Research Article

Psychology of Women Quarterly

37(4) 507-518
She Loves Him, She Loves Him Not: ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Attachment Style as a Predictor of DOI: 10.1177/0361684313497471
pwq.sagepub.com
Women’s Ambivalent Sexism Toward Men

Joshua Hart1, Peter Glick2, and Rachel E. Dinero3

Abstract
In two studies, we examined how romantic attachment style relates to women’s sexism toward men. Specifically, we applied
structural equation modeling and mediation analyses to the responses of over 500 self-reported heterosexual women. Study 1
included 229 women who answered questionnaires tapping attachment anxiety and avoidance, ambivalent sexism toward men,
romanticism, and interpersonal trust. We conducted Study 2 as a replication, changing questionnaire order to gauge the
robustness of results, using a new sample of 273 women. In general, women’s attachment anxiety predicted ambivalent sexism
(both benevolence and hostility) toward men, whereas women’s attachment avoidance predicted univalent hostility (and
lower benevolence) toward men. Romanticism mediated attachment style’s relationship to benevolence toward men, whereas
lower interpersonal trust mediated attachment’s relationship to hostility toward men. The results suggest that, for women (as
for men), sexist attitudes toward members of the other sex have roots in attachment style and associated worldviews. Better
understanding of women’s ambivalence toward men in romantic relationships may help to inform marital therapy.

Keywords
attachment behavior, sexism, sex role attitudes, romance, trust (social behavior), interpersonal attraction

Despite much research on sexism’s consequences, little is Women’s Sexism Toward Men
known about the personality factors that predispose indi-
Ambivalent sexism theory and research suggest that male
viduals to adopt sexist attitudes. This is especially true for
dominance combined with heterosexual interdependence
women’s sexism toward men, which receives much less
generates hostile and benevolent sexism between men and
attention than men’s sexism toward women, perhaps because
women (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001). Because members of the
powerful groups are not typically seen as suffering deleter-
other sex represent both potential romantic partners and out-
ious consequences from less powerful groups’ prejudices.
However, women’s sexism toward men plays a significant group members competing for social resources (e.g., status,
jobs), heterosexual men and women relate to one another
role in reinforcing gender stereotypes and perpetuating male
on both interpersonal and intergroup bases. Ambivalently
dominance (Glick et al., 2004), so researchers and others who
sexist men exhibit hostile sexism toward women viewed as
are committed to understanding and combating systems of
competitors (e.g., for jobs), but they direct their benevolent
gender inequality should be just as concerned with women’s
sexism toward women who fulfill intimacy goals (e.g., as
attitudes toward men as the other way around.
wives; see Glick & Fiske, 2001, for a review). Accordingly,
The present research focuses on personality predictors of
hostile sexism characterizes (some) women as manipulative,
women’s ambivalent sexism toward men by building on
the previous finding that men’s romantic attachment style untrustworthy adversaries, whereas benevolent sexism views
predicts sexism toward women (Hart, Hung, Glick, & Dinero,
2012). Might attachment style also help explain women’s
sexist attitudes toward men? Because attachment style
reflects general mental representations of close relationships 1
Department of Psychology, Union College, Schenectady, NY, USA
that, in turn, influence interpersonal and ideological orienta- 2
Department of Psychology, Lawrence University, Appleton, WI, USA
3
tions, we theorize that (as with men) heterosexual women’s Psychology Program, Cazenovia College, Cazenovia, NY, USA
attachment style predisposes sexist attitudes toward the other
Corresponding Author:
sex—with the two dimensions of attachment insecurity (anxi- Joshua Hart, Department of Psychology, Union College, 807 Union Street,
ety and avoidance) predicting distinct patterns of hostility and Schenectady, NY 12308, USA.
benevolence toward men (HM and BM). Email: hartj@union.edu
508
(some) women as special, indispensable, and morally pure
beings whose companionship ‘‘completes’’ men.
Similar to men’s sexism, women’s sexism toward the other
sex encompasses two overlapping facets: HM and BM (Glick
& Fiske, 1999, 2001). HM expresses resentment of men’s
abuse of power, whereas BM expresses admiration for the
ways in which men’s power appears to benefit women within
traditional relationships, celebrating men as women’s ‘‘protec-
tors and providers.’’ Like hostile and benevolent sexism
toward women, ambivalent beliefs about men maintain the sta-
tus quo in gender relations. For example, cross-cultural com-
parisons show that the greater the gender inequality in a
society, the more the women endorse both HM and BM (Glick
et al., 2004). Additionally, whereas HM characterizes men as
arrogant, hypercompetitive, and callous, it also essentializes
men as designed for dominance, viewing men’s power as an
unchangeable fact of life. Although HM does not correlate
with gender inequality’s perceived legitimacy, it does predict
gender inequality’s perceived stability (Glick & Whitehead,
2010). Indeed, HM correlates positively with BM because both
presume that men have greater power. Sometimes this power is
used to harm or control women, as HM acknowledges, but it
can also be used to protect and provide for women, as BM
celebrates. So, although HM is resentful toward men’s power,
like hostile and benevolent sexism toward women, it correlates
positively with traditional values (Feather, 2004), negatively
with feminist beliefs (Anderson, Kanner, & Elsayegh, 2009),
and positively with other sexist beliefs, including BM
(Glick et al., 2004). Thus, despite important differences (dis-
cussed below), sexist attitudes toward women and men share
complex (i.e., ambivalent) structures, cultural derivations, and
functions.
But what accounts for individual differences, within
cultures, in women’s endorsement of HM and BM? The evi-
dence described above suggests that HM and BM stem from
similar social–structural and ideological antecedents as
hostile sexism and benevolent sexism, which underscores the
importance of understanding sexism toward men as part of a
larger psychological and cultural context that supports gender
inequality. However, to our knowledge, no research has
explored nonideological personality correlates of women’s
HM and BM. Because gender relations involve intimate inter-
personal as well as intergroup dimensions, we propose that
differences in women’s attachment styles predict distinct
patterns of hostile and benevolent sexism toward men.
Attachment Insecurity and Sexism
Our research builds on Hart et al.’s (2012) theoretical and
empirical analysis of attachment styles and men’s sexism
toward women. They proposed that sexism derives in part from
the operations of the ‘‘attachment system,’’ the behavioral sys-
tem thought to influence the maintenance of close interperso-
nal relationships throughout individuals’ lives (Bowlby, 1982;
Hazan & Shaver, 1994; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Although
Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)
the attachment system coalesces within the first year of life, it
shapes, and is shaped by, experiences throughout life (Simp-
son, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007). Hence, by adulthood,
people maintain elaborate, affectively tinged representations
or internal ‘‘working models’’ (Bowlby, 1982) of the self and
others, based on prior experiences, especially in the context of
close relationships. These working models create expectations
about close relationships, but their influence extends well
beyond that domain to affect emotion and behavior regulation,
intergroup attitudes, sex, parenting, and psychopathology—to
name just a few examples (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007,
for a comprehensive review of adult attachment theory and
research).
The attachment system’s internal working models,
although unique to each individual, exhibit broad patterns
that reliably differentiate styles of attachment. Most notably,
two insecurity dimensions distinguish how much people (a)
yearn for intimacy, fear rejection and abandonment, and per-
severate about relationships (attachment anxiety) and (b) fear
intimacy and pursue a strategy of self-reliance and emotional
distancing from close relationship partners (attachment
avoidance). People who are lower on both insecurity dimen-
sions are considered ‘‘secure.’’
Attachment anxiety and avoidance reflect, in part, the
extent of individuals’ overall psychological security (i.e.,
durability vs. insecurity or vulnerability; Hart, Shaver, &
Goldenberg, 2005), which in turn shapes their views of them-
selves, their close relationship partners, and the world at
large. Indeed, people are likely to apply their attachment
working models to potential future partners (Brumbaugh &
Fraley, 2006) and to exhibit their attachment tendencies dur-
ing interactions with strangers (e.g., support seeking or lack
thereof; Feeney, Cassidy, & Ramos-Marcuse, 2008). More-
over, attachment style reflects general sensitivity to threats
to the self (i.e., insecurity vs. security) so that it influences
intergroup attitudes, which frequently involve potential threat
and conflict. Specifically, priming secure attachment has
been found to reduce intergroup bias (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2001); in contrast, attachment anxiety relates to believing that
the world is a dangerous place (Weber & Federico, 2007) and
attachment avoidance predicts social dominance orientation
(SDO), an adversarial intergroup ideology (Hart et al.,
2012; Weber & Federico, 2007). In sum, theory and research
suggest that attachment style plays a prominent role in shap-
ing individuals’ worldviews, including their interpersonal
and intergroup attitudes and ideologies.
Concerning men’s sexism toward women, Hart et al.
(2012) found that attachment avoidance predicts men’s uni-
valent hostility toward women—that is, higher hostile sex-
ism combined with lower benevolent sexism. This finding
makes sense because attachment avoidance reflects working
models depicting others as undependable and intimacy as
threatening—a cynical disposition compatible with hostile
sexism’s characterization of women as manipulative and
untrustworthy but not with benevolent sexism’s idealization
Hart et al.
of romantic relationships. Accordingly, Hart et al. found
that the avoidance ! hostile sexism link was mediated by
SDO, which is related to avoidant individuals’ tendency to
view the world as a cold, competitive jungle (Weber &
Federico, 2007). Further, the avoidance ! benevolent sex-
ism link was mediated by lower romanticism (i.e., cynical
beliefs about romantic love), reflecting avoidant individu-
als’ discomfort with intimacy.
Hart et al.’s (2012) research also revealed that men higher
in attachment anxiety were prone to ambivalence toward
women, scoring higher on both benevolent sexism and hostile
sexism than men lower in attachment anxiety. These findings
are consistent with anxiously attached individuals’ simulta-
neous craving for intimacy (often leading to overinvestment
in relationships) and concern that others will not provide the
intimacy and love they seek. Thus, anxious men idealize
women as potential partners (consistent with benevolent
sexism) but also worry that women will be uncaring (consis-
tent with hostile sexism). Accordingly, Hart et al. found that
the anxiety ! benevolent sexism link was mediated by
endorsement of romanticism, whereas the anxiety ! hostile
sexism link appeared to reflect anxious men’s generalization
of their relational concerns—that is, directing their occa-
sional rejection-based hostility toward women as a group.
The Present Research
Given the parallels between sexism directed toward women
and sexism directed toward men and their complementary
roles in maintaining a system of gender inequality, we
suggest that attachment insecurities will predict women’s
sexist beliefs about men. In particular, intimate interdepen-
dence represents a symmetrical complementarity between men
and women—heterosexual members of each sex ‘‘need’’ each
other—creating similarities between benevolent sexism and
BM that seem unavoidably related to attachment (because both
ideologies focus on intimate relationships between the sexes).
Therefore, as with men’s benevolent sexism, women’s BM
should be based partly on their emotional and ideological
proclivities toward potential romantic relationship partners and
toward romantic relationships in general.
However, the other structural factor undergirding sexism
makes women’s HM different from men’s hostile sexism in
at least one important way. In contrast to intimate interdepen-
dence between the sexes, social power is inherently asymme-
trical, such that traditionally, men are higher and women are
lower in power. Power’s asymmetry should create gender-
specific dynamics because prejudice directed ‘‘upwards’’
(i.e., from women toward men) qualitatively differs from
prejudice directed ‘‘downwards’’ (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick,
2008). Below, we explicate both the expected similarities and
differences in how attachment insecurities predispose
women’s sexism toward men, as compared to men’s sexism
toward women.
509
First, due to the symmetries in heterosexual interdepen-
dence, we expected a similar pattern with respect to the
fundamental relation between women’s attachment insecuri-
ties and sexism toward men, as observed in Hart et al.’s
(2012) research on men’s sexism. As with men, women’s
attachment anxiety should predict ambivalence toward the
other sex—that is, endorsement of both HM (a cynical view
of men as callous abusers of power) and BM (an idealized
view of men as women’s protectors and providers). Further-
more, women’s avoidance should predict univalent hostile
sexism toward men (higher HM and lower BM).
Concerning mediators of the attachment ! sexism links,
we expected that women’s (like men’s) benevolence toward
the other sex should be mediated by romanticism, an ideology
that idealizes romantic interdependence (Sprecher & Metts,
1989). Individuals with anxious romantic attachment styles
desperately crave ‘‘true love’’ and want to merge completely
with partners, whom they tend to idealize; but they simulta-
neously fear they will be rejected, leading to defensive beha-
viors (e.g., jealousy; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Their intense
desire for love may predispose anxious individuals toward
romanticism, which views ‘‘true love’’ as a powerful merging
of two souls in a relationship ‘‘meant to be.’’ Among men,
Hart et al. (2012) found that anxious individuals tended to
endorse romanticism, which accounted for their greater
acceptance of benevolent sexism. By contrast, avoidant men
tended to reject romanticism, which accounted for their lower
endorsement of benevolent sexism. Because romanticism,
like both benevolent sexism toward women and BM,
expresses views about intimate interdependence, in the pres-
ent research we expected mediational effects with women
that parallel men’s. Specifically, we predicted that anxious
women would endorse romanticism, and this linkage would
account for their acceptance of BM; in contrast, avoidant
women would reject romanticism and, in turn, reject BM.
However, due to power asymmetries, we expected a key dif-
ference from the dynamics of men’s sexism toward women with
respect to mediation of the links between attachment and HM.
Hart et al.’s (2012) work showed that SDO (Sidanius & Pratto,
1999) mediated the relationship between men’s avoidant attach-
ment and hostile sexism, suggesting that avoidant men are prone
to viewing women as members of an adversarial out-group.
SDO represents a particularly attractive intergroup ideology for
members of powerful groups because it justifies the current
group hierarchy (i.e., that groups in power deserve their privi-
leges). By contrast, members of disadvantaged groups are less
attracted to SDO, an ideology that justifies their poorer social
outcomes as legitimate. Indeed, research shows a persistent gen-
der gap in SDO, with men endorsing it more strongly than
women (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Further, as noted above,
unlike hostile sexism, HM does not function as a system-
legitimizing ideology (even though it relates to perceived sys-
tem stability); thus, HM (unlike hostile sexism toward women)
should not be functionally related to SDO (the system-justifying
antecedent to hostile sexism), at least among women. In other
510
words, the asymmetry in power between the sexes suggests that
SDO would not mediate avoidant women’s hypothesized HM.
Although we included SDO in the current studies, we did
not expect it to act as a mediator. We predicted instead that
‘‘interpersonal trust’’—people’s generalized expectancies
about the trustworthiness of others (Rotter, 1967)—would
mediate between women’s attachment avoidance and HM.
We chose this construct for three reasons. First, trust (or mis-
trust) seems likely to be part of avoidant individuals’ world-
view because their working models depict close relationship
partners as distant and undependable; in fact, the original mea-
sure of avoidance in adulthood emphasized difficulty trusting
romantic partners (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). If these working
models generalize beyond close relationships, avoidantly
attached individuals would be lower on interpersonal trust.
Second, whereas hostile sexism is system justifying,
thereby naturally stemming from a system-justifying ideo-
logy like SDO (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Sibley,
Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007), HM expresses antipathy toward
men and their systemic power. Therefore, HM seems likely
to originate from a generally cynical and suspicious world-
view. If so, women’s avoidance should predict such cynical
views about others (i.e., lower trust), which, in turn, should
predict mistrust about men’s motives; that is, HM (which
views men as seeking to control women). A third advantage
to exploring trust as a mediator is that it might also mediate
the relationship of women’s anxiety to HM (whereas SDO
is unrelated to anxiety, even among men). Attachment anxi-
ety involves concerns that others will not be responsive to
one’s needs or desires for intimacy. For anxious women, this
mistrust might, in turn, predict HM.
In sum, we hypothesized: (a) women’s attachment anxiety
would predict a tendency to endorse both HM and BM; (b)
women’s attachment avoidance would predict a tendency to
endorse HM and reject BM; (c) the links from attachment inse-
curities to BM would be mediated by romanticism (with avoid-
ance leading to less romanticism and therefore lower BM, but
anxiety leading to higher romanticism and therefore higher
BM); and (d) the links from both attachment insecurities to
HM would be mediated by lower interpersonal trust. Because
we wanted to ensure that our results could not be attributed to a
methodological artifact, such as the particular questionnaire
order we chose (i.e., such that completing one questionnaire
could prime concepts that influence responses on subsequent
questionnaires), we tested these hypotheses in two studies that
varied the order of questionnaire presentation.
Study 1
Method
Participants
After excluding 19 women who self-identified as either lesbian
or ‘‘other,’’ participants were 232 heterosexual women located
Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)
in the United States, who were recruited through Mturk.com
(see Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011), and compensated
with credit toward their Amazon.com accounts. We eliminated
three individuals from data analysis whose responses were
obviously disingenuous (e.g., one participant responded with
all 4s and another with a 4-5-4-5 alternating pattern) leaving
229 participants. Their ages ranged from 18 to 78 (Mdn ¼
30). Most were Caucasian (182, 79.5%), with the rest identify-
ing as Asian American/Pacific Islander (18, 7.9%), African
American (17, 7.4%), Hispanic/Latina (6, 2.6%), Native
American (5, 2.2%), Middle Eastern American (1, 0.4%),
‘‘other’’ (3, 1.3%), or ‘‘more than one’’ (8, 3.5%). (Percentages
sum to more than 100 because participants were allowed to
select multiple options.)
Materials and Procedure
Participants first completed online questionnaires assessing,
in order: attachment style, ambivalence toward men, roman-
ticism, interpersonal trust, and SDO. We intentionally placed
the hypothesized mediators last to reduce the chance that
questionnaire order could spuriously contribute to the media-
tional relationships we predicted. For all measures, partici-
pants rated their agreement with items on a 1 (disagree
strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) scale, and scores were aver-
aged across all items (after transforming reverse-coded items
where applicable). Table 1 displays a coefficients for each of
the scales. Finally, participants provided demographic infor-
mation (age, followed by ethnic identification and sexual
orientation).
The Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) inventory
measured attachment anxiety and avoidance (Brennan, Clark,
& Shaver, 1998). The ECR has been extensively validated
and used in hundreds of studies to measure adult attachment
style, with typical a coefficients above .90 (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007). It includes 36 items assessing attachment
anxiety (e.g., ‘‘I worry about being abandoned’’ and ‘‘I often
wish that my partner’s feelings for me were as strong as my
feelings for him/her’’) and avoidance (e.g., ‘‘I don’t feel com-
fortable opening up to romantic partners’’ and ‘‘I am nervous
when partners get too close to me’’). Higher scores indicate
greater anxiety or avoidance.
A short version of the Ambivalence Toward Men Inven-
tory (AMI; Glick & Whitehead, 2010) measured BM and
HM. An example of the 6 items assessing HM is: ‘‘Even men
who claim to be sensitive to women’s rights really want a tra-
ditional relationship at home, with the woman performing
most of the housekeeping and child care.’’ An example of one
of the six BM items is: ‘‘A woman will never be truly fulfilled
in life if she doesn’t have a committed, long-term relationship
with a man.’’ Higher scores indicate greater BM or HM. The
AMI has been validated in prior research, including a 16-
nation study involving over 8,000 participants in which HM
was shown to predict more negative and BM more positive
stereotypes of men (Glick et al., 2004). Glick et al. (2004)
Hart et al. 511

Table 1. Correlation Matrix for Both Studies’ Variables.

Study 1 Study 2
M (SD) M (SD) Anxiety Avoidance BM HM Romanticism Trust SDO

Anxiety 3.89 (1.23) 3.63 (1.23) (.94, .94) .30*** .17* .29*** .16* .18** .12
Avoidance 3.03 (1.21) 2.72 (1.17) .15* (.95, .96) .10 .18** .26*** .16* .02
BM 3.39 (1.25) 3.56 (1.19) .12 .15* (.75, .79) .43*** .46*** .05 .21**
HM 3.67 (1.17) 3.81 (1.14) .16* .21** .54*** (.79, .79) .20** .31*** .08
Romanticism 4.16 (0.93) 4.35 (0.98) .17** .31*** .41*** .18** (.86, .88) .10 .08
Trust 4.64 (0.77) 4.52 (0.83) .28*** .15* .25*** .36*** .06 (.72, .78) .08
SDO 2.63 (1.24) 2.54 (1.10) .04 .08 .24*** .21*** .07 .16* (.89, .86)
Note. BM ¼ benevolence toward men; HM ¼ hostility toward men; SDO ¼ social dominance orientation.
Study 1’s correlation coefficients are above the diagonal; Study 2’s are below the diagonal. The coefficient a for each measure is reported in parentheses along
the diagonal (Studies 1 and 2).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

also found evidence for a consistent structure (with correlated
but distinct HM and BM subfactors) across nations. Addi-
tional detailed psychometric analyses of the AMI can be
found in Glick and Fiske (2001).
The 15-item Romantic Beliefs scale assessed romanti-
cism. Its reliability (a ¼ .81) and validity were established
in a large (N ¼ 730) sample of undergraduate students whose
responses to the romantic beliefs items correlated with their
scores on related scales measuring aspects of love and
romance (Sprecher & Metts, 1989). Items include: ‘‘Once I
experience ‘true love,’ I could never experience it again, to
the same degree, with another person’’ and ‘‘The relationship
I will have with my ‘true love’ will be nearly perfect.’’ Higher
scores indicate higher romanticism.
In the interest of brevity, we measured trust using the
‘‘interpersonal exploitation’’ dimension of Rotter’s (1967)
Interpersonal Trust Scale (see Chun & Campbell, 1974). Rot-
ter’s scale is one of the most frequently used trust measures
(Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007). The interpersonal exploita-
tion dimension has been shown to have adequate internal con-
sistency (a ¼ .60; Chun & Campbell, 1974). It includes 8
items (e.g., ‘‘In dealing with strangers one is better off to
be cautious until they have provided evidence that they are
trustworthy’’ [reverse coded] and ‘‘Most people can be
counted on to do what they say they will do’’). This dimen-
sion seemed the most general compared with the other three
dimensions of interpersonal trust, whose items focus specifi-
cally on political cynicism, hypocrisy, and reliable role per-
formance (e.g., ‘‘Most repairmen will not overcharge even
if they think you are ignorant of their specialty’’), although
we think it is likely that using the entire scale would yield
similar results. Higher scores indicate greater interpersonal
trust.
The SDO scale included 8 items (Weber & Federico,
2007), such as ‘‘some groups of people are simply inferior
to others.’’ This widely used scale has been shown to relate
to a broad range of hierarchical ideologies, including political
conservatism, just-world beliefs, and nationalism—in addi-
tion to sexism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The short version
of the scale used here has shown good internal consistency
(a ¼ .83; Weber & Federico, 2007). Higher scores indicate
higher SDO.
Results
Table 1 displays the zero-order correlations among all study
variables. Our main hypotheses—that anxiously attached
women would exhibit ambivalence toward men (higher HM
and BM), whereas avoidant women would show only hostile
sexist attitudes toward men and reject benevolent ones
(higher HM, lower BM)—are most stringently tested using
partial correlations (e.g., the correlation between attachment
anxiety and BM controlling for attachment avoidance and
HM). As expected, attachment anxiety correlated positively
with HM, r(225) ¼ .18, p < .01, but its predicted correlation
with BM did not attain significance, r(225) ¼ .11, p ¼ .10.
Also as expected, avoidance correlated positively with HM,
r(225) ¼ .19, p < .01, and negatively with BM, r(225) ¼
.22, p < .01. Notably, SDO did not correlate with either
avoidance or HM, consistent with our prediction that it would
not mediate the avoidance ! HM link.
We next tested our complete model of the structural rela-
tions between attachment and sexism toward men, including
the hypothesized mediating variables of romanticism and
interpersonal trust and using structural equation modeling
(SEM; see Figure 1). For the measurement model, we used
the method described by Sibley, Wilson, and Duckitt
(2007) to create three parcels for each latent variable in the
model. To create the parcels, items from each measure were
randomly divided into three groups, using equivalent numbers
of reverse-scored items where possible. Items in each group
were averaged to create three parcels (or observed variables)
to load onto each latent variable in the model. (See Table 2 for
the factor loadings of the parcels that predict each latent
variable.) The model fit the data adequately, w2 ¼ 205.96, df
¼ 123, w2/df ¼ 1.67, root mean square of approximation
(RMSEA) ¼ .05, comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ .97. Together,
anxiety, avoidance, and trust explained 23% of the variance in
512 Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)

Figure 1. Structural equation model predicting women’s benevolence (BM) and hostility (HM) toward men from attachment anxiety and
avoidance for Studies 1 (top) and 2 (bottom). Dashed lines represent nonsignificant pathways.

HM, and anxiety, avoidance, and romanticism explained 27% Anxiety ! Romanticism ! BM
of the variance in BM. The SEM analysis supported all of the
Results supported our prediction that women’s romanticism
predicted links, with one exception: the avoidance ! trust
would mediate the positive anxiety ! BM link. Anxiety sig-
link. Although in the predicted direction, this relationship was
nificantly predicted the proposed mediator, romanticism, at
not significant (and we address this finding below).
.15 (p < .01), and in turn, the direct effect of romanticism on
Finally, we conducted direct tests of our mediational
BM was significant at .49 (p < .0001). The total effect of anxi-
hypotheses by following Preacher and Hayes’s (2004,
ety on BM was of .10 was not significant (p ¼ .10), and the
2008) recommendations. We ran mediation analyses using
direct link from anxiety to BM (.03) was also not significant
5,000 bootstrap samples and estimated bias-corrected and
(p ¼ .63). Despite the total effect of anxiety on BM being non-
accelerated 95% confidence intervals. When attachment
significant, the confidence interval for the indirect effect of
anxiety was the independent variable, we included avoidance
anxiety on BM via romanticism was .0222 to .1437, indicating
as a covariate (and vice versa); we also included both sexism
a significant test of mediation (because the confidence interval
dimensions in each analysis.
excludes zero).
Hart et al. 513

Table 2. Regression Weights (b) for the Parcels That Predict Each Discussion
Latent Variable.
Study 1 partially supported our central predictions that
Study 1 Study 2 women’s attachment anxiety would predict both hostility and
BM, whereas women’s attachment avoidance would predict
Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel Parcel
Variables 1 2 3 1 2 3 HM combined with lower benevolence. Specifically, we
found support for all but one predicted relationship: The anxi-
Anxiety .90* .91* .92* .91* .91* .94* ety ! BM relationship, although significant as a first-order
Avoidance .95* .96* .95* .98* .96* .94* correlation, was reduced to nonsignificance using the more
BM .69* .78* .84* .73* .77* .80* stringent partial correlation (controlling for the BM–HM rela-
HM .77* .78* .66* .81* .79* .65*
Romanticism .70* .84* .87* .67* .85* .96*
tionship). Our results also supported the hypotheses that
Trust .73* .66* .78* .72* .75* .86* lower interpersonal trust would mediate the links between
attachment avoidance and HM, whereas romanticism would
Note. BM ¼ benevolence toward men; HM ¼ hostility toward men. mediate the links between attachment and BM. However,
*p < .001.
controlling for trust did not significantly reduce the total
effect of anxiety on HM, in contrast to our tentative predic-
Avoidance ! Romanticism ! BM tion that trust would mediate the anxiety ! HM link in
addition to the avoidance ! HM link. Also unexpectedly,
Results also supported the prediction that rejecting romanti- we found that women’s avoidance predicted HM due to
cism would mediate the (negative) avoidance ! BM link. covariance with anxiety, suggesting that a general insecurity
Avoidance significantly predicted the proposed mediator, factor could explain that avoidance ! HM link. These last
romanticism, at .28 (p < .0001), and in turn, the direct effect two unexpected findings, along with our concerns about pos-
of romanticism on BM was significant at .49 (p < .0001). The sible testing effects, led us to conduct a replication study.
total effect of avoidance on BM was significant at .22 (p <
.001), and the direct effect was not significant at .08 (p ¼
.20). The confidence interval for the indirect effect of avoid-
ance on BM via romanticism was .2181 to .0706, indicat- Study 2
ing a significant test of mediation. Study 2 replicated Study 1, but with one important difference:
We transposed the questionnaires’ presentation order. Specif-
Anxiety ! Trust ! HM ically, instead of completing the ECR first, followed by the
AMI, participants in Study 2 completed those questionnaires
We hypothesized that women’s lower interpersonal trust in the reverse order. Additionally, we swapped the order of
would mediate the anxiety ! HM link. Anxiety significantly the trust and romanticism questionnaires. Changing the ques-
predicted the proposed mediator, trust, at .09 (p < .05), and tionnaire order allows us to test the possibility that the order
in turn, the direct effect of trust on HM was significant at may have contributed to Study 1’s specific pattern of
.36 (p < .0001). The total effect of anxiety on HM was findings. For example, it seems possible that filling out the
significant at .16 (p < .01), and the direct effect was signifi- attachment questionnaires could have primed romantic rela-
cant at .13 (p < .05). However, the confidence interval for the tionship schemas that then influenced attitudes toward men
indirect effect of anxiety on HM via trust was .0037 to in the predicted direction. Hence, Study 2 tested whether our
.0722, which did not reach the threshold for a significant findings would replicate, as well as whether they would hold
test of mediation. up given a different questionnaire order.

Avoidance ! Trust ! HM Participants and Procedure

We had predicted that avoidance would influence HM via
lower interpersonal trust. However, the significant zero-
order correlation between avoidance and trust did not trans-
late into a significant path between avoidance and trust in the
SEM. This suggested that covariance with another variable
might account for the influence of avoidance on trust. Indeed,
regression analyses revealed that the significant influence of
avoidance on trust was eliminated (p ¼ .10) when controlling
for attachment anxiety. Thus, we conclude that attachment
avoidance predicts lower interpersonal trust—and therefore
higher HM—in part due to common variance shared with
attachment anxiety.1
After excluding 26 women who self-identified as either les-
bian or ‘‘other,’’ participants were 273 women located in the
United States recruited through Mturk.com. Three partici-
pants were removed because they had participated in Study
1. The remaining participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 82
(Mdn ¼ 31). Most were Caucasian (203, 75.2%), with the rest
identifying as African American (27, 10.0%), Hispanic/
Latina (18, 6.7%), Asian American/Pacific Islander (15,
5.6%), Middle Eastern American (3, 1.1%), Native American
(1, 0.4%), ‘‘other’’ (1, 0.4%), or ‘‘more than one’’ (6, 2.2%).
(Percentages sum to more than 100 because participants were
allowed to select multiple options.) The materials and
514
procedure were identical to Study 1 except for the previously
noted change in the questionnaire order.
Results
Table 1 displays the zero-order correlations between the
study variables. As in Study 1, the lack of a significant corre-
lation between SDO and avoidance suggests that SDO did not
mediate the avoidance ! HM link (despite SDO correlating
positively with HM in Study 2). Also as in Study 1, the partial
correlations supported our main predictions concerning the
relation between attachment avoidance and both HM and
BM: r(266) ¼ .33, p < .001 and r(266) ¼ .32, p < .001,
respectively. Different from Study 1, neither of the partial
correlations between attachment anxiety and HM or BM were
significant: r(266) ¼ .06, p ¼ .36 and r(266) ¼ .08, p ¼ .17,
respectively. The discrepancy between the zero-order and
partial correlations in Study 2 suggests that the association
between attachment anxiety and each of the sexism dimen-
sions was due to shared variance between attachment anxiety
and the other sexism dimension. Thus, it seems that, in Study
2, women’s attachment anxiety predicted their HM in part
because of their BM—and vice versa.
To test our full model, we again used SEM (see Table 2
and Figure 1), applying the same parameters as in Study 1.
The model again fit the data adequately, w2 ¼ 241.07, df ¼
123, w2/df ¼ 1.96, RMSEA ¼ .06, CFI ¼ .97. Together,
anxiety, avoidance, and trust explained 13% of the variance
in HM; anxiety, avoidance, and romanticism explained
12% of the variance in BM.2 We also conducted mediation
analyses according to the same procedures described in rela-
tion to Study 1.
Anxiety ! Romanticism ! BM
Results replicated Study 1’s finding that romanticism signif-
icantly mediated the anxiety ! BM link. Anxiety signifi-
cantly predicted the proposed mediator, romanticism, at .15
(p < .001), and in turn, the direct effect of romanticism on
BM was significant at .30 (p < .0001). The total effect of anxi-
ety on BM was not significant at .07 (p ¼ .17), and the direct
effect was also not significant at .02 (p ¼ .67). Despite the
nonsignificant total effect, the confidence interval for the
indirect effect of anxiety on BM via romanticism indicated
a significant test of mediation (.0171 to .0926).
Avoidance ! Romanticism ! BM
As in Study 1, rejecting romanticism significantly mediated the
(negative) avoidance ! BM link. Avoidance significantly pre-
dicted the proposed mediator, romanticism, at .32 (p < .0001),
and in turn, the direct effect of romanticism on BM was signif-
icant at .30 (p < .0001). The total effect of avoidance on BM was
significant at .29 (p < .0001), and the direct effect was also
significant at .19 (p < .001). The confidence interval for the
Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)
indirect effect of avoidance on BM via romanticism was
.1626 to .0518, indicating a significant test of mediation.
Anxiety ! Trust ! HM
In Study 1, anxious women’s lower interpersonal trust did not
significantly mediate the anxiety ! HM link, but in Study 2,
it did. Anxiety significantly predicted the proposed mediator,
trust, at .15 (p < .0001), and in turn, the direct effect of trust
on HM was significant at .26 (p < .001). The total effect of
anxiety on HM was not significant at .04 (p ¼ .36), and the
direct effect was also not significant at .003 (p ¼ .95). Not-
withstanding the nonsignificant total effect of anxiety on
HM, the confidence interval for the indirect effect of anxiety
on HM via trust was .0140 to .0780, indicating a significant
test of mediation.
Avoidance ! Trust ! HM
Our hypothesis that avoidance would predict HM via lower
interpersonal trust—which received qualified support in
Study 1—was better supported by Study 2’s results. Avoid-
ance significantly predicted the proposed mediator, trust, at
.11 (p < .05), and in turn, the direct effect of trust on HM
was significant at .26 (p < .001). The total effect of avoidance
on HM was significant at .28 (p < .0001), and the direct effect
was also significant at .25 (p < .0001). The confidence inter-
val for the indirect effect of avoidance on HM via trust was
.0070 to .0585, indicating a significant test of mediation.
Discussion and Comparison of the Two
Studies
Study 2 provided additional data with which to evaluate our
theoretical model. As in Study 1, the model was generally
supported. The main exception was that neither the partial
correlations nor the total effects of attachment anxiety on
HM and BM were significant in Study 2, despite significant
zero-order correlations. That the relation between attachment
anxiety and sexism became attenuated when controlling for
other overlapping variables may suggest that the unique var-
iance in each sexism dimension explained by attachment
anxiety is relatively modest. However, even if anxiety
predicts shared variance between HM and BM, the basic pre-
diction holds: Anxiously attached women evince greater
ambivalence (higher HM and higher BM) toward men.
Further, the mediation analyses (anxiety ! romanticism !
BM and anxiety ! lower trust ! HM) were both significant
in Study 2. We note that according to current recommenda-
tions concerning mediation analyses, the significant indirect
effects trump the lack of significant total effects. For exam-
ple, Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, and Petty (2011) argue that:
Although there is value in testing the total effect of X on Y,
we propose that overemphasizing the X ! Y relationship
Hart et al.
before or after controlling for a mediator can lead to mislead-
ing, or even false, conclusions in theory testing . . . research-
ers interested in understanding intervening effects in
proposed theoretical models should shift attention to testing
the mediation effect itself and not constrain themselves by
placing undue emphasis on the significance of the X ! Y
relationship. (p. 360)
Moreover, Study 2 showed that the avoidance ! HM and
BM relations found in Study 1’s partial correlation results
were robust and reliable, and Study 2 was also consistent with
our theoretical model concerning the mediation of the avoid-
ance to sexism links (avoidance ! lower romanticism !
lower BM and avoidance ! lower trust ! HM).
Despite the overall consistency, there were two differ-
ences in mediational analyses across Studies 1 and 2. First,
the anxiety ! lower trust ! HM mediational path was sig-
nificant only in Study 2. It seems that the path may simply
be a weak one: All the constituent paths were significant in
Study 1 but the test of mediation did not reach significance;
Study 2 used a larger sample and found significant mediation.
Second, the avoidance ! lower trust ! HM path, significant
in Study 2, was nonsignificant in Study 1 when controlling
for attachment anxiety. We conclude that covariance between
attachment anxiety and avoidance and between HM and BM
may sometimes complicate interpretation of the unique
relations among them.
General Discussion
We have presented a theoretical model which proposes
attachment style as a potential personality antecedent to het-
erosexual women’s sexism toward men. We therefore
hypothesized that women’s attachment anxiety would predict
ambivalent sexism toward men (higher HM and BM),
whereas their avoidance would predict univalent hostile sex-
ism (higher HM, lower BM). Results of the two studies were
generally consistent with these hypotheses. In particular, the
links between avoidance and sexism were robust across both
studies. However, the links between attachment anxiety and
each sexism dimension were attenuated when controlling for
avoidance and/or the other sexism dimension, suggesting that
these links are comparatively weak.
The two studies also generally (but not completely) sup-
ported our model’s mediational predictions: Compared to
women lower in attachment anxiety, anxiously attached
women tended to idealize romance (Studies 1 and 2), which
accounted for their endorsement of benevolently sexist atti-
tudes toward men (Studies 1 and 2), but they also tended to
generally distrust others (Studies 1 and 2), which accounted
for their endorsement of hostile sexist attitudes toward men
(Study 2 only). By contrast, compared to women lower in
attachment avoidance, avoidantly attached women tended
to reject romanticism (Studies 1 and 2), which accounted for
their rejection of BM (Studies 1 and 2); yet, like anxious
515
women, their lower interpersonal trust (Studies 1 and 2)
accounted for their endorsement of HM (Study 2 only).
Importantly, the relations between the variables measured
in our studies are complex enough—anxiety and avoidance
predict HM in the same manner but have opposite relations
to BM—that they cannot be parsimoniously explained by
response biases, which should mitigate concerns about the
use of self-report methodology.
Although caution is warranted regarding the findings that
were inconsistent across studies, taken together, these and
earlier findings (Hart et al., 2012) are consistent with the view
that sexism may be partly derived from social beliefs and
attitudes that arise from attachment working models. Of
course, our use of correlational methodology restricts causal
inferences, but our findings agree with theoretical models
positing that just as sexism toward men and women share
structural similarities, they share some antecedents. Broadly
speaking, different patterns of sexism may be predisposed
by different attachment insecurities: Individuals’ attachment
anxiety and avoidance in adult romantic relationships lead
them to develop worldviews that predispose them to adopt
or reject benevolent and/or hostile sexist attitudes toward
members of the other sex.
However, important nuances distinguish between men’s
and women’s attitudes toward the other sex. Whereas SDO
mediates the link between men’s attachment avoidance and
hostile sexism toward women (Hart et al., 2012), it does not
mediate women’s hostile sexism toward men. We have sug-
gested that this difference reflects asymmetry in power, with
men’s hostility toward women protecting men’s power and
privilege (as social dominance beliefs do), whereas women’s
HM reflects lack of power relative to men. Instead, the pres-
ent study revealed that women’s HM is related partly to (lack
of) interpersonal trust. Trust represents a more interpersonal
(as opposed to intergroup) attitudinal mediator, which was
not investigated in prior work on men’s sexism toward
women (Hart et al., 2012). We can therefore only speculate
about trust’s potential role in men’s attitudes. However, given
the competitive themes in the hostile sexism scale (e.g.,
‘‘Feminists are seeking for women to have more power than
men’’ or ‘‘Women are too easily offended’’; Glick & Fiske,
1996), interpersonal trust seems a likely mediator between
men’s attachment insecurity and hostile sexism.
Limitations
The present study was limited in some ways. Most notably,
our correlational design precludes confident causal conclu-
sions. Specifically, plausible alternative causal models may
be compatible with our data; for example, attachment anxiety
and avoidance could have direct causal influence on sexist
ideologies, which in turn influence romanticism and interper-
sonal trust (flipping our proposed mediators and dependent
variables). Indeed, we conducted exploratory analyses of
alternative models testing sexism (HM and BM) as mediating
516
links from attachment to romanticism and trust, and we found
that they were significant in three of the four analyses for
Study 1 and two of the four analyses for Study 2. Although
such bidirectional mediation is not uncommon, it underscores
the need for caution in drawing directional conclusions from
mediation analyses (we note that similar caution is warranted
even in experimental studies employing mediation analysis;
see Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005).
However, consistent with our preferred interpretation,
prior research and theory suggest that stable attachment styles
develop quite early in life (Bowlby, 1982), before children
are even aware that they belong to stable social groups (i.e.,
before gender constancy develops; see Lutz & Ruble,
1995). Furthermore, some experimental work shows that
priming attachment security changes ideology, including
values and intergroup attitudes (Mikulincer et al., 2003;
Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001). Similarly, theorists propose that
general intergroup ideologies precede rather than follow the
development of attitudes toward specific groups. For exam-
ple, in his dual process model of ideology and prejudice,
Duckitt (2001) argues that general intergroup ideologies
(e.g., SDO) precede and influence more specific intergroup
attitudes (e.g., racism or sexism). Further, a longitudinal
study by Sibley et al. (2007) supported this view when
predicting men’s hostile and benevolent sexism toward
women. Specifically, after controlling for baseline levels of
all variables, general intergroup ideologies (right-wing
authoritarianism and SDO) predicted changes over time in
men’s sexist beliefs. Nevertheless, alternative models (e.g.,
with reciprocal causal paths) remain plausible until they are
disconfirmed, so longitudinal or experimental studies would
be useful to help verify the causal model we have posited.
Another caveat that bears mentioning is that some of our
results changed depending on which variables were included
in analyses. For example, in Study 1, the avoidance ! trust
link became nonsignificant when anxiety was controlled.
Although this was not true in Study 2, and the test for media-
tion in Study 1 was significant despite the nonsignificant
effect of avoidance on trust, it is possible that a general
‘‘attachment insecurity’’ factor may account for much of the
relation between avoidance and HM via lower interpersonal
trust, with avoidance explaining little additional (unique) var-
iance. Similarly, in Study 2 (but not in Study 1), attachment
anxiety’s correlation with HM became nonsignificant when
controlling for BM, and vice versa. To our knowledge, there
is no research that addresses the nature of the shared variance
between anxiety and avoidance, or between HM and BM,
respectively (research instead focuses on the unique individ-
ual properties of the two insecurity and sexism dimensions),
so it is difficult to interpret these findings. This may suggest
an area for additional research.
Finally, it should be noted that we do not know the extent
to which the present results can be generalized. For example,
although we think our analysis is likely to apply across
cultures, additional research will be necessary to examine the
Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)
possibility that the model we have described is moderated by
ethnicity or other demographic factors.
Theoretical Implications
We hope the present research will prove useful to attachment
and other personality and social psychology theorists. Even
though causality is uncertain for our findings, they agree with
a large literature depicting attachment style as a personality
predictor of many psychological outcomes. That is, attach-
ment does not simply relate to individuals’ close relation-
ships; rather, it broadly relates to patterns of thought,
feeling, and behavior across many domains over the life span.
These ‘‘downstream’’ processes suggest a kind of coherence
to psychological functioning in which seemingly disparate
processes actually operate in accord—for instance, as a result
of a more fundamental motivational process. In an example
from the present study, attachment anxiety, which reflects
operations directed at maintaining feelings of security, relates
to beliefs (i.e., romanticism) and, in turn, attitudes (i.e., BM)
that reflect or resonate the underlying dynamic. In this way,
women’s benevolent attitudes toward men could be construed
as oriented toward augmenting a romantic worldview that func-
tions to counteract attachment insecurities. Such ‘‘motivated
social cognition’’ (Kruglanski, 1996) appears to be ubiquitous
and may well represent a basic principle of psychological
functioning.
In a similar vein, there may be other personality traits or
processes beside attachment that contribute to sexism in
analogous ways. If sexism is a general response to, or com-
pensation for, underlying insecurities, then perhaps other
forms of dispositional insecurity, such as lower self-esteem,
intolerance of uncertainty, or death anxiety may also play a
role (cf. Hart et al., 2005; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sullo-
way, 2003).
Practice Implications
For researchers interested in how sexist beliefs and attitudes
influence romantic relationship outcomes, our findings sug-
gest teasing out attachment style’s influence. Attachment
style likely influences relationship outcomes directly, but our
research suggests that it may also predict outcomes via
ideologies such as sexism, which has recently been found
to predict romantic relationship dynamics (Overall, Sibley,
& Tan, 2011).
Therapists, particularly marital counselors, may find the
implications for romantic relationships to be of particular
interest. Attachment insecurities, of course, have long been
known to predict conflict and instability in relationships. The
current research adds insight into how attachment insecurity
translates into more generalized sexist ideologies. Such ideol-
ogies can, in turn, influence the types of men to whom women
are attracted (Montañés, de Lemus, Moya, Bohner, & Megı́a,
2013; Sibley & Overall, 2011) and desire for men to ‘‘take
Hart et al.
charge’’ in at least some aspects of their romantic relation-
ships (Sarlet, Dumont, Delacollete, & Dardenne, 2012). More
broadly, sexist ideologies can lead women to unconsciously
justify and tolerate inequalities (whether in relationships or
life more generally; Connelly & Heesacker, 2012) that they
might resist or seek to change if they more carefully reflected
on these beliefs. Therapists could explore, within the context
of psychoeducational interventions, how clients’ attachment
insecurities and sexist beliefs might be linked in their past and
current relationships and life choices.
Conclusion
To our knowledge, ours is the first research to closely exam-
ine personality correlates of women’s sexism toward men. In
general, research on sexism has neglected questions about
personality, instead focusing on ideological correlates of
sexism. But if ideology is partly a function of personality,
it is important for researchers to explore the distal roots of
sexism and to piece together comprehensive models of its
antecedents. Not only will such lines of inquiry open up new
possibilities for interventions aiming to reduce sexism, and to
understand and ameliorate related romantic relationship
problems, but they will also help theorists understand more
about the psychodynamic interplay between emotion and
cognition as well as trace the processes leading from personal
and interpersonal precursors to ideological outcomes. We
hope the present research will inspire additional investiga-
tions of the theoretical model we have articulated.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) declared the following financial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research
was supported in part by an internal faculty research grant from
Union College.
Notes
1. Although we did not predict interactions between anxiety and
avoidance, exploratory analyses showed an interaction (p ¼ .03)
on hostility toward men (HM), such that secure attachment (lower
anxiety and avoidance) predicted the lowest HM compared to the
other attachment styles. This interaction did not replicate in Study
2, so we do not interpret it further.
2. We speculate that the reduced variance explained in Study 2
compared to Study 1 may be attributable to our rearranged ques-
tionnaire order.
References
Anderson, K. J., Kanner, M., & Elsayegh, N. (2009). Are feminists
man haters? Feminists’ and nonfeminists’ attitudes toward men.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 216–224.
517
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report mea-
surement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview.
In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and
close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Transference and attach-
ment: How do attachment patterns get carried forward from one
relationship to the next? Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32, 552–560.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s
mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-
quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
Chun, K., & Cambell, J. B. (1974). Dimensionality of the Rotter
interpersonal trust scale. Psychological Reports, 35, 1059–1070.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trust-
worthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their
unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.
Connelly, K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Why is benevolent sexism
appealing?: Associations with system justification and life satis-
faction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 432–443.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and
competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The
stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40,
pp. 61–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of
ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Feather, N. T. (2004). Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes
toward gender relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 30, 3–12.
Feeney, B. C., Cassidy, J., & Ramos-Marcuse, F. (2008). The general-
ization of attachment representations to new social situations: Pre-
dicting behavior during initial interactions with strangers. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1481–1498.
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). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp.
115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato,
C., . . . Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes
toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.
Glick, P., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Hostility toward men and the
perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41,
177–185.
Hart, J., Hung, J. A., Glick, P., & Dinero, R. E. (2012). He loves her,
he loves her not: Attachment style as a personality antecedent to
men’s ambivalent sexism. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 38, 1495–1505.
518
Hart, J., Shaver, P. R., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2005). Attachment,
self-esteem, worldviews, and terror management: Evidence for
a tripartite security system. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 999–1013.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as
an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational
framework for research on close relationships. Psychological
Inquiry, 5, 1–22.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system
justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and
unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology,
25, 881–919.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003).
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Principles of
the interface. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 493–520). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lutz, S. E., & Ruble, D. N. (1995). Children and gender prejudice:
Context, motivation, and the development of gender concep-
tions. Annals of Child Development, 10, 131–166.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Sapir-Lavid, Y., Yaakobi, E., Arias, K.,
Tal-Aloni, L., . . . Bor, G. (2003). Attachment theory and
concern for others’ welfare: Evidence that activation of the sense
of secure base promotes endorsement of self-transcendence
values. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 299–312.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and
intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema
attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 81, 97–115.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral
system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interper-
sonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). New York, NY: Aca-
demic Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood:
Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Montañés, P., de Lemus, S., Moya, M., Bohner, G., & Megı́as, J. L.
(2013). How attractive are sexist intimates to adolescents?
The influence of sexist beliefs and relationship experience.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 494–506.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)
Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. (2011). The costs and
benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship
conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101,
271–290.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures
for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Beha-
vior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multi-
ple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Rotter, J. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal
trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.
Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011).
Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and
new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 5, 359–371.
Sarlet, M., Dumont, M., Delacollette, N., & Dardenne, B. (2012).
Prescription of protective paternalism for men in romantic and
work contexts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 444–457.
Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2011). A dual process motivational
model of ambivalent sexism and gender differences in romantic
partner preferences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35,
303–317.
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of
men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social
dominance orientation and ring-wing authoritarianism. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup
theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007).
Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions in
adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 355–367.
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a
causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than
mediational analyses in examining psychological processes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.
Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the ‘Romantic
Beliefs Scale’ and examination of the effects of gender and
gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-
tionships, 6, 387–411.
Weber, C., & Federico, C. M. (2007). Interpersonal attachment and
patterns of ideological belief. Political Psychology, 28, 289–416.
Copyright of Psychology of Women Quarterly is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.