Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Why are Benevolent Sexists Happier?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research indicates that the endorsement of sexist ideology is linked to higher subjective wellbeing for both men and women. We examine gender differences in the rationalisations which drive this effect in an egalitarian nation (New Zealand). Results from a nationally representative sample (N = 6,100) indicated that the endorsement of Benevolent Sexism (BS) predicted life satisfaction through different mechanisms for men and women. For men, BS was directly associated with life satisfaction. For women, the palliative effect of BS was indirect and occurred because BS-ideology positioning women as deserving of men’s adoration and protection was linked to general perceptions of gender relations as fair and equitable, which in turn predicted greater levels of life satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1002/ejsp.270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohner, G., Ahlborn, K., & Steiner, R. (2010). How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response profiles in the ambivalent sexism inventory. Sex Roles, 62, 568–582. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., & Dardenne, B. (2010). Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel incompetent: Benevolent sexism shifts self-construal and autobiographical memories toward incompetence. Sex Roles, 62, 545–553. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9582-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001a). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.2.109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001b). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). Thousand Oaks: Academic. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.

  • 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. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: Effects on marital quality. Social Forces, 74, 1029–1042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153. doi:10.1080/10463280240000046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36. doi:10.1002/ejsp.127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Wakslak, C., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). System justification theory and the alleviation of emotional distress: Palliative effects of ideology in an arbitrary social hierarchy and in society. In K. Hegtvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Justice: Advances in group processes (Vol. 25, pp. 181–211). Bingley: JAI/Emerald.

  • Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., et al. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–434. doi:10.1037/a0015997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 16489–16493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333–352. doi:10.1023/A:1018814924402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2002). Divison of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 27–39. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00027.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage university paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, Series No. 07–106. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • 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 Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1421–1434. doi:10.1177/0146167207304790.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19, 565–572. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., & Jost, J. T. (2010). The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being. Sex Roles, 62, 405–419. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. (in press). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0022727.

  • Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). The New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2009: Sampling procedure and technical details. Unpublished technical report, The University of Auckland. Retrieved from http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/new-zealand-attitudes-and-values-study

  • Salmond, C., Crampton, P., & Atkinson, J. (2007). NZDep2006 Index of Deprivation. Wellington: Department of Public Health. Retrieved from http://www.uow.otago.ac.nz/academic/dph/research/socioeconomicdeprivation.html

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel-Lifschitz, T. (2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: Effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 171–185. doi:10.1037/a0015546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687–696. doi:10.1007/s11199-004-0718-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C. G., & Perry, R. (2010). An opposing process model of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 438–452. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9705-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1177/0361684311401838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 57, 743–754. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9306-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172. doi:10.1177/0146167206294745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., Duckitt, J., Perry, R., Milfont, T. L., Khan, S. S., et al. (2009). Your sexism predicts my sexism: Perceptions of men’s (but not women’s) sexism affects one’s own sexism over time. Sex Roles, 60, 682–693. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9554-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme (2009). Human Development Report 2009. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/

  • Wakslak, C. J., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. S. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267–274. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01887.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is based on Matthew Hammond’s honours dissertation supervised by Chris Sibley. We thank the Friday Morning Social Psych Research and Coffee Group for constructive feedback on this manuscript. Collection of the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study 2009 (NZAVS-09) data analyzed in this paper was funded by University of Auckland FRDF (#3624435/9853) and ECREA (#3626075) grants awarded to Chris Sibley.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris G. Sibley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hammond, M.D., Sibley, C.G. Why are Benevolent Sexists Happier?. Sex Roles 65, 332–343 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0017-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0017-2

Keywords

Navigation