Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
DOI 10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
How Sexy are Sexist Men? Women’s Perception of Male
Response Profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
Gerd Bohner & Katrin Ahlborn & Regine Steiner
Published online: 25 June 2009
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract In Studies 1 to 3, German female students
(total N=326) rated the likability and typicality of male
targets: a nonsexist, a benevolent sexist, a hostile sexist,
and (in Studies 2 and 3) an ambivalent sexist. When
targets were presented as response profiles in the Ambiv-
alent Sexism Inventory (Glick and Fiske 1996) (Studies 2
and 3), the benevolent sexist was rated to be most likable
but least typical, whereas the ambivalent sexist was rated
to be highly typical. Thus, women were aware of a link
between benevolent and hostile sexism and approved of
men’s benevolent sexism, especially when it was not
paired with hostile sexism. Likability ratings were mod-
erated by participants’ own benevolent sexism and
feminist attitude.
Keywords Ambivalent sexism . Attraction .
Feminist attitudes . Gender relations . Person perception
Introduction
Relationships between men and women do not corre-
spond well with classic notions of prejudice (e.g., Allport
1954), as cultural images of women have never been
uniformly negative. Starting from this insight, ambivalent
sexism theory (Glick and Fiske 1996) conceptualizes
G. Bohner : K. Ahlborn : R. Steiner
Universität Bielefeld,
Bielefeld, Germany
G. Bohner (*)
Abteilung für Psychologie, Universität Bielefeld,
Postfach 100131,
33501 Bielefeld, Germany
e-mail: gerd.bohner@uni-bielefeld.de
sexism as comprising two sets of beliefs with opposite
evaluative implications, which have nonetheless been
shown to often coexist in a perceiver’s mind. Whereas
hostile sexism (HS) consists of negative beliefs and
resentments against women (e.g., “Women are too easily
offended”), benevolent sexism (BS) consists of beliefs that
are subjectively positive in affective tone and tend to
prescribe prosocial or intimacy-seeking behaviors (e.g.,
“In a disaster, women ought to be rescued before men”).
To measure the two components of sexism, Glick and
Fiske (1996) developed a self-report instrument, the
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). Numerous studies
using the ASI showed that HS and BS are positively
correlated both at the individual level (often around r=.40
or higher; e.g., Eckes 2001; Glick and Fiske 1996; Glick
et al. 2000) and at the level of national averages for both
men and women (r=.89; Glick et al. 2000). These findings
support the notion that HS and BS form complementary
parts of a sexist ideology.
Indeed, despite their positive appearance, benevolent
sexist beliefs may contribute to the subordination of women
in a subtle way. Research demonstrates that benevolent-
sexist beliefs and acts may have particularly debilitating
effects on women, e.g., by hampering women’s job
performance (Dardenne et al. 2007), or predicting the
extent to which students blamed the female victim of an
acquaintance rape (Abrams et al. 2003). Detrimental effects
of BS are suggested as well by a cross-cultural comparison:
Across 19 countries, national levels of both HS and BS
were inversely related to indices of gender equality (Glick
et al. 2000). Several lines of research thus indicate that BS
often produces damaging consequences, sometimes even
more than HS (Dardenne et al. 2007).
As Glick and Fiske (2001) argued, women may be
tempted to accept inequality in order to obtain the benefits
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
that BS supposedly entails: “Benevolent sexism is disarm-
ing. ... It promises that men’s power will be used to
women’s advantage, if only they can secure a high-status
male protector” (p. 111). From this it follows that women
may tend to like, and be attracted to, benevolent-sexist men.
However, the exact cognitive processes underlying this
attraction are not yet well understood. One possibility is
that women are attracted to benevolent-sexist men without
being aware that those men’s beliefs often go together with
hostile-sexist attitudes. Another possibility is that women
consciously accept a certain degree of hostility in men as
long as it is counterbalanced by benevolence. And a final
possibility is that women like particulary those benevolent-
sexist men who do not also endorse hostile sexism. To
study these possibilities, we assessed women’s perceptions
of male targets differing in BS and HS, using a new
methodology based on the ASI. Before describing our own
research, we will discuss a previous study by Kilianski and
Rudman (1998) which addressed the same topic.
Kilianski and Rudman (1998) hypothesized that women
may fail to realize that benevolent and hostile sexist beliefs
typically go together. They further argued that women,
because of this failure to recognize BS and HS’ coexis-
tence, may indirectly support HS in society by “wanting it
both ways”, i.e. opposing HS but approving of BS. To
examine this proposal, they presented female students with
three male profiles, describing a hostile sexist, a benevolent
sexist, and a nonsexist. For example, the hostile sexist was
described as someone who “believes that women underval-
ue men and fail to appreciate everything that men do for
them”, whereas the benevolent sexist was depicted as
someone who “believes that women possess a naturally
superior aesthetic sensibility which makes them better
judges in matters of culture and taste” (pp. 349–350).
When female students were asked to rate their impression
of each profile on a scale from “strongly unfavorable” (0) to
“strongly favorable” (6), they generally approved most
strongly of the nonsexist (M=4.36), but still expressed
moderate liking for the benevolent sexist (M= 3.41),
whereas they clearly disliked the hostile sexist (M=1.03).
When the students were later asked to judge the possibility
that the hostile and benevolent profiles applied to the same
person, they found it quite unlikely that this might be the
case (M=2.56 on a scale from 0, “very unlikely”, to 6,
“very likely”). In addition, the more participants had
preferred the benevolent sexist over the hostile sexist—a
variable Kilianski and Rudman called “equivocal egalitar-
ianism”—the lower they rated the likelihood that the two
profiles may pertain to the same person (r=−.30). From
these findings, Kilianski and Rudman concluded that
women are not fully aware of the link between BS and
HS, and that by responding positively to BS women may
unwittingly support HS as well.
569
The Current Research
Our research follows up on the study by Kilianski and
Rudman (1998). We will first point out two methodological
ambiguities; then we will present new predictions and an
extended, more balanced approach to the assessment of
women’s perceptions of male sexism.
A first methodological problem that makes it difficult to
interpret their findings is that Kilianski and Rudman (1998)
did not present a fourth, ambivalent-sexist profile. If such a
profile had been presented, participants could have been
asked to rate how typical or realistic each of the four
profiles was. If women were indeed unaware of a
coexistence of hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes, they
should have rated the purely hostile and purely benevolent
profiles each as more typical than the ambivalent profile.
Instead, Kilianski and Rudman only assessed participants’
ratings of the possibility that two distinct profiles, one
described as hostile-sexist, the other as benevolent-sexist,
“apply to the same person.” The two profiles, however, had
been introduced explicitly as applying to different individ-
uals, as designated by their initials. For a participant to
respond that the two might actually be the same person
would thus have meant to contradict previous experimental
instructions, which had told her that she was judging two
different men. Furthermore, just before making that
“covariation estimate”, participants had indicated their
approval of each profile. Especially those participants
whose approval ratings for the benevolent and hostile
profile greatly differed (i.e., the “equivocal egalitarians”)
may have been motivated to answer consistently with their
divergent approval ratings — they would thus be inclined
to indicate that the two profiles are probably not describing
the same person. Both experimental demand characteristics
and a motivation to answer consistently may thus have
contributed to the findings that the “covariation estimate”
was rather low overall and was correlated negatively with
the equivocal egalitarianism measure.
Another methodological problem is that Kilianski and
Rudman’s (1998) hostile and benevolent profiles each
contained information on only one of the two aspects of
ambivalent sexism, thus allowing for different deductions
about other characteristics of the target person: he could
endorse the other aspect of ambivalent sexism, or he could
reject the other aspect of sexism. This may have implica-
tions for ratings of the benevolent-sexist profile’s likability.
If women indeed see BS and HS as covarying, then
participants’ moderate likability ratings of the benevolent-
sexist profile could be an underestimate of how they would
rate a highly benevolent-sexist man if they were assured
that he is not also a highly hostile-sexist man.
In our own Studies 2 and 3, we addressed these
problems by correspondent changes to the methodology
570
employed. First, we added a fourth male profile: that of an
ambivalent sexist. Secondly, we provided information on
the level of both BS and HS for each of the four profiles.
We thus used a 2 (profile’s HS: low, high) x 2 (profile’s BS:
low, high) within-subjects design, yielding profiles of a
nonsexist (low HS, low BS), a benevolent sexist (low HS,
high BS), a hostile sexist (high HS, low BS), and an
ambivalent sexist (high HS, high BS). To keep the four
profiles as parallel as possible, we did not use texts
paraphrasing contents of the ASI, but instead presented
men’s alleged answers to the ASI itself. Female participants
thus saw ASI items along with the answers that each of four
particular male respondents had ostensibly given. They
were then asked to judge the four targets on scales
assessing each target’s likability and typicality. With this
extended methodology, participants’ awareness of whether
benevolent and hostile sexist attitudes typically coexist in
one person should be reflected in their relative typicality
ratings: If participants believe that the two aspects of
sexism are usually distinct, as hypothesized by Kilianski
and Rudman (1998), then the ambivalent sexist should
receive lower typicality ratings than both the benevolent
sexist and the hostile sexist. If, however, participants
believe that BS and HS usually go together, then the
ambivalent sexist should receive higher typicality ratings
than both the benevolent sexist and the hostile sexist.
Finally, likability ratings for the benevolent sexist might be
relatively higher than those found by Kilianski and Rudman
because of the explicit pairing of high BS with low HS.
We set out to explore several hypotheses. In line with
Kilianski and Rudman (1998), we assumed that women
would generally disapprove of the openly negative prejudice
against women that is expressed in men’s hostile sexism:
Hypothesis 1 Women rate male profiles high in HS (i.e., the
hostile sexist and the ambivalent sexist) as less likable than
male profiles low in HS (i.e., the nonsexist and the
benevolent sexist).
Furthermore, based on previous research on the percep-
tion of benevolent-sexist attitudes (Barreto and Ellemers
2005; Swim et al. 2005) we predicted that women would
generally approve of men’s more benevolent prejudices
toward women:
Hypothesis 2 Women rate male profiles high in BS (i.e., the
benevolent sexist and the ambivalent sexist) as more likable
than male profiles low in BS (i.e., the nonsexist and the
hostile sexist).
Taken together, the independent main effects of HS and
BS implied by Hypotheses 1 and 2, respectively, should yield
the highest likability ratings for the benevolent sexist and the
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
lowest likability ratings for the hostile sexist, with both the
nonsexist and the ambivalent sexist falling in between. Thus,
when assured that a man’s BS is not accompanied by HS,
women will rate his profile as highly attractive, even as
compared to a nonsexist man. Kilianski and Rudman’s
(1998) findings, by contrast, would suggest an interaction
effect of the profiles’ hostility and benevolence, whereby the
nonsexist profile, which is low in both hostility and
benevolence, would be rated as the most likable.
With respect to the typicality ratings, we based our
predictions on the fact that hostile and benevolent sexism
are typically positively related (Glick et al. 2000). In daily
life, women should therefore interact more frequently with
ambivalent sexists than with either purely benevolent
sexists or purely hostile sexists. The ambivalent sexist
profile should thus appear highly realistic to women.
Hypothesis 3 Women rate the ambivalent sexist profile as
more typical than both the benevolent and the hostile sexist
profile.
Again, an opposite prediction would follow from
Kilianski and Rudman (1998). If women were unaware of
the connection between hostile and benevolent sexism, then
the profiles that are high in just one component of sexism
(i.e., the benevolent and the hostile sexist) should be rated
as more typical than the ambivalent sexist profile.
We further assumed that participants’ likability ratings
would be influenced by their own level of BS and HS (see
Kilianski and Rudman 1998). We predicted a special case
of an attitude similarity effect: People generally like others
who share their attitudes (e.g., Byrne 1971; Newcomb
1961). Furthermore, recent research dealing with women’s
reactions to BS has shown that women high (vs. low) in BS
were more likely to accept restrictions imposed on them by
a man that were justified with benevolent sexist motives
(Moya et al. 2007). In Studies 2 and 3 we therefore
assessed participants’ own BS and HS and performed
multiple regression analyses to predict likability differences
among the profiles from these variables. We made the
following predictions.
Hypothesis 4 The lower women’s HS, the greater is their
preference in likability ratings for low-HS male profiles
over high-HS male profiles.
Hypothesis 5 The higher women’s BS, the greater is their
preference in likability ratings for high-BS male profiles
over low-BS male profiles.
We further hypothesized that participants with high-
feminist attitudes, who should be more sensitive to issues of
gender equality (Morgan 1996), would recognize the
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
harmful effects of both hostile sexim and benevolent
sexism exhibited by men. Feminist women should therefore
show an even greater preference for low-hostile sexist men,
but less of a preference for high-benevolent sexist men. In
Study 2, we assessed women’s feminist attitudes and used
them as an additional predictor in regression analyses:
Hypothesis 6(a) The higher women’s feminist attitudes, the
greater is their preference in likability ratings for low-HS
male profiles over high-HS male profiles.
Hypothesis 6(b) The higher women’s feminist attitudes, the
lesser is their preference in likability ratings for high-BS
male profiles over low-BS male profiles.
In each study we also employed measures of equivocal
egalitarianism, defined as the difference in likability ratings
between the benevolent and hostile sexist profiles (see
Kilianski and Rudman 1998). Specifically, we tested
whether equivocal egalitarianism would predict typicality
ratings of the ambivalent sexist profile. A negative
correlation (Hypothesis 7) would conceptually replicate
Kilianski and Rudman’s findings.
Finally, in Study 3 we assessed broader aspects of
likability, including items assessing each targets’ short-
term mate value and sexual attractiveness. This was done
to explore whether men high in benevolent sexism might
be seen not only as nice and likable, but also as “sexy”
and of high mate value. The latter would be in line with
traditional views of romance (e.g., the “knight in shining
armor”) and with research showing that benevolent sexist
attitudes are related to notions of paternalistic chivalry
(Viki et al. 2003). For the mate value and sexual
attractiveness items we entertained the same hypotheses
as for likability in general.
Consideration of Cultural Differences between Germany
and the USA
Before testing our hypotheses with the proposed new
methodology, we examine if any differences in results this
methodology might produce could be due to cultural
differences between Germany and the USA. Based on
relevant national indicators and previous sexism research,
one should not expect large cultural differences. Germany
and the USA are highly industrialized, Western societies,
and both are doing relatively well in terms of the United
Nations’ two main measures of gender equality. On the
gender empowerment measure, which reflects women’s
(relative to men’s) political and economic participation and
power over resources, Germany’s most recent score is
.852 (rank 8 of 108 nations surveyed), and the United
571
States’ score is .769 (rank 18). On the gender development
index, a gender-related version of the human development
index reflecting economic wealth, life expectancy, and
educational level, the two countries’ scores are almost
identical at .937 (Germany: rank 21 of 157; USA: rank 19)
(United Nations 2008).
In Glick et al.’s (2000) cross-cultural comparison of
ASI scores in 19 countries, the German and US samples
also showed highly similar results. Their factor structures
were parallel, and the mean scores for HS and BS were
similarly low, occupying neighboring ranks (15/16 and 13/
14, respectively). Positive correlations between HS and
BS at the individual level were also present in both
countries, although they were somewhat lower in Ger-
many (men: r=.25; women: r=.31) than in the USA
(r=.44 for both men and women). If the magnitude of
these correlations affects women’s perception of the
likelihood that both BS and HS may be present in the
same person, then the typicality of ambivalent sexism
should be rated as being lower by German respondents
than by US respondents. This would make it less likely
that our Hypothesis 3 would be supported.
Overall, then, cultural differences in women’s perception
of male sexism seemed unlikely. To provide more direct
evidence for this prediction, we conducted an initial study
in which we closely replicated the relevant parts of
Kilianski and Rudman’s (1998) procedures with a German
sample. If their results were due to aspects of the procedure,
as discussed above, then we should find similar results in
this direct replication study.
Study 1
Method
Participants and Procedure
One hundred and twelve female undergraduates at the
University of Bielefeld (Germany) completed a questionnaire
in a large group session during regular class hours. Partic-
ipants’ age ranged from 19 to 41 years (M=22.63, SD=4.31).
Where applicable, participants received partial course credit.
Materials
The questionnaire contained (1) the 22-item ASI (Glick and
Fiske 1996; German version by Eckes and Six-Materna
1999) with its subscales HS (Cronbach's alpha=.87) and BS
(alpha = .90); (2) German translations of the three male
profiles used by Kilianski and Rudman (1998, pp. 349–
350), each followed by a single-item favorability rating
572
(0=strongly unfavorable to 6=strongly favorable); and (3) a
single-item covariation estimate, where participants indi-
cated the possibility that the hostile and benevolent profiles
applied to the same person (0=very unlikely to 6=very
likely).
Results and Discussion
Profile Ratings
The pattern of means for the favorability ratings closely
replicated Kilianski and Rudman (1998). The nonsexist was
evaluated most favorably (M=4.42; SD=1.16), followed by
the benevolent sexist (M=2.94; SD=1.42) and the hostile
sexist (M=1.44; SD=1.13). A repeated-measures ANOVA
(MSE=1.58) showed a significant effect of profile, F(2, 220)=
156.08, and paired-samples t-tests revealed that all pairwise
comparisons were significant, all t>8.00, all p<.001.
Covariation Estimate
Participants’ ratings of the possibility that the hostile and
benevolent profiles applied to the same person were low
(M=1.96; SD=1.57) and significantly different from the
scale midpoint of 3, one-sample t(111)=7.00, p<.001. The
mean obtained in our German sample was even signifi-
cantly lower than that obtained by Kilianski and Rudman
(M=2.56; SD=1.99), t(210)=2.41, p<.02. Thus, partici-
pants generally indicated that the hostile and benevolent
profiles were probably not describing the same person.
Correlation Analyses
HS and BS scores were calculated by averaging across the
respective subscale items. The mean for HS was 1.94 (SD=
.86), that of BS was 2.36 (SD=.99). An analysis of partial
correlations showed that participants’ HS scores (controlling
for BS) predicted favorability ratings of the hostile profile,
r(108)=.38, p<.001, but not of the benevolent profile,
r(108)=.15, p>.11, whereas participants’ BS scores (control-
ling for HS) predicted favorability ratings of the benevolent
profile, r=.35, p<.001, but not of the hostile profile, r(108)=
−.16, p>.09. These partial correlations are similar in mag-
nitude to those reported by Kilianski and Rudman (1998).
A continuous measure of equivocal egalitarianism was
calculated by subtracting the favorability rating of the
hostile profile from that of the benevolent profile. This
measure was positive overall (M=1.52; SD=1.71). Equiv-
ocal egalitarianism was unrelated to participants’ HS
(r=.07, p=.48) but positively related to participants’ BS
(r=.35, p<.001); most importantly, replicating Kilianski
and Rudman’s results, equivocal egalitarianism showed a
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
moderate negative correlation with the covariation estimate
(r=−.32, p=.001).
Conclusions
In sum, the relevant patterns of means and correlations in
Study 1 were highly similar to those obtained by Kilianski
and Rudman (1998) in the USA several years earlier.
Ratings of the nonsexist were most favorable, those of the
hostile sexist were least favorable, and those of the be-
nevolent sexist fell in between. With respect to the co-
variation estimate, German undergraduates were even less
likely than their US counterparts to rate the hostile and
benevolent profiles as describing the same person. Repli-
cating Kilianski and Rudman, lower covariation estimates
went along with higher levels of equivocal egalitarianism.
Applying the same methodology in Germany thus
yielded almost identical results. Given this high degree of
correspondence between our data and those of Kilianski
and Rudman (1998), it would be quite implausible to
explain high typicality ratings of an ambivalent sexist
profile (compared to purely benevolent or hostile profiles),
and high likability ratings of a benevolent sexist profile
(compared to all other profiles), which we predicted for our
two subsequent studies, by cultural differences.
Study 2
In our second study, we set out to test Hypotheses 1 to 7 as
described in the Introduction. We applied the new method-
ology of presenting four different ASI response profiles and
assessing each profile’s likability and typicality. To keep the
information load manageable for participants, only ten ASI
items (5 HS, 5 BS) were used to construct each target profile.
The remaining 12 items (6 HS, 6 BS) were used to assess
participants’ own HS and BS, respectively. By avoiding any
overlap between the profiles and items that the participants
answered, we tried to minimize potential effects of superfi-
cial similarity, which might result from participants’ rating
as more likable those targets that gave similar answers as
they had given themselves on certain items.
Method
Participants
One hundred and eight female undergraduates at the
University of Bielefeld (Germany) volunteered to partici-
pate. Participants’ age ranged from 19 to 41 years (M=
23.25, SD=4.17). Each participant received a free cinema
ticket or partial course credit.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
Procedure
Participants were seated at separate tables in a laboratory.
They first completed a questionnaire containing a 12-item
short form of the ASI and a 10-item scale measuring
feminist attitudes. Then they received a sheet with four
10-item ASI profiles that had ostensibly been completed by
four different men, and were asked to answer several
questions pertaining to each of these men’s likability and
typicality. Later, they indicated their age and subject of
study. Then they were thoroughly debriefed.
Materials
ASI 12-item short form To assess participants’ HS and BS,
we generated two 12-item versions of the German ASI
(Eckes and Six-Materna 1999). Each version contained six
items assessing HS and 6 items assessing BS. Version A of
the participant questionnaire contained items 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 20; version B contained items 1,
4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 (for item wording,
see Appendix and Glick and Fiske 1996; note that items
eight and 11 appeared in both versions). Each item was to
be answered on a response scale from 1=do not agree at all
to 6=completely agree. Internal consistencies were some-
what lower than the values reported for the full scale.
In version A, Cronbach’s alpha was .70 and .55 for HS
and BS, respectively; in version B, the respective values
were .74 and .65.
Feminist attitudes To assess participants’ feminist attitudes,
we used a German adaptation of an 11-item short form of
the Liberal Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale (LFAIS;
see Morgan 1996, p. 380). Some US-specific item contents
were adapted to the German context, and item eight was
omitted, which yielded a ten-item scale. An item example
was “A woman should have the same job opportunities as a
man” (1=do not agree at all to 6=completely agree). The
scale’s internal consistency was satisfactory (Cronbach’s
alpha=.71).
ASI profiles ASI profiles of four male target persons were
constructed using those ten ASI items (5 HS and 5 BS)
that participants had not answered themselves, yielding
two versions (A and B; see Appendix) that were randomly
assigned. The four profiles were presented together on a
large (29.7 cm×42.0 cm) fold-out sheet, two at the top and
two at the bottom. The ambivalent sexist, hostile sexist,
nonsexist, and benevolent sexist profiles were labeled with
different letters, here designated, for ease of presentation,
as “A”, “H”, “N”, and “B”, respectively. To control for
order effects, four versions were used according to a Latin
square design (AHNB, HNBA, NBAH, and BAHN). At
573
the top of each profile, a response scale with six options
was shown: “−3=do not agree at all, −2=do not agree,
−1=tend not to agree, +1=tend to agree, +2=agree, +
3=agree completely”. A handwritten number appeared in a
space to the left of each item; each profile was prepared in
a different handwriting to suggest that sheets had been
photocopied from actual men’s questionnaire responses.
Profile A showed agreement (all positive numbers) with
both HS and BS items; profile H showed agreement with
HS items but disagreement (all negative numbers) with BS
items; profile B showed agreement with BS items but
disagreement with HS items; and profile N showed
disagreement with both HS and BS items. The profiles’
HS and BS means in versions A and B differed slightly
(.2 scale points at most) because the alleged answers
were based on previous responses of a male student
sample such that high and low benevolence (or hostility)
were represented by numbers that were one SD above or
below the empirical item mean, respectively, rounded to
the nearest integer. Participants were instructed to take a
few minutes to form an impression of each target by
imagining how this person would behave in everyday
situations.
Dependent Variables
Participants then answered several items pertaining to each
target. These were printed on a separate page for each
target, with targets appearing in the same order as on the
profile sheet. Participants were allowed to look at all four
targets while answering.
Manipulation checks Two items were used to check
whether the target profiles’ benevolence and hostility,
respectively, were perceived as intended (blanks were
always filled with the letter denoting the profile): “How
benevolent is person __’s attitude toward women?” (1=not
at all benevolent to 6=very benevolent); and “How hostile
is person __’s attitude toward women?” (1=not at all hostile
to 6=very hostile).
Likability Two items were used to assess the target’s
likability: “How likable do you rate person __?” (1=very
dislikable to 6=highly likable); and “Would you consider
having someone like person __ as a romantic partner?”
(1=certainly not to 6=certainly yes). The two items correlat-
ed highly across profiles (r=.56 to .83) and were averaged to
form a likability index.
Typicality Three items were used to assess the target’s
typicality: “What do you think, how often do men answer in
a similar way as person __?” (1=very rarely to 6=very
often); “How typical, do you think, are the answers given
574
by person __?” (1=very atypical to 6=very typical); and “In
my opinion, person ___ is ...” (1=definitely fictitious to
6=definitely real). The last item was presented on a separate
page, after participants had been informed that some or all
of the profiles might be fictitious. The three items showed
moderate to high internal consistency across profiles
(alpha=.57 to .77) and were averaged to form a typicality
index.
To ascertain that the likability and typicality items
measured separate constructs, we performed a factor
analysis for each profile, entering the two likability and
the three typicality items. We used maximum-likelihood
extraction with promax rotation to allow for correlated
factors (see Fabrigar et al. 1999). Results showed that the
typicality items and the likability items consistently loaded
on separate factors, which were not highly intercorrelated
(r ranging from −.04 to +.33).
Results and Discussion
Manipulation Checks
Participants’ ratings of the profiles’ benevolence and hostility,
respectively, were analyzed with 2 (profile’s HS: high, low) x
2 (profile’s BS: high, low) repeated-measures ANOVAs.
These revealed that, as intended, participants rated the high-
hostile profiles as higher on hostility (M=3.63) than the low-
hostile profiles (M=2.20), F(1, 106)=246.12, p<.001, and
rated the high-benevolent profiles as higher on benevolence
(M=4.56) than the low-benevolent profiles (M=3.13), F(1,
107)=188.09, p<.001. In addition, the high-hostile profiles
were rated as lower in benevolence than the low-hostile
profiles, F(1, 107)=238.10, p<.001, and the high-benevolent
profiles were rated as lower in hostility than the low-
benevolent profiles, F(1, 106)=124.30, p<.001. No interac-
tion effects emerged, both p>.22.
Likability and Typicality Differences Among Profiles
The likability and typicality indices were each analyzed
with repeated-measures ANOVAs, followed by pairwise
comparisons among the four profiles via paired-samples t-
tests. Means and standard deviations for both indices are
shown in Table 1.
Likability As predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2, female
students rated the benevolent sexist profile as the most likable
(M=4.62; SD=.95) and the hostile sexist profile as the least
likable (M=2.23; SD=.89); ratings for the nonsexist (M=
3.30; SD=1.18) and ambivalent sexist profile (M=3.53; SD=
1.05) fell in between (see Table 1). The ANOVA showed a
strong main effect of the profiles’ hostility, F(1, 107)=
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
Table 1 Ratings of likability and typicality for four male target
profiles (Study 2).
Measure a
Likability Typicality
Target Profile
Nonsexist 3.30b (1.18) 3.13a (.84)
Benevolent Sexist 4.62c (.95) 3.06a (.83)
Hostile Sexist 2.23a (.89) 3.81b (.69)
Ambivalent Sexist 3.53b (1.05) 4.07c (.88)
N=108. Standard deviations appear in parentheses.
a
Scales from 1 to 6, with higher values representing higher likability
and typicality, respectively. Likability was measured with two items,
typicality with 3 items. Within each column, means not sharing a
subscript differ significantly (p<.02) according to paired-samples t-tests.
110.83, p<.001, supporting Hypothesis 1. The ANOVA also
showed a strong main effect of the profiles’ benevolence, F
(1, 107)=123.22, p<.001, supporting Hypothesis 2. There
was no interaction effect, F<1. The female students thus
rated as more favorable the profiles low (vs. high) in hostility
and the profiles high (vs. low) in benevolence. All pairwise
comparisons among means, except for the comparison
between the nonsexist and the ambivalent sexist profile
(p>.19), were highly significant (p<.001).
Typicality In line with Hypothesis 3, female students rated
the ambivalent sexist profile as highly typical (M=4.07;
SD=.88), followed by the hostile sexist profile (M=3.81;
SD=.69) and the nonsexist profile (M=3.13; SD=.84).
The benevolent sexist profile was rated to be the least
typical of actual men (M=3.06; SD=.83). In the ANOVA,
this pattern was reflected in a main effect of the profiles’
hostility, F(1,107)=82.94, p<.001, and an interaction effect
of the profiles’ hostility and benevolence, F(1,107)=4.66,
p<.04, but no main effect of the profiles’ benevolence,
F(1,107)=1.66, p>.20. Participants thus perceived profiles
high in HS to be more typical of actual men than profiles low
in HS. Furthermore, they rated the profile combining high
hostility and high benevolence (the ambivalent sexist) as
particularly typical for actual men. All pairwise comparisons,
except for the comparison between the nonsexist and the
benevolent sexist profile (p>.54), were significant (p<.02).
Effects of Participants’ Sexism and Feminist Attitudes
To test Hypotheses 4 to 6, which predicted moderating
effects of participants' own BS and HS, as well as their
feminist attitudes, on their relative preferences for low-HS
and high-BS profiles, respectively, we conducted two
separate multiple regression analyses. The dependent
variable in the first analysis was participants’ relative
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
preference for low-HS profiles over high-HS profiles; the
dependent variable in the second analysis was participants’
relative preference for high-BS profiles over low-BS
profiles. Because of the within-subjects variation of the
profiles’ BS and HS, we could define each of these
preferences as a difference score in likability ratings. Note
that these scores represent the main effects of profiles’ HS
and BS, respectively, that were found in the ANOVAs, such
that the regression analyses test moderating effects of
participants’ attitudes on these ANOVA findings. Partic-
ipants’ HS (M=3.12; SD=.72), BS (M=3.56; SD=.79), and
LFAIS scores (M=4.53; SD=.51) were entered as concur-
rent predictor variables to control for their covariation and
test their unique contributions. The correlation of HS and
BS was r(105)=.37, p<.001. Feminist attitudes correlated
negatively with both HS, r(105)=−.36, p<.001, and BS,
r(105)=−.21, p=.03.
As shown in the top part of Table 2, the effect of
participants’ HS on the relative preference for low-hostile
(vs. high-hostile) profiles was negative as predicted, but not
significant (β=−.10, p=.33); Hypothesis 4 thus received
little support. In line with Hypothesis 6(a), however,
women’s feminist attitudes did predict their preference for
low-hostile profiles (β=.27, p=.008). As shown in the
bottom part of Table 2, only participants’ BS influenced their
relative preference for high-benevolent (vs. low-benevolent)
profiles (β=.35, p=.001), supporting Hypothesis 5. Contrary
to Hypothesis 6(b), however, there was no evidence for a
negative effect of participants’ feminist attitudes on their
relative preference for high-BS profiles (β=−.01, p=.90).
Table 2 Results of multiple regression analyses predicting relative
preferences in likability for low- (vs. high-) HS profiles and high- (vs.
low-) BS profiles from participants’ hostile sexism, benevolent
sexism, and feminist attitudes (Study 2).
Dependent Variable Predictora Betab rsp R2
Likability
Relative Preference for Low-HS HS −.10 −.09
vs. High-HS Profiles BS .08 .07
LFAIS .27** .25** .10*
Relative Preference for High-BS HS −.01 −.00
vs. Low-BS Profiles BS .35** .32**
LFAIS −.01 −.01 .12**
N=108.
a
HS=Hostile Sexism; BS=Benevolent Sexism; LFAIS=Liberal
Feminist Attitude and Ideology Scale.
b
Beta=Standardized partial regression coefficient; rsp=semipartial
correlation coefficient;
R2 =squared multiple correlation coefficient for regression model.
** p<.01; * p < .05.
575
Equivocal Egalitarianism and Perceived Typicality
of the Ambivalent Sexist Profile
We computed a continuous measure of equivocal egalitar-
ianism by subtracting the likability index for the hostile
sexist from the likability index for the benevolent sexist
(see Kilianski and Rudman 1998). Higher scores on this
measure represent relatively greater amounts of equivoca-
tion. If, as proposed by Kilianski and Rudman and stated in
Hypothesis 7, women with equivocal egalitarian attitudes
fail to perceive a link between BS and HS, then scores on
the equivocal egalitarianism measure should be negatively
related to ratings of the ambivalent sexist profile’s
typicality. A correlation analysis showed, however, that
this was not the case: Equivocal egalitarianism was
uncorrelated with the typicality index of the ambivalent
sexist profile, r(106)=.10, p=.30. Thus, Hypothesis 7,
which was based on findings by Kilianski and Rudman
that had replicated in Study 1 using their original
methodology, was not supported when women had the
opportunity to rate an ambivalent sexist target directly.
Conclusions
Female students rated the purely benevolent sexist as the most
likable of the ASI profiles and the purely hostile sexist as the
least likable. The ambivalent sexist and the nonsexist were
judged to be more likable than the hostile sexist but less
likable than the benevolent sexist; they did not differ from
each other in likability. Female participants’ likability ratings
thus reflect independent effects of the profiles’ levels of HS
and BS; as predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2, male targets’ high
BS and low HS each led to greater liking. Female students’
judgments of the profiles’ typicality were affected by the
profiles’ level of HS, with high-HS profiles (H and A) being
judged as more typical than low-HS profiles (N and B).
Importantly, the typicality ratings also showed an interaction
effect of the profiles’ HS and BS, such that the ambivalent
sexist profile was judged to be most typical of men in general,
whereas the purely benevolent profile was judged to be least
typical. Hypothesis 3, which had predicted that the ambivalent
sexist would be rated as more typical than both the benevolent
and the hostile sexist, was clearly supported. Furthermore,
contrary to Hypothesis 7, typicality ratings of the ambivalent
sexist profile were unrelated to participants’ equivocal
egalitarianism.
These results suggest conclusions that differ from those
drawn by Kilianski and Rudman (1998). These authors had
inferred that women may be unaware of the link between
HS and BS. We argued, by contrast, that an unbiased test of
women’s awareness of such a link would require a direct
comparison between nonsexist, benevolent, hostile, and
576
ambivalent profiles of men. In Study 2, where women had
an opportunity to compare and rate all four profiles, they
seemed to be well aware that the ambivalent sexist profile
represents a typical male. Also, our female participants
seemed to be aware of the fact that purely benevolent sexist
men are quite atypical in contemporary society.
Nonetheless, our participants judged the benevolent
sexist profile to be the most likable of all profiles, and the
ambivalent sexist profile to be no less likable than the
nonsexist profile. These findings suggest that women, in
spite of their being aware of the connection between BS
and HS, still fail to resist and criticize BS exhibited by men.
On the contrary, when presented with a man who—
atypically—exhibits high BS accompanied by low HS,
they find this man more attractive than a nonsexist who
exhibits neither high BS nor high HS. This is a remarkable
finding which we will follow up on in Study 3, using a
wider range of attraction measures.
Contrary to previous findings (Kilianski and Rudman
1998; the present Study 1) and to Hypothesis 4, participants’
own level of HS did not moderate their relative preference for
low-HS profiles. Consistent with previous research and with
Hypothesis 5, however, participants’ level of BS did
moderate their relative preference for high-BS profiles.
Women who were themselves high (vs. low) in BS thus
preferred benevolent and ambivalent sexist male targets even
more over nonsexist and hostile targets. Apparently, women’s
own endorsement of benevolent sexist attitudes poses an
obstacle against recognizing men’s benevolent sexist attitudes
as harmful. That women’s BS had a stronger moderating
influence on their evaluation of the respective attributes in
men than did women’s HS may be due to the greater overall
effect of profiles’ BS (vs. HS) on likability ratings.
The moderating effects of participants’ feminist attitudes
on relative preferences for low-HS and high-BS profiles,
respectively, only partly supported our predictions. In line
with Hypothesis 6(a), high-feminist women showed an
even greater relative preference for low-hostile men than
did low-feminist women, but contrary to Hypothesis 6(b),
high-feminist women were just as likely to prefer high-
benevolent men over low-benevolent men as were low-
feminist women. Holding feminist attitudes thus seems to
intensify women’s rejection of hostile sexism, although it
may contribute little to recognizing that men’s benevolent
sexist attitudes can be just as harmful. However, the short
LFAIS (Morgan 1996), which we used to measure
feminism, mainly assesses attitudes that oppose blatant
sexist prejudice and open discrimination; a desideratum for
the future development of feminism scales would thus be to
include items that also capture women’s awareness of more
subtle aspects of sexism, as expressed in men’s benevolent
sexist attitudes and behavior.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
Although these initial results based on judgments of four
ASI profiles are promising, we note a potential methodo-
logical limitation. In order to make agreement and
disagreement with items unambiguously visible in the
target profiles, the nonsexist profile featured a pattern of
clear disagreement with all items. Participants might
inadvertently have used this consistent disagreement as a
heuristic cue in judging the nonsexist target, which may
have reduced that target's perceived likability ("someone
who disagrees with everything cannot be very likable").
Study 3
To provide further tests of Hypotheses 1 to 7, as described
in the Introduction, we designed a conceptual replication of
Study 2. The methodology was slightly changed in two
ways. First, in order to counteract any heuristic-based
rejection of the nonsexist profile, all profiles now featured
neutral filler items with which the target had ostensibly
agreed. Secondly, the range of items measuring likability
was extended; specifically, more items representing a man’s
mate value and sexual attractiveness were included. These
additions were exploratory, as we did not formulate
different hypotheses for different kinds of likability items.
Instead, we aimed at exploring whether increased liking for
benevolent sexist men would generalize to perceptions of
the target as a potential short-term mate or dating partner.
This would complement work showing positive correlations
between benevolent sexism and notions of traditional
courtship behavior (Viki et al., 2003).
Method
Participants
One hundred and six female students at the University of
Bielefeld (Germany) volunteered to participate in a series of
shorter studies that were ostensibly conducted together for
reasons of economy. Participants’ age ranged from 19 to 47
years (M=22.87, SD=3.79). Each participant received a
chocolate bar and was entered in a lottery for a 50-Euro gift
voucher.
Procedure
Participants were seated at separate tables in a laboratory.
They first completed a 12-item short version of the ASI.
Then they received a fold-out sheet with the four ASI
profiles, and a questionnaire with items pertaining to each
profiles’ likability, sexual attractiveness, and typicality. On
a final sheet, participants indicated their age and subject of
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
study, and were allowed to comment on the study. After
completing all materials, participants were debriefed.
Materials
ASI 12-item short form The short forms used to assess
participants’ HS and BS were identical to those used in
Study 1. Again, two versions were used; in version A,
Cronbach’s alpha was .79 and .72 for HS and BS, respective-
ly; in version B, the respective values were .67 and .66.
ASI profiles Each of the four male ASI profiles contained
the same items as in Study 1 plus five filler items of neutral
content (e.g., “The Internet offers the opportunity for
women and men to communicate with people all over the
world”), which were interspersed with the ASI items. The
fillers always appeared in positions 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11, and
the answers marked always indicated agreement (twice +1,
once +2, and twice +3). Again, four presentation orders of
the profiles were used according to a Latin square design.
Dependent Variables
Manipulation checks The same items as in Study 2 were
used to check whether the target profiles’ benevolence and
hostility, respectively, were perceived as intended.
Likability, sexual attraction, and typicality Six items
pertained to the target’s likability and sexual attraction:
“How likable do you rate person __?” (1=very dislikable to
6=highly likable); “Would it be conceivable for you to have
someone like person __ as a long-term romantic partner?”
(1=definitely not conceivable to 6=well conceivable); “How
good-looking do you think is person __?” (1=not good-
looking at all to 6=very good-looking); “Would it be con-
ceivable for you to have a one-night stand with person __?”
(1=definitely not conceivable to 6=well conceivable); “Do
you think person __ is a passionate man?” (1=not at all
passionate to 6=very passionate); “How attractive do you
rate person __?” (1=not at all attractive to 6=very
attractive).
The three items pertaining to the target’s typicality were
the same as in Study 2. A minor change was made to the
response scale of the third item; it now read “In my
opinion, person ___ is ...” (1=definitely not real to
6=definitely real).
Forming indices based on factor analysis For each profile,
we performed maximum-likelihood factor analyses with
promax rotation on the likability, sexual attraction, and
typicality items, allowing for correlated factors (see
Fabrigar et al., 1999). These analyses showed that the three
typicality items consistently loaded on a separate factor
577
across the four profiles. They were thus combined to form
an index of typicality (Cronbach’s alpha across profiles=.66
to .77).
The likability and sexual attraction items loaded on
either two factors (for profiles A and B) or a single factor
(for profiles N and H). For exploratory reasons, we forced a
solution with two factors for all profiles and found that one
factor was consistently defined by the items “likable” and
“long-term partner”; as in Study 2, these items were thus
averaged to form an index of likability (intercorrelation of
items across profiles=.64 to .78). The other four items
(“good-looking”, “one-night stand”, “passionate”, and
“attractive”) showed substantial loadings on a separate
factor; they were thus averaged to form an index that we
called short-term sexual attraction (STSA; Cronbach’s
alpha across profiles = .64 to .75). It should be noted,
however, that the intercorrelations of the likability and
STSA factors were high across profiles (r=.48 to .66).
Results and Discussion
Manipulation Checks
Participants’ ratings of the profiles’ benevolence and
hostility, respectively, were analyzed with 2 (profile’s HS:
high, low) x 2 (profile’s BS: high, low) repeated-measures
ANOVAs. As intended, participants rated the high-hostile
profiles as higher on hostility (M=3.57) than the low-
hostile profiles (M=2.32), F(1, 104)=153.51, p<.001, and
rated the high-benevolent profiles as higher on benevolence
(M=4.53) than the low-benevolent profiles (M=3.08), F(1,
105)=271.51, p<.001. In addition, the high-hostile profiles
were rated as lower in benevolence than the low-hostile
profiles, F(1, 105) = 114.62, p < .001, and the high-
benevolent profiles were rated as lower in hostility than
the low-benevolent profiles, F(1, 104)=105.86, p<.001. No
interaction effects emerged, both p>.27.
Likability, STSA, and Typicality Differences Among Profiles
Participants’ likability, STSA, and typicality ratings were
analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVAs and with pair-
wise comparisons among the four profiles. Means and
standard deviations for the three dependent variables are
shown in Table 3.
Likability Recall that Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted higher
likability ratings for low-HS and high-BS profiles, respec-
tively. In line with these predictions, and replicating the
findings of Study 2, female students rated the benevolent
sexist profile as the most likable (M=4.57; SD=.92) and the
hostile sexist profile as the least likable (M=2.33; SD=.85).
578
Table 3 Ratings of likability, short-term sexual attraction, and typicality for four male target profiles (Study 3).
a
Measure
Likability
Target Profile
Nonsexist 3.35b (1.06)
Benevolent Sexist 4.57d (.92)
Hostile Sexist 2.33a (.85)
Ambivalent Sexist 3.67c (1.07)
N=106. Standard deviations appear in parentheses.
a
Scales from 1 to 6, with higher values representing higher likability, short-term sexual attraction, and typicality, respectively. Likability was
measured with two items, short-term sexual attraction with four items, typicality with three items. Within each column, means not sharing a
subscript differ significantly (p<.05) according to paired-samples t-tests.
Ratings for the nonsexist (M=3.35; SD=1.06) and ambiva-
lent sexist profile (M=3.67; SD=1.07) again fell in between
(see Table 3). The ANOVA yielded a strong main effect of
the profiles’ hostility, F(1,105)=102.99, p<.001, supporting
Hypothesis 1. It also yielded a strong main effect of the
profiles’ benevolence, F(1,105)=150.91, p<.001, supporting
Hypothesis 2. The interaction effect was not significant,
F<1. The students thus again rated as more likable the
profiles low (vs. high) in hostility and high (vs. low) in
benevolence. All pairwise comparisons among means were
significant (all p<.04).
Short-Term Sexual Attraction Although, not surprisingly,
its means were generally lower, the STSA index showed a
pattern very similar to that of likability. Female students
rated the benevolent sexist profile as most sexually
attractive (M=3.52; SD=.85) and the hostile sexist profile
as least sexually attractive (M=2.50; SD=.78). Ratings for
the nonsexist (M=3.11; SD=.94) and ambivalent sexist
profile (M=3.21; SD=.88) fell in between (see Table 3).
Main effects of both the profiles’ hostility, F(1,105)=29.88,
p<.001, and the profiles’ benevolence, F(1,105)=45.00,
p<.001, supported Hypotheses 1 and 2: The high-BS (vs.
low-BS) profiles and the low-HS (vs. high-HS) profiles
were rated as higher in sexual attractiveness (see Table 3).
An interaction of profiles’ BS and profiles’ HS also
emerged, reflecting that the hostile sexist profile (low BS
/ high HS) was rated as particularly unattractive as a short-
term mate, F(1, 105)=4.42, p=.04. Pairwise comparisons
among means were significant (all p<.01) except for the
comparison between the nonsexist and the ambivalent
sexist (p>.41).
Typicality Recall that Hypothesis 3 predicted higher typi-
cality ratings for the ambivalent-sexist profile than for both
the benevolent-sexist and the hostile-sexist profiles. As in
Study 2, the benevolent sexist profile was judged to be the
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
Short-Term Typicality
Sexual Attraction
3.11b (.94) 3.65b (.68)
3.52c (.85) 3.13a (.91)
2.50a (.78) 3.83b (.77)
3.21b (.88) 3.68b (.80)
least typical (M=3.13; SD=.91). The nonsexist profile
(M=3.65; SD=.68), the hostile sexist profile (M=3.83;
SD=.77), and the ambivalent sexist profile (M=3.68; SD=
.80) were all rated higher in typicality than the benevolent
sexist profile, but did not differ significantly from one
another (see Table 3). Hypothesis 3 was thus only partially
supported, as the female students rated the ambivalent
profile as more typical than the benevolent profile, but not
as more typical than the hostile profile. The ANOVA
revealed main effects of both the profiles’ hostility,
F(1,105)=17.48, p<.001, and the profiles’ benevolence, F
(1,105)=14.21, p<.001, as well as an interaction effect of
the two, F(1,105)=7.14, p=.009. As in Study 2, then,
female students found profiles high in HS to be more
typical for actual men than profiles low in HS. Whereas
they rated the two high-hostile profiles (H and A) as
comparably high in typicality, they rated the profile
combining low hostility and high benevolence (B) to be
the least typical.
Effects of Participants’ Sexism
The means of participants’ HS and BS scores were 3.19
(SD=.81) and 3.78 (SD = .88), respectively, and their
intercorrelation was r(104)=.37, p<.001. In multiple regres-
sion analyses, we tested if women’s own sexist attitudes
influenced their relative preferences for low-HS (vs. high-
HS) and for high-BS (vs. low-BS) in terms of both likability
and STSA, as was predicted in Hypotheses 4 and 5.
Analyses were analogous to those in Study 2, but only
participants’ BS and HS were used as concurrent predictors.
As shown in the top part of Table 4, the effect of
participants’ HS on their relative preference in likability for
low-hostile (vs. high-hostile) profiles was negative as
predicted, but not significant (β=−.10, p=.34). However,
there was a near-significant negative effect of participants’
BS (β=−.20, p=.051), and the overall regression model
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582 579

Table 4 Results of multiple regression analyses predicting relative subtracting the score for the hostile sexist from the
preferences in likability and short-term sexual attraction for low- (vs.
respective score for the benevolent sexist. Recall that
high-) HS profiles and high- (vs. low-) BS profiles from participants’
hostile sexism and benevolent sexism (Study 3). Hypothesis 7 predicted a negative correlation of equivocal
egalitarianism and typicality ratings for the ambivalent
Dependent Variable Predictora Betab rsp R2 sexist profile. Correlation analyses showed that the two
Likability
equivocal egalitarianism measures were highly intercorre-
lated, r(104)=.76, p<.001, but neither measure was related
Relative Preference HS −.10 −.09
for Low-HS to the typicality index for the ambivalent sexist profile,
vs. High-HS Profiles BS −.20+ −.19+ .07* r(104)=.13 and .06, respectively, both p>.19. Hypothesis 7
thus again received no support.
Relative Preference HS .08 .07
for High-BS Conclusions
vs. Low-BS Profiles BS .35** .32** .15***
The inclusion of new items assessing aspects of physical
Short-Term Sexual Attraction attraction and sexual interest allowed us to differentiate two
Relative Preference HS .01 .01 liking indices in Study 3. The first index (items “likable”
for Low-HS
vs. High-HS Profiles BS −.20+ −.19+ .04 and “long-term romantic partner”) was identical to the
likability index used in Study 2 and combined general liking
Relative Preference HS .06 .05
with long-term romantic interest. The second index (items
for High-BS “good-looking”, “attractive”, “one-night stand”, and “pas-
vs. Low-BS Profiles BS .07 .06 .01 sionate”) was interpreted as reflecting the profiles’ short-
term sexual attraction for participants. A caveat is in place
N=106.
a
regarding the conceptual distinctiveness of the two indices,
HS=Hostile Sexism; BS=Benevolent Sexism.
b
because a one-dimensional interpretation of the six liking
Beta=Standardized partial regression coefficient; rsp=semipartial
items would have been feasible. We still found it useful, for
correlation coefficient;
exploratory purposes, to distinguish between a more general,
R2 =squared multiple correlation coefficient for regression model.
+ long-term liking measure and short-term sexual attraction.
*** p<.001; ** p < .01; * p < .05; p<.06.
For the likability index, the pattern observed in Study 3
showed remarkable consistency with the results of Study 2
was significant, R2 =.07, F(2, 103)=3.63, p=.03. Hypoth- (see Tables 1 and 3). Supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2, male
esis 4 thus received qualified support: Women’s own sexist targets’ low HS and high BS again each led to higher
attitudes did influence their relative preference for low- ratings of likability. Female students thus again rated the
hostile over high-hostile profiles, but this effect was mainly purely benevolent sexist as the most likable, and the purely
due to participants’ BS, not their HS. Furthermore, hostile sexist as the least likable. Ratings for the nonsexist
participants’ BS showed the predicted positive effect on and ambivalent sexist again fell in between, but in Study 3
the relative preference in likability for high-benevolent the ambivalent sexist was rated as significantly more likable
(vs. low-benevolent) profiles (β=.35, p=.001), supporting than the nonsexist.
Hypothesis 5. The effect of participants’ HS was in the The sexual attraction ratings, although generally lower than
same direction, but not significant (β=.08, p=.42). the likability ratings, showed parallel influences of the profiles’
The bottom part of Table 4 shows that there was a BS and HS, lending further support to Hypotheses 1 and 2.
marginal effect of participants’ BS on their relative The way in which women see high-BS (and low-HS) men
preferences in sexual attraction for low-hostile (vs. high- as “sexy” thus seems to be in terms of general likability and
hostile) profiles (β=−.20, p=.055); this paralleled the effect suitability as a long-term partner, as well as in terms of short-
on relative preferences in the likability ratings. No other term sexual interest. Remarkably, again women perceived the
moderating effects of participants’ sexist attitudes were benevolent sexist as more likable and as more sexually
found for the sexual attraction ratings, all p>.51. attractive than the nonsexist. Viewed from an evolutionary
perspective (e.g., Buss and Schmitt 1993), one may conclude
Equivocal Egalitarianism and Perceptions that displaying benevolent sexist behavior may have adaptive
of the Ambivalent Sexist Profile advantages for men in terms of both long-term and short-term
mating strategies (see also Li and Kenrick 2006).
We computed two continuous measures of equivocal Regression analyses showed that women’s own sexist
egalitarianism, one based on the general likability index attitudes moderated the effects of the profiles’ BS and HS
(as in Study 2) and one based on the STSA index, each time on likability and sexual attraction. Consistent with Study 2,
580
it was participants’ BS that amplified a preference for males
holding benevolent sexist attitudes. Somewhat surprisingly,
there was a trend for high-BS women to be less bothered by
men displaying a high level of hostile sexism.
Compared to Study 2, we note the relatively higher
typicality ratings for the nonsexist profile. It is possible
that this profile in particular was rendered more realistic by
the inclusion of filler items featuring positive response
values. We had suspected that the rather low evaluation of
the nonsexist in Study 2 may have been caused by heuristic
processing of the "negative" responses shown by this
profile. However, although the inclusion of filler items did
increase the nonsexist profile's perceived typicality, it did
not change its relative evaluation compared to the other
profiles. The benevolent sexist profile was still seen as
clearly more likable, and now also as more sexually
attractive, than the nonsexist profile. Furthermore, the
ambivalent sexist profile, though less clearly than in Study
2, was again rated as high in typicality.
General Discussion
Taken together, our research conveys both good news and
bad news. The good news is that women do not seem to
lack awareness of the empirical link between BS and HS,
contrary to what previous research using a different
methodology may have suggested (cf. Kilianski and
Rudman 1998). In two studies, female students rated
ambivalent sexist male ASI profiles as highly typical of
men in general, and rated purely benevolent sexist ASI
profiles as the most atypical. The bad news is that in spite
of this awareness, participants still approved of profiles
expressing high benevolence at least as much as they
approved of nonsexist profiles; and they judged a purely
benevolent sexist profile even to be significantly more
likable and sexually attractive than a nonsexist profile.
Thus, when women are assured that a man’s benevolent
sexism is not accompanied by hostile sexism, on average
they find him highly attractive, even more attractive than a
completely nonsexist man.
Is this pattern problematic? Does liking benevolent sexists
but knowing they are rare birds strengthen the status quo of
male dominance? When women say they like benevolent
sexists, do they approve of those men who blamed victims of
sexual violence in research by Abrams et al. (2003)? Do they
support attitudes in men that lead to the kinds of remarks that
hamper women's performance (Dardenne et al. 2007) or
contribute to sexual harassment (Fiske and Glick 1995)?
This appears plausible, but further research is needed to
corroborate such conclusions. For example, one might
conceptually replicate the present studies in a more realistic
context in which men behave in a nonsexist, or purely
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
benevolent, or ambivalent-sexist way (for a methodology
that might be adapted for such use, see Siebler et al. 2008).
If, under such circumstances, women still favor benevolent
and ambivalent sexists over nonsexists, a clearer case could
be made for their strengthening the status quo and supporting
the subordination of women (cf. Jost and Kay 2005;
Kilianski and Rudman 1998). Another realistic context in
which it might be fruitful to pursue these ideas further is the
study of human mating preferences and behavior (Buss and
Schmitt, 1993). If a mere set of ASI responses can elicit large
differences in the perceived sexual attractiveness of the
person who allegedly gave these responses, how much more
powerful must be men’s vivid displays of paternalistic
“chivalrous” behavior in daily interaction?
We found moderating effects of women's own BS (Studies
2 and 3) on their approval of the target profiles' benevolence
(and even on their tolerance for the target profiles’ hostile
sexism). Study 2 also showed that feminist attitudes may
increase the preference for low hostility in men. We had also
predicted that high feminism would reduce women’s
preference for benevolent sexist males. However, this
prediction was not supported by our data. These findings
may offer suggestions for potential interventions. The aim of
educating women toward approving less of male BS might
be reached by questioning their own benevolent sexist
beliefs, whereas fostering more feminist attitudes may in
itself not be sufficient. More optimistic findings in this
regard, however, were reported by Branscombe and Deaux
(1991): Women whose feminist attitudes had been made
accessible by asking them to complete a feminism scale
reported lower intentions than women in a control condition
to act in a way that invites male benevolent sexist behavior
(e.g., waiting for a man to open a door for them; p. 413).
Future Directions
It would further be useful to replicate our studies in other
cultures. In the Introduction we addressed issues of culture
and tentatively concluded that the USA and Germany were
quite similar in terms of gender-related attitudes and societal
development. This insight, and the present Study 1,
strengthened our conviction that results produced with our
new methodology would not be culture-specific. Yet neither
Germany nor the USA are representative for the world at
large, and it would be exciting to see our new method of
assessing approval for others’ sexism applied to different
research questions in different cultural contexts.
A potential limitation of our methodological approach is
that asking participants to rate four target profiles in a fully
within-subjects design may exaggerate the perception of
differences among the profiles. It would thus be worthwile
to conduct conceptual replications in which independent
groups of participants rate one target profile each.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
Finally, while the focus of the present investigation was
on further developing the methodology to assess percep-
tions of sexism in others, future research should pay closer
attention to conceptual questions. For example, might the
fact that benevolent sexist men are viewed as rare
contribute to their greater perceived likability? Although
in our present data, the ratings of typicality and likability
were generally unrelated, several lines of research suggest
that perceived scarcity of an object or attribute may increase
its perceived value (e.g., Cialdini 1993) or enhance the
extremity of evaluations (Ditto and Jemmott 1989).
Conclusion
Using ASI profiles as stimulus materials offers a useful and
well-controlled approach to studying women's perceptions
of men's sexist attitudes (or, generally speaking, for
studying any group’s perception of any target’s sexist
attitudes). Using this approach to study female students'
perceptions of male targets' likability, sexual attraction, and
typicality yielded interesting new insights. Not only did
female students perceive the coexistence of benevolent and
hostile sexist beliefs in a single male individual as highly
typical, they also approved more of males exhibiting high
rather than low benevolent sexism. Most remarkably, when
a male target’s high benevolent sexism was explicitly
accompanied by low hostile sexism, women tended to like
this purely benevolent-sexist man even more than a
completely nonsexist man.
Acknowledgements Preliminary reports of this research were
given as invited presentations at Pontificia Universidad Católica de
Chile, Santiago, Chile (September 2004), the University of Halle-
Wittenberg, Germany (June 2006), the University of Basel, Switzer-
land (April 2007), the University of Magdeburg, Germany (May
2007), the Universities of Cape Town and Pretoria, South Africa
(August 2007), and the University of Graz, Austria (March 2008).
We thank Caroline Erdmann for her help with the data collection and
analyses in Study 1, and the "Astoria" cinema, Bielefeld, for
providing free tickets as incentives for participants in Study 2.
Thanks also to Friederike Eyssel and Nina Vanselow, who provided
helpful comments on a previous draft.
Appendix
German Items Used to Assess Participants’ Benevolent
Sexism and Hostile Sexism and to Construct Male Sexism
Profiles
Numbers correspond to item numbers in Glick and Fiske
(1996). No item numbers were presented to participants.
Abbreviations in parentheses pertain to Studies 2 and 3:
PA=item was used in version A of profiles; PB=item was
581
used in version B of profiles; QA=item was used in version
A of participant questionnaire; QB=item was used in
version B of participant questionnaire.
1. Egal wie erfolgreich ein Mann auch sein mag, ohne
eine Frau, die ihn liebt, fehlt ihm etwas sehr Wichtiges.
(PA, QB)
2. Viele Frauen versuchen unter dem Deckmantel der
Gleichberechtigung, besondere Vergünstigungen zu
erlangen, z. B. eine Bevorzugung bei der Besetzung
der Arbeitsstelle. (PB, QA)
3. Bei einer Katastrophe sollten Frauen vor Männern
gerettet werden. (PB, QA)
4. Die meisten Frauen interpretieren harmlose Äußerungen
oder Handlungen als frauenfeindlich. (PA, QB)
5. Frauen sind zu schnell beleidigt. (PA, QB)
6. Man kann in seinem Leben erst richtig glücklich sein,
wenn man einen Partner hat, den man liebt. [Modified
in Studies 1 and 3 to enhance clarity of meaning: Ein
Mann kann in seinem Leben erst richtig glücklich sein,
wenn er eine Partnerin hat, die er liebt.] (PA, QB)
7. Was Feministinnen wirklich wollen, ist, dass Frauen
mehr Macht bekommen als Männer. (PB, QA)
8. Viele Frauen besitzen eine Art von Ehrlichkeit, die nur
wenige Männer besitzen. (QA, QB)
9. Frauen sollten von Männern umsorgt und beschützt
werden. (PA, QB)
10. Die meisten Frauen sehen gar nicht, was Männer alles
für sie tun. (PB, QA)
11. Frauen versuchen, Macht zu erlangen, indem sie
Männer immer mehr beherrschen. (QA, QB)
12. Jeder Mann sollte eine Frau haben, die er wirklich
liebt. (PA, QB)
13. Männer sind ohne Frauen unvollkommen. (PB, QA)
14. Frauen übertreiben Probleme, die sie am Arbeitsplatz
haben. (PA, QB)
15. Hat eine Frau erst mal einen Mann ”rumgekriegt“,
dann versucht sie, ihn an die kurze Leine zu legen.
(PB, QA)
16. Wenn Frauen in einem fairen Wettkampf gegenüber
Männern den Kürzeren ziehen, behaupten sie gerne,
sie seien diskriminiert worden. (PA, QB)
17. Eine Frau sollte von ihrem Mann auf Händen getragen
werden. (PA, QB)
18. Viele Frauen haben Spaß daran, mit Männern zu
“spielen“, indem sie sich erst verführerisch geben, und
dann aber die Annäherungsversuche der Männer
zurückweisen. (PB, QA)
19. Verglichen mit Männern haben Frauen das bessere
moralische Empfinden. (PB, QA)
20. Ein Mann sollte bereit sein, sein eigenes Wohl zu
opfern, um für seine Frau zu sorgen. (PB, QA)
582
21. Feministinnen stellen an Männer vollkommen überzo-
gene Forderungen. (PA, QB)
22. Verglichen mit Männern haben Frauen einen feineren
Sinn für Kultur und einen besseren Geschmack. (PA,
QB)
References
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T. N., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003).
Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of
benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-
Wesley.
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism:
How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 633–642.
Branscombe, N. R., & Deaux, K. (1991). Feminist attitude accessi-
bility and behavioral intentions. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
15, 411–418.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary pespective on human mating. Psychological Review,
100, 204–232.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: science and practice (3rd ed.). New
York: Harpercollins College Publishers.
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of
benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764–779.
Ditto, P. H., & Jemmott, J. B. I. I. I. (1989). From rarity to evaluative
extremity: Effects of prevalence information on evaluations of
positive and negative characteristics. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 16–26.
Eckes, T. (2001). Ambivalenter Sexismus und die Polarisierung von
Geschlechterstereotypen [Ambivalent sexism and the polarization
of gender stereotypes]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 32,
235–247.
Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1999). Hostilität und Benevolenz: Eine
Skala zur Erfassung des ambivalenten Sexismus [Hostility and
benevolence: A scale for the assessment of ambivalent sexism].
Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 30, 211–228.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J.
(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in
psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:568–582
Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause
sexual harassment: A theory with implications for organizational
change. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1), 97–115.
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. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and
benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender
inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B.,
et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and
benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and
complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific
and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.
Kilianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways:
Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333–
352.
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differ-
ences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and
why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–
489.
Morgan, B. L. (1996). Putting the feminism into feminism scales:
Introduction of a liberal feminist attitude and ideology scale
(LFAIS). Sex Roles, 34, 359–390.
Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, F., de Lemus, S., & Hart, J. (2007). It’s
for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to
protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 33, 1421–1434.
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
Siebler, F., Sabelus, S., & Bohner, G. (2008). A refined computer
harassment paradigm: Validation, and test of hypotheses about
target characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 22–
35.
Swim, J. K., Mallett, R., Russo-Devosa, Y., & Stangor, C. (2005).
Judgments of sexism: A comparison of the subtlety of sexism
measurs and sources of variability in judgments of sexism.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 406–411.
United Nations (2008). Human development report 2007/2008.
Retrieved January 5, 2009, from the United Nations Develop-
ment Programme Web site: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/
HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf.
Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The "true" romantic:
Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533–
537.