of relationships among the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale,
the Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence Scale, and the
Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale is far more difficult than it may
appear. Lonsway and Fitzgerald’s (1994) excellent review recog-
nized Burt’s very important theoretical contributions, but it also
identified serious conceptual and psychometric problems with
her measures. Among other things, Lonsway and Fitzgerald
(1995) argued that the Rape Myth Acceptance Scale, the
Adversarial Sexual Belief Scale, and the Acceptance of Interper-
sonal Violence Scale suffer from poor construct validity. Indeed,
they argue that the construct validity of these scales is so poor that
all three are primarily measures of hostility toward women.
According to Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1995), “Simply stated, we
believe that the critical construct in understanding rape myth
acceptance is a general hostility toward women: the predictive
power of other variables should pale in comparison.” (p. 705).
Their hypothesis suggests that effects often attributed to cogni-
tive schema (rape-supportive beliefs) may be more accurately
conceptualized as manifestations of a generalized hostility
toward women. To the extent that their hypothesis is correct, and
the evidence they offer is compelling, their position requires a sig-
nificant revision of our theoretical understanding of rape myths
as measured by Burt’s scale.
Based on the problems identified in their review, Lonsway and
Fitzgerald (1995) developed revised measures of Burt’s con-
structs. Their Rape Myth Scale, an early version of the
psychometrically elegant Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale
(Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999), appears to remedy the
problems associated with Burt’s measure. Similarly, they devel-
oped the Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs Scale to remedy the
problems associated with Burt’s Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale.
Lonsway and Fitzgerald also developed a Hostility Toward
Women Scale, which was a modification of a scale by Check,
Malamuth, Elias, and Barton (1985). This scale was developed to
provide a relatively pure measure of hostility toward women. As
such, it does not contain any items describing appropriate roles or

privileges for women and was intended to be reasonably inde-

pendent of sexist beliefs. Like the recent developments in the
measurement of sexism, the contributions of Lonsway and Fitz-
gerald can be viewed as second-generation measures of Burt’s
important constructs.
Both sexism and rape myths have been theoretically and
empirically linked to sexual coercion. However, first-generation
measures of both variables are so confounded by their inability to
distinguish between cognitive schema (perceptions of women as
inferior or specific beliefs about rape) and general hostility
toward women that it is difficult to interpret much of the research
literature. The recently developed second-generation measures
make it possible to separate the relative contribution of these two
components, thus making it possible to determine if cognitive
schema are independent predictors of sexual coercion or manifes-
tations of general hostility toward women.
This study will investigate the relationship between four cate-
gories of attitude measures and two types of aggression. The
types of attitude scales will be measures of traditional sexism;
second-generation measures of subtle, modern, or ambivalent
sexism; second-generation measures of Burt’s constructs; and a
measure of hostility toward women. The two types of aggression
studied will be self-reports of aggression in dating relationships
and self-reports of experiences with sexual coercion. We expect to
find significant relationships between the different measures of
sexism, hostility toward women, and measures of Burt’s con-
structs (rape myths and adversarial sexual beliefs). We also expect
that all families of attitude measures will be related to sexual coer-
cion. Based on the work of Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1995) and the
research of Malamuth and his associates, (Dean & Malamuth,
1997; Malamuth, Linz, Heavey, & Barnes, 1995; Malamuth,
Sockloskie, Koss, & Tanaka, 1991), we expect to find relationships
between measures of Burt’s constructs and measures of sexism.
We expect that relationships between measures of Burt’s con-
structs and measures of sexism and, in turn, relationships
between these variables and measures of dating aggression or
sexual coercion will be greatly attenuated or eliminated if their
shared variance with hostility toward women is removed.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The participants were students from sections of a required

freshman composition course at a small midwestern university.
Data were collected during the last 4 weeks of the spring semester
in the regular class period. Students were not compensated for
their participation. All responses were anonymous. All partici-
pants were informed in writing, and again in oral instructions, of
their right to refuse to participate or discontinue participation at
any time. Four students declined to participate, resulting in a total
of 348 participants. Study booklets from 43 participants contained
excessive missing data or were spoiled by a failure to follow direc-
tions. These data were discarded, leaving a total of 305 partici-
pants. There were 37 participants who identified their ethnicity as
not European American. Because there were too few participants
to allow a separate analysis by ethnicity and because of large eth-
nic differences on some of the measures (Koss et al., 1987;
O’Keefe, 1997), data from these participants were discarded. To
increase sample homogeneity, the three participants over the age
of 21 were also discarded. This resulted in a highly homogeneous
European American sample of 107 men and 157 women between
the ages of 18 and 21.
MEASURES OF SEXIST ATTITUDES
Traditional measures of sexism included the 16-item version of

the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (Spence & Helmreich, 1978)
and the Old-Fashioned Sexism Scale (Swim et al., 1995). Second
generation measures of covert or modern sexism were the Neosexism
Scale (Tougas et al., 1995) and the Modern Sexism Scale (Swim
et al., 1995). Ambivalent sexism was measured by the Hostile Sex-
ism Scale and the Benevolent Sexism scale from the Ambivalent
Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Responses to all items for
all measures were made on 7-point scales. All scales were scored
so that high scores indicated sexist attitudes.

MEASURES OF BURT’S CONSTRUCTS
The constructs of Burt were measured with the second-

generation Rape Myths Scale and Adversarial Heterosexual
Beliefs Scale of Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1995). Responses to all
items were made on 7-point scales.
MEASURE OF HOSTILITY TOWARD WOMEN
The Hostility Toward Women Scale of Lonsway and Fitzgerald

(1995) was answered on a 7-point scale.
MEASURES OF AGGRESSION
The Conflict Tactics Scale of Straus (1979, 1990), a well-

established measure of interpersonal conflict resolution, was
used to measure dating aggression. The participants completed
separate versions of the scale for themselves and their romantic
partner. The items and their order of administration were identi-
cal to those of Form R (Straus, 1990), except the last item describ-
ing assault with a weapon was omitted. Responses were made on
a 5-point scale: “never,” “once,” “occasionally,” “often,” and
“very often.” The two scales measuring the use of verbal aggres-
sion and physical aggression in response to interpersonal conflict
were scored. Neither scale contained any items on sexual aggres-
sion or coercion.
Sexual coercion was measured by the Forbes and Adams-
Curtis (2001) adaptation of the Koss and Oros (1982) Sexual Expe-
riences Survey. This scale measures sexual aggression and coer-
cion by men toward women. Each item on the scale was answered
“yes” or “no” and the responses summed to obtain a total score.
For the present study the three initial items measuring verbal
coercion were omitted. This produced a 15-item scale measuring
only threatened or actual physical force and attempted or actual
rape. The scale measures only physical coercion. It does not mea-
sure verbal coercion and coercion involving intoxication.
PRESENTATION OF THE MEASURES
Materials used in this study were distributed throughout a

larger unrelated data collection. The order of items in the research

booklet was selected to place relatively neutral items between the

potentially emotional items on aggression. The first part of the
booklet contained basic demographic information and a series of
items on childhood and adolescent experiences. This was fol-
lowed by the Conflict Tactics Scale and the measures of sexism.
The measures of sexual coercion appeared in the middle of the
sexism items.
All measures used and representative scale items appear in the
appendix.
RESULTS
The results were analyzed in six steps. First, gender differences

were determined for each of the attitude measures. Second, rela-
tionships between the attitude measures were determined. Third,
gender differences were determined for each of the measures of
aggression. Fourth, relationships between the attitude measures
and the measures of aggression were determined. Fifth, the con-
tribution of hostility to the relationships between the attitude
measures was determined. Sixth, the contribution of hostility to
the relationships between the attitude measures and dating ag-
gression or sexual coercion was determined. The alpha level for
all tests was set at .05. All reported probabilities are two-tailed.
Because large numbers of statistical tests were computed, Holm’s
sequential Bonferroni corrections were used throughout the anal-
ysis to maintain a family-wise alpha of .05 (Holm, 1979). Because
of list-wise deletion of participants with missing data, the analy-
ses reported below are based on 102 to 107 men and 141 to 157
women.
In Step 1, independent t tests were computed between men and
women on each of the attitude measures. The results are shown in
Table 1. Holm’s sequential Bonferroni corrections were used to
maintain a family-wise (n = 9) alpha of .05. As expected, very large
gender differences were found on all measures of sexism. Also as
expected, very large gender differences were found on the Rape
Myth Scale and the Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale. No gender
differences were found on the Hostility Toward Women Scale.
In Step 2, correlations were computed between the attitude
measures. The results are shown in Table 2. Holm’s sequential
Bonferroni corrections were used to maintain a family-wise (n = 8)

TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Gender Differences on Attitude Measures
Men Women
a
M SD M SD t
Traditional sexism
Attitudes Toward Women 32.99 11.88 23.13 8.82 7.73*
Old-Fashioned Sexism 13.55 5.76 8.99 3.93 7.64*
Second-generation sexism
Neosexism 36.55 9.43 26.56 7.80 9.38*
Modern Sexism 29.26 5.71 25.06 6.50 5.41*
Hostile Sexism 46.74 12.63 37.24 11.17 6.43*
Benevolent Sexism 46.66 8.77 40.61 11.18 4.70*
Lonsway and Fitzgerald’s (1994, 1995) measures
Rape Myth Scale 50.10 21.67 32.76 14.15 7.87*
Adversarial Beliefs 43.25 14.79 35.76 11.88 4.55*
Hostility Toward Women 33.09 12.08 30.81 10.19 1.65
a. df = 262.
*Statistically significant using the Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correction to maintain a
family-wise (n = 9) alpha at .05.
alpha of .05. The data for men appear above the diagonal and the
data for women appear below the diagonal. Many moderate to
strong relationships were found within the measures of sexism
and between the measures of sexism and the Rape Myth, Adver-
sarial Heterosexual Beliefs, and Hostility Toward Women scales.
Inspection of the table indicates that correlations for men tended
to be larger than corresponding correlations for women.
In Step 3, gender differences on the measures of aggression
were analyzed. As expected (e.g., Forbes & Adams-Curtis, 2001;
Malamuth, 1981), the measures from the Conflict Tactics Scale
and the Sexual Coercion Scale were skewed. Scores on the Verbal
Aggression Scale and the Sexual Coercion Scale were normalized
using a log 10 transformation. The transformed scores were used
for all significance tests and for the subsequent computation of
correlations, whereas the untransformed data were used for the
summary statistics. However, meaningful transformations could
not be done with the scores from the Physical Aggression Scale.
The distributions of these scores deviated so far from normal
(men: skewness = 3.87, kurtosis = 14.75; women: skewness = 3.71,
kurtosis = 17.11) and their range was so restricted (men range = 2,
women range = 5) that meaningful statistical analysis, particu-

TABLE 2
a
Correlations Between Attitude Measures
AW OFS NS MS HS BS RM AB HW
Attituds Toward Women (AW) .76* .67* .33* .58* .24* .62* .54* .50*
Old-Fashioned Sexism (OFS) .31* .71* .33* .60* .31* .68* .63* .56*
Neosexism (NS) .54* .30* .49* .72* .22* .64* .72* .70*
Modern Sexism (MS) .39* .19 .44* .44* .06 .43* .36* .34*
Hostile Sexism (HS) .45* .27* .59* .35* .15 .62* .70* .80*
Benevolent Sexism (BS) .34* .20 .27* .10 .40* .24 .07 .06
Rape Myths (RM) .32* .40* .49* .24* .50* .51* .62* .53*
Adversarial Beliefs (AB) .28* .20 .30* .04 .49* .42* .40* .74*
Hostility Toward Women (HW) .29* .24* .43* .20 .61* .29* .43* .44*
a. Men (n = 102-107) are shown above the diagonal. Women (n = 141-157) are shown below
the diagonal.
larly with correlation coefficients, was not possible. For this rea-
son, data from the Physical Aggression Scale were discarded.
Independent t tests were computed between women and men
on the Verbal Aggression and Sexual Coercion scales. Participants
who reported they had never dated (men n = 5, women n = 16)
were excluded from the analysis of the Verbal Aggression Scale.
No difference was found between the level of self-reported verbal
aggression by men (M = 10.27, SD = 3.16) and women (M = 11.22,
SD = 3.97), t(241) = 1.85, p > .05. Similarly, a t for independent
groups adjusted for unequal variances found that men (M = 11.29,
SD = 3.60) and women (M = 10.87, SD = 4.90) did not differ in their
reports of verbal aggression by their dating partners, t(239) = 1.61,
p > .05. Because sexual aggression and coercion can occur outside
of dating relationships, participants without a dating history
were included in the sexual coercion data. A t for independent
groups adjusted for unequal variances found that on the Sexual
Coercion Scale women (M = 1.92, SD = 3.27) reported experienc-
ing more sexual coercion than men (M = 0.49, SD = 1.11) acknowl-
edged using, t(257) = 5.16, p < .001.
Analysis of types of sexual coercion indicated that 19.1% of
women reported they had been threatened with physical force by
a man attempting to engage in sexual activity, but only 1.9% of
men reported making such threats, χ2(1, n = 263) = 17.56. Similarly,
22.3% of women reported men had actually used physical force to
obtain sexual activity from them, but only 1.9% of men reported

the use of force, χ2(1, n = 263) = 21.80. At a much more serious

level, 13.4% of the women reported they had been “almost
raped,” but none of the men reported engaging in this level of
coercion, χ2(1, n = 263) = 15.41. All of these results were statisti-
cally significant using the Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correc-
tion to maintain a family-wise (n = 3) alpha of .05. Although the
numbers were too small for meaningful statistical analysis, it is
important to note that 3.8% (n = 6) of the women reported they
had actually been raped, but none of the men reported commit-
ting rape.
In Step 4, correlations were computed between the attitude
measures and measures of verbal aggression toward and by dat-
ing partners, and between the attitude measures and the amount
of sexual coercion. These results are shown in Table 3. Holm’s
sequential Bonferroni corrections were used to maintain a family-
wise (n = 9) alpha of .05. Inspection of the data for men indicates
that all measures of sexism, except the Modern Sexism and Bene-
volent Sexism scales, were positively correlated with verbal
aggression toward their dating partners. Similarly, men’s scores
on the Rape Myth, the Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs, and the
Hostility Toward Women scales were associated with verbal
aggression toward their dating partners. Taken as a group, the
results suggest that attitude measures that include significant ele-
ments of hostility are associated with men’s verbal aggression
against dating partners. Identical results were found for men’s
reports of their partner’s verbal aggression against them. With the
exception of the Modern Sexism and Benevolent Sexism scales, all
measures were positively associated with reports of verbal ag-
gression by their dating partners. Inspection of the men’s data
indicates that their self-reports of engaging in sexually coercive
behaviors were related to scores on the Attitudes Toward Women
and Hostile Sexism Scales. Both of these scales contain strong ele-
ments of hostility. In contrast to the data for men, no significant
relationships were found for women between any of the attitude
measures and the measures of verbal aggression or sexual coer-
cion.
To help understand the relationship between hostility and the
attitude measures, in Step 5 partial correlations, using scores on
the Hostility Toward Women Scale as the covariate, were com-
puted between the attitude measures. These results are shown in

TABLE 3
Correlations Between Attitude Measures and Measures of Aggression
Verbal Verbal
Aggression Aggression Sexual
a a b
by Self by Partner Coercion
Attitude Measure Men Women Men Women Men Women
Attitudes Toward Women .36* .00 .27* .07 .30* .06

Old-Fashioned Sexism .45* .16 .33* .10 .19 .10
Neosexism .33* .01 .26* –.07 .20 –.10
Modern Sexism .20 .13 .15 .12 .12 –.02
Hostile Sexism .34* .21 .29* .11 .31* .06
Benevolent Sexism .04 .16 –.07 .12 –.05 .20
Rape Myths .28* .09 .25* .08 .25 .17
Adversarial Beliefs .36* .13 .30* .19 .24 .14
Hostility Toward Women .36* .19 .29* .16 .25 .13
a. Men n = 102; women n = 141.
b. Men n = 106; women n = 157.
Table 4. Holm’s sequential Bonferroni corrections were used to

maintain a family-wise (n = 7) alpha of .05. Comparisons of Table
2 and Table 4 indicate that the number of significant correlations
for men fell from 24 to 22, and the number of significant correla-
tions for women fell from 23 to 20. The results indicate that remov-
ing the effect of scores on the Hostility Toward Women Scale had
only a slight effect on the magnitude and number of significant
correlations between attitude measures.
In Step 6, partial correlations, using scores on the Hostility
Toward Women Scale as the covariate, were computed between
the attitude measures and the measures of aggression. These
results are shown in Table 5. Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correc-
tions were used to maintain a family-wise (n = 8) alpha of .05.
Comparisons of the results for measures of verbal aggression in
Table 3 and Table 5 indicate that the number of significant correla-
tions for men fell from 7 to 1, and the number of significant corre-
lations for women remained at 0. Similar results were found for
measures of sexual coercion, where the number of significant rela-
tionships for men dropped from 2 to 0, and the number of signifi-
cant relationships for women remained at 0. These results suggest
that relationships between the attitude measures and measures of
dating aggression or sexual coercion are greatly diminished if
their shared variance with hostility toward women is removed.

TABLE 4
Partial Correlations Between Attitude Measures
With Hostility Toward Women as Covariatea
AW OFS NS MS HS BS RM AB
Attitudes Toward Women (AW) .65* .50* .17 .33* .24* .47* .28*
Old-Fashioned Sexism (OFS) .27* .51* .14 .29* .33* .52* .38*
Neosexism (NS) .52* .24* .34* .37* .24* .41* .41*
Modern Sexism (MS) .36* .15 .39* .30* .03 .28* .13
Hostile Sexism (HS) .39* .16 .46* .30* .16 .36* .26*
Benevolent Sexism (BS) .28* .13 .18 .04 .27* .24* .04
Rape Myths (RM) .24* .34* .39* .17* .32* .43* .39*
Adversarial Beliefs (AB) .18* .11 .14 –.07 .31* .36* .27*
a. Men (n = 102-107) are shown above the diagonal; women (n = 141-157) are shown below
the diagonal.
family-wise (n = 7) alpha of .05.
DISCUSSION
Very large gender differences were found on all attitude mea-

sures, except the Hostility Toward Women Scale. These results
were consistent with previous research. Also generally consistent
with previous research was the magnitude of the intercorre-
lations between the attitude measures and the finding of gener-
ally stronger relationships for men than for women.
As expected, there were strong relationships between the Rape
Myth, Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs, and Hostility Toward
Women scales. These results replicate the findings of Lonsway
and Fitzgerald (1995). Also as expected, men’s scores on the Rape
Myth Scale were correlated with all measures of sexism, except
the Benevolent Sexism Scale. For women, the Rape Myth Scale
was correlated with all measures of sexism, including the Benevo-
lent Sexism Scale. In fact, one of the strongest relationships found
for women (r = .51) was between the Rape Myth Scale and the
Benevolent Sexism Scale. The latter idealizes traditional roles and
emphasizes that men should cherish and protect women. The cor-
relation between such beliefs and acceptance of rape myths prob-
ably reflects the self-protective perception that women who fol-
low traditional roles will be protected by men and that only
women who depart from these roles are victims of rape. This

TABLE 5
Correlations Between Attitude Measures and Measures
of Aggression With Hostility Toward Women as Covariate
Verbal Verbal
Aggression Aggression Sexual
a a b
by Self by Partner Coercion
Attitude Measure Men Women Men Women Men Women
Attitudes Toward Women. .22 –.04 .16 .02 .24 –.02

Old-Fashioned Sexism .32* .12 .22 .06 .09 .08
Neosexism .12 –.07 .08 –.15 .06 –.18
Modern Sexism .08 .10 .06 .10 .06 –.06
Hostile Sexism .09 .13 .10 .01 .22 –.03
Benevolent Sexism .03 .12 –.09 .08 –.06 .16
Rape Myths .11 .02 .12 .01 .19 .14
Adversarial Beliefs .15 .06 .13 .14 .11 .08
a. Men n = 102; women n = 141.
b. Men n = 106; women n = 157.
interpretation is consistent with the theorizing of both Brownmiller

(1975) and Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1995).
The sexism measures, with the exception of the Modern Sexism
and Benevolent Sexism scales, were related to self-reported ver-
bal aggression by men. Similarly, the Rape Myth, Adversarial
Heterosexual Beliefs, and the Hostility Toward Women scales
were related to men’s verbal aggression against their dating part-
ners. These results are consistent with the generally accepted
view that all of these variables foster and justify men’s aggression
against women. In contrast, no relationships were found between
these variables and self-reported verbal aggression for women.
The same measures that were associated with men’s verbal
aggression against their dating partner were associated with
men’s reports of their dating partner’s verbal aggression toward
them. Because most people tend to be attracted to people like
themselves (Dwyer, 2000), this may reflect no more than the sim-
ple phenomenon of aggressive men and aggressive women being
attracted to each other. However, it seems likely that sexist men,
particularly those with hostility toward women and adversarial
beliefs, may engage in behaviors that elicit aggressive responses
from their partners. This suggests that some of the aggression by

women may be self-protective or retaliatory responses to aggres-

sion and coercion by men. Because there is good evidence that
relationship aggression is often repeated and reciprocal (e.g.,
Gaertner & Foshee, 1999; Gelles, 1974, 1979), both of these factors
are probably present.
The data on sexual coercion indicated that scores on the Atti-
tudes Toward Women Scale and the Hostile Sexism Scale were
related to men’s self-reported use of threatened or actual physical
force to obtain sexual activity from a woman. These results are
similar to those of Forbes and Adams-Curtis (2001). Contrary to
the predictions of Burt (1980) and Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1994),
but consistent with the findings of Forbes and Adams-Curtis
(2001), no relationships were found between men’s self-reports
of sexual coercion and scores on the Rape Myth, Adversarial
Heterosexual Beliefs, and Hostility Toward Women scales. No
relationships were found between any of these variables and
women’s reports of experiencing sexual aggression. These results
for women were consistent with previous research (Forbes &
Adams-Curtis, 2001; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; White &
Humphrey, 1991).
The various measures of sexism used in this study were prod-
ucts of different theoretical perspectives and asked different
kinds of questions. For example, the development and item con-
tent of the Neosexism Scale is very different from the develop-
ment and content of the Old-Fashioned Sexism Scale. Neverthe-
less, moderate to high correlations were found between the
measures of sexism. These correlations might be the result of
shared cognitive schemas (differential privileging of men and
devaluation of women), shared negative affect (hostility toward
women), or both. Because traditional measures of sexism such as
the Attitudes Toward Women Scale, the Old-Fashioned Sexism
Scale, and the Hostile Sexism Scale contain both cognitive and
affective components, interpretation of these scales is often con-
founded. The substantial correlations, particularly for men,
found between the Neosexism Scale, the Modern Sexism Scale,
and the Hostility Toward Women Scale suggest that these second-
generation measures also include both cognitive schema and neg-
ative affect and, consequently, are similarly confounded.

In contrast to the results with other measures of sexism, among

men the Benevolent Sexism Scale did not correlate with the Hos-
tility Toward Women Scale, a result suggesting that it is relatively
free of negative affect. However, it should be noted that both the
theory of ambivalent sexism and an inspection of the scale con-
tent indicates that it does contain substantial positive affect asso-
ciated with traditional women’s roles. Contrary to the results for
men, among women the Benevolent Sexism Scale did correlate
with the Hostility Toward Women Scale. This gender difference
may be the result of different responses to the idealization of tra-
ditional female gender roles found in the Benevolent Sexism
Scale. The absence of a relationship for men suggests that among
men there is not a relationship between hostility toward women
and the idealization of traditional gender roles. In contrast, the
results for women indicate that the greater a woman’s hostility
toward women, the more likely she is to endorse restrictive and
narrow traditional gender roles. This gender difference in the
relationship between benevolent sexism and hostility toward
women should be explored in future research.
Because the Hostility Toward Women Scale provides a measure
of hostility toward women that is uncontaminated by items
related to gender roles or privilege, it can be used to help tease out
the relative contributions of cognitive schemas and negative
affect to the relationships between measures of sexism. If the rela-
tionships between measures of sexism are primarily the result of
shared negative affect, intercorrelations between these measures
should be greatly attenuated when partial correlations, using the
Hostility Toward Woman Scale as the covariate, are computed.
However, this was clearly not the case. For both women and men,
partial correlations produced only a slight reduction in the size
and number of significant relationships. This strongly suggests
that the commonalities between these measures are primarily the
result of shared cognitive schema describing gender roles and
privilege. Although some of the commonalities may reflect
shared hostility, the effect of hostility toward women appears to
be relatively small.
Parallel results were found for the second-generation
measures of Burt’s constructs. These measures also had signifi-

cant intercorrelations and were correlated with scores on the Hos-

tility Toward Women Scale. These results are consistent with
those of Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1995). As was the case with the
measures of sexism, the correlation between the Rape Myth and
Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs Scales was attenuated but
remained significant for both men and women when partial cor-
relations, using scores on the Hostility Toward Women Scale as
covariate, were computed.
Very importantly, a much different picture emerges with the
relationship between the attitude measures and men’s reports of
verbal aggression and sexual coercion. Although all of the mea-
sures of sexism, with the exception of the Modern Sexism and
Benevolent Sexism scales along with scores on the Rape Myth and
Adversarial Heterosexual Beliefs Scales, were significantly
related to men’s self-reports of verbal aggression in dating rela-
tionships, only one of these six relationships remained significant
when partial correlations, using the Hostility Toward Women
Scale as covariate, were computed. Similar results were found for
men’s reports of their partner’s verbal aggression and men’s
reports of their own sexually coercive behaviors. Partial correla-
tions reduced the number of significant relationships for men’s
reports of their partner’s verbal aggression from 6 to 0 and self-
reports of sexually coercive behaviors from 2 to 0. Only one of the
14 significant first-order correlations between attitude measures
and verbal aggression or sexual coercion remained significant
when the effect of scores on the Hostility Toward Women Scale
was removed. This result is consistent with the findings that nei-
ther the Benevolent Sexism Scale, which did not correlate with the
Hostility Toward Women Scale, nor the Modern Sexism Scale,
which had the lowest significant correlation with the Hostility
Toward Women Scale, were correlated with men’s verbal aggres-
sion, sexual coercion, or their partner’s verbal aggression.
Although no correlational design allows for the determination
of causality, our results are exactly what would be expected if the
relationship between measures of sexism and measures of verbal
and sexual aggression is primarily the result of hostility toward
women. Specific beliefs about gender roles, privileges, or
women’s inferiority make a contribution to this relationship, but

their role appears to be considerably smaller than the role of hos-

tility. This finding is consistent with the growing body of evidence
indicating that hostility toward women is closely associated with
men’s aggression and sexual coercion (Dean & Malamuth, 1997;
Malamuth et al., 1991, 1995).
Our results have significant theoretical and practical implica-
tions. At a theoretical level they indicate that second-generation
measures of sexism, like traditional measures, are multidimen-
sional, contain both cognitive and affective components, and it is
the negative affective components that are most closely associ-
ated with relationship aggression and sexual coercion. Similarly,
our results suggest that acceptance of rape myths and adversarial
perceptions of heterosexual relationships may be specific mani-
festations of, and/or used as rationalizations for, a generalized
hostility toward women. At a practical level, our results, like
those of Dean and Malamuth (1997), suggest that educational or
treatment programs that focus on reducing dating aggression or
sexual coercion by modifying sexist beliefs, acceptance of rape
myths, or perceptions of the nature of heterosexual relationships
may be less effective than programs designed to directly increase
empathy and reduce hostility toward women. This is a poten-
tially important implication, because there is very little evidence
that programs designed to reduce sexual aggression, which usu-
ally focus on changes in cognitive schema, produce significant or
lasting behavioral change (Lonsway, 1996).
The findings suggest that at least within this college sample
aggression toward women and sexual coercion are more closely
related to hostility toward women than to more complex
schemas. This does not imply, however, that complex cognitive
schemas are inconsequential or that identifying the sociocultural
factors that subjugate women, depreciate women, and encourage
aggression toward women is unimportant. Very much to the con-
trary, the contributions of people such as Brownmiller (1975), Burt
(1980), and Sanday (1990) have produced and will continue to
produce pervasive changes in the social pathologies they have
identified. It in no way diminishes the value of these broad cul-
tural perspectives to observe that other factors, particularly hos-
tility toward women, may be more directly tied to behavior. Cul-

tural factors and their resulting schemas of gender roles and

privilege play important roles in determining how people, behav-
iors, and ideas are perceived and valued. However, there are very
large differences in how people respond to these factors. It is
important to remember that most sexists are not physically abu-
sive to women, and most members of rape-prone societies are not
rapists. Some people are much more likely than others to express
the sexist values of their culture in sexual coercion or other forms
of aggression against women. Our results are consistent with the
hypothesis that it is men’s hostility toward women, rather than
sexist perceptions, beliefs about rape, or other relatively high-
level cognitive schema, that is the most closely related to their
aggression and sexual coercion. Although there are formidable
methodological and pragmatic difficulties, it is important for this
hypothesis to be directly tested in research designs that allow for
the determination of causal relationships.
Our results add to the growing consensus (e. g., Campbell,
Schellenberg, & Senn, 1997; Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner, & Zhu,
1997; McHugh & Frieze, 1997; Swim & Cohen, 1997) that second-
generation multidimensional approaches to sexism, such as those
of Glick and Fiske (2001) and Swim et al. (1995), are important
contributions to our understanding of the relationship between
sexism and behavior. One of the most significant contributions of
these approaches, particularly ambivalent sexism theory, is the
awareness that there are different types of sexism, and these dif-
ferent types may be related to different behaviors or related to the
same behaviors in different ways. Our results support this insight
and suggest that the same may be true for the cognitive and affec-
tive components of sexism. It may be possible to expand the
important concept of ambivalent sexism and further divide hos-
tile sexism and benevolent sexism into their respective cognitive
and affective components. Our results suggest that just as hostile
and benevolent sexism relate to different behaviors in different
ways, the cognitive and affective components of each form of sex-
ism may have different behavioral or attitudinal associates. This
possibility should be explored in future research.

APPENDIX
Measures, Their Purpose, and Representative Items
Scale and Author Purpose Representative Item
Traditional sexism
Attitudes Toward Traditional measure 1. Swearing and obscenity are more repulsive in the speech of a woman than a man.
Women (Spence & of sexist beliefs 5. Women should worry less about their rights and more about being good wives and
Helmreich, 1978) mothers.
9. The intellectual leadership of a community should be largely in the hands of the men.
Old-Fashioned Sexism Measure of traditional 1. Women are generally not as smart as men.
(Swim et al., 1995) blatant sexism 3. It is more important to encourage boys than to encourage girls to participate in athletics.
4. Women are just as capable of thinking logically as men. (reverse scored)
Second-generation sexism
Neosexism (Tougas, Subtle, modern sexism 6. Women’s requests in terms of equality between the sexes are simply exaggerated.
Brown, Beaton, Focus on opposition 7. Over the past few years, women have gotten more from the government than they
& Joly, 1995) to affirmative action deserve.
10. Due to social pressures, firms frequently have to hire underqualified women.
Modern Sexism (Swim, Subtle, modern sexism 2. It is rare to see women treated in a sexist manner on television.
Aiken, Hall, & Broadly measures 6. Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the United States.
Hunter, 1995) hidden sexism 7. On average, people in our society treat husbands and wives equally.
Hostile Sexism (Glick Traditional sexism 4. Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
& Fiske, 1996) emphasizing hostile 7. Feminists are seeking for women to have more power than men.

beliefs. 14. Women exaggerate problems they have at work.
Benevolent Sexism Sexism under the guise 8. Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.
(Glick & Fiske, 1996) of benevolence 9. Women should be cherished and protected by men.
Idealizing women 13. Men are incomplete without women.
in traditional roles
257
258
Aggression-supporting
attitudes
Rape Myth Scale Replacement for Burt 1. When women talk or act sexy they are inviting rape.
(Lonsway & that minimizes 7. Even though the woman may call it rape, she probably enjoyed it.
Fitzgerald, 1995) confounding of 12. Women tend to exaggerate how much rape affects them.
hostility and rape-
supportive beliefs
Adversariaral Replacement for Burt 4. Men and women are generally out to use each other.
Heterosexual that minimizes 9. Sex is like a game where one person “wins” and the other “loses.”
Beliefs confounding 10. In all societies it is inevitable that one sex is dominant.
(Lonsway & adversarial beliefs
Fitzgerald,1995) and hostility toward
women
Hostility Toward Measure of hostility 1. I feel that many times women flirt with men just to tease or hurt them.
Women toward women 4. I think that most women would lie just to get ahead.
(Lonsway & that does not 6. When it really comes down to it, a lot of women are deceitful.
Fitzgerald, 1995) contain items
reflecting beliefs
about gender roles
Measures of aggression
and sexual coercion
Conflict Tactics Scale Traditional measure of 4. Insulted or swore at him or her.
(Straus, 1979, 1990) interpersonal verbal 9. Did or said something to spite him or her.
and physical 10. Threatened to hit or throw something at him or her.
aggression

Sexual Coercion Measure of threatened Have you ever been in a situation where a man successfully used physical force (holding
Scale (Forbes & or actual physical you down, etc.) to make you engage in:
Adams-Curtis, force to obtain 1. kissing or petting?
2001) sexual contact from 2. sexual acts like stimulating him to orgasm or oral sex?
an unwilling partner 3. sexual intercourse?
REFERENCES
Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism (2nd ed.). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Burt, M. A. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 217-230.
Campbell, B., Schellenberg, E. G., & Senn, C. Y. (1997). Evaluating measures of contempo-
rary sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 89-102.
Check, J. V. P., Malamuth, N. M., Elias, B., & Barton, S. (1985, April). On hostile ground. Psy-
chology Today, 19, 56-61.
Dean, K. E., & Malamuth, N. M. (1997). Characteristics of men who aggress sexually and of
men who imagine aggressing: Risk and moderating variables. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 449-455.
Dwyer, D. (2000). Interpersonal relationships. New York: Routledge.
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and
men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543-558.
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1993). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers
from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. In W.
Strobe & M. Newstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1-35). New
York: John Wiley.
Forbes, G. B., & Adams-Curtis, L. (2001). Experiences with sexual coercion in college males
and females: Role of family conflict, sexist attitudes, acceptance of rape myths, self-
esteem, and the Big-5 personality factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 865-889.
Gaertner, L., & Foshee, V. (1999). Commitment and the perpetration of relationship vio-
lence. Personal Relationships, 6, 227-239.
Gelles, R. J. (1974). The violent home. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gelles, R. J. (1979). Family violence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambiva-
lent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 1323-1333.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile
and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist
attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119-135.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as
complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Statistics, 6, 65-70.
Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. J., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and preva-
lence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of students in higher
education. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.
Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument investi-
gating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
50, 455-457.
Lonsway, K. A. (1996). Preventing acquaintance rape through education: What do we
know? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 229-265.
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quar-
terly, 18, 133-164.

Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance:
A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68, 704-711.
Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 138-157.
Malamuth, N. M., Linz, D., Heavey, C. L., & Barnes, G. (1995). Using the confluence model
of sexual aggression to predict men’s conflict with women: A 10-year follow-up study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353-369.
Malamuth, N. M., Sockloskie, R. J., Koss, M. P., & Tanaka, J. S. (1991). Characteristics of
aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 670-681.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In
J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91-125).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
McHugh, M. C., & Frieze, I. H. (1997). The measurement of gender-role attitudes: A review
and commentary. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1-16.
O’Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568.
Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration
of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale.
Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68.
Sanday, P. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York:
New York University Press.
Sanday, P. R. (1996). A woman scorned: Acquaintance rape on trial. Berkeley: University of Cal-
ifornia Press.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism:
Profiles in controversy (pp. 53-84). New York: Plenum.
Spence, J. T., & Hahn, E. D. (1997). The Attitude Toward Women Scale and attitude change
in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 17-34.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective
instrument to measure the attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contempo-
rary society (Ms. No. 153). JSAS: Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66-67.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimen-
sions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 41, 75-88.
Straus, M. A. (1990). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics
Scale. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families (pp. 29-
47). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-
fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-
214.
Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between
the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quar-
terly, 21, 103-118.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ca change, plus c’est
pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842-849.
Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970-1995. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
21, 35-51.
White, J. W., & Humphrey, J. A. (1991). Young people’s attitudes toward acquaintance rape.
In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp. 43-69). New
York: John Wiley.

Gordon B. Forbes, a licensed clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at

Millikin University, is a codirector of the Millikin Project on Social Perceptions,
which studies the influence of social psychological variables on the lives and per-
ceptions of women. These variables include gender roles, sexism, media effects, the
slender body ideal, and relationship aggression. In addition to work with the pro-
ject, he studies the diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the
psychological significance of tattoos and body piercing.
Leah E. Adams-Curtis, a research psychologist and associate professor of psychol-
ogy at Millikin University, is a codirector of the Millikin Project on Social Percep-
tions. In addition to work with the project, she studies behavior in nonhuman
primates.
Kay B. White, a licensed clinical social worker and assistant professor of social
work at Millikin University, is a member of the Millikin Project on Social Percep-
tions. In addition to work with the project, she studies nontraditional returning
college students and equine therapy.

Forbes Et Al 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Forbes Et Al 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIOLENCE AGAINST

First- and Second-Generation Measures of

Keywords: hostility toward women; relationship aggression; sexism; sexual coercion

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

climate that objectifies women and facilitates sexual coercion

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

One alternative interpretation is based on the observation that

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

tance of rape myths, acceptance of adversarial sexual beliefs, tol-

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

privileges for women and was intended to be reasonably inde-

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

The participants were students from sections of a required

MEASURES OF SEXIST ATTITUDES

Traditional measures of sexism included the 16-item version of

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

MEASURES OF BURT’S CONSTRUCTS

The constructs of Burt were measured with the second-

MEASURE OF HOSTILITY TOWARD WOMEN

The Hostility Toward Women Scale of Lonsway and Fitzgerald

The Conflict Tactics Scale of Straus (1979, 1990), a well-

PRESENTATION OF THE MEASURES

Materials used in this study were distributed throughout a

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

booklet was selected to place relatively neutral items between the

The results were analyzed in six steps. First, gender differences

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

the use of force, χ2(1, n = 263) = 21.80. At a much more serious

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Attitudes Toward Women .36* .00 .27* .07 .30* .06

Table 4. Holm’s sequential Bonferroni corrections were used to

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Very large gender differences were found on all attitude mea-

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Attitudes Toward Women. .22 –.04 .16 .02 .24 –.02

interpretation is consistent with the theorizing of both Brownmiller

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

women may be self-protective or retaliatory responses to aggres-

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

In contrast to the results with other measures of sexism, among

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

cant intercorrelations and were correlated with scores on the Hos-

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

their role appears to be considerably smaller than the role of hos-

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

tural factors and their resulting schemas of gender roles and

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Scale and Author Purpose Representative Item

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

Gordon B. Forbes, a licensed clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at

Downloaded from vaw.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 18, 2016

You might also like