Advertisement

Sex Roles

, 65:332 | Cite as

Why are Benevolent Sexists Happier?

  • Matthew D. Hammond
  • Chris G. Sibley
Original Article
First Online:

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.

Keywords

Benevolent Sexism Gender-specific system justification Life Satisfaction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

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.

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. United Nations Development Programme (2009). Human Development Report 2009. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/
  41. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options