It's for Your Own Good: Benevolent Sexism and Women's Reactions to Protectively Justified Restrictions

Abstract

Three studies examined women's reactions to ostensibly protective restrictions. In Study 1, only benevolently sexist women accepted a protectively justified (hypothetical) prohibition against driving on a long trip, but only when imposed by a husband (not a coworker). In Study 2, when women's actual romantic partners opposed their participation in a practicum counseling dangerous men, most reacted positively to a personalized protective justification (“I am concerned for your safety”), but only benevolently sexist women reacted positively when no justification was given. In Study 3, only benevolently sexist women accepted an explicitly group-based protective justification (“It is not safe for any woman”) for a partner's imagined opposition to an internship that involved interviewing criminals. By fusing benevolence with dominance, protective paternalism can lead women (especially those who are high on benevolent sexism) to accept restrictions.

Keywords

paternalism discrimination benevolent sexism close relationships

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aiken, L.S. , & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

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.

Clark, M.S. , & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37, 12-24.

Clark, M.S. , & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 19, 684-691.

Crocker, J. , Voelkl, K. , Testa, M. , & Major, B. (1991). Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218-228.

Expósito, F. , Moya, M. , & Glick P. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlates [Ambivalent sexism: Measurement and correlations]. Revista de Psicología Social, 13(2), 159-169.

Fiske, S.T. , Cuddy, A.J.C. , & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77-83.

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. (1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536.

10.

Glick, P. , & Fiske, S.T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115-188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

11.

Glick, P. , Fiske, S.T. , Mladinic, A. , Saiz, J. , 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.

12.

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.

13.

Greenwood, D. , & Isbell, L.M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and the dumb blonde: Men's and women's reactions to sexist jokes. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 26, 341-350.

14.

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

15.

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.

16.

Kilianski, S.E. , & Rudman, L.A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333-352.

17.

Major, B. , Gramzow, R.H. , McCoy, S. , Levin, S. , Schmader, T. , & Sidanius, S. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 269-282.

18.

Padavic, I. , & Reskin, B. (2002). Women and men at work (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .

19.

Sears, D.O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 233-250.

20.

Snyder, M. , & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds). Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 883-947). New York: Random House.

21.

VanDeVeer, D. (1986). Paternalistic intervention: The moral bounds of benevolence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

22.

Vescio, T.K. , Gervais, S.J. , Snyder, M. , & Hoover, A. (2005). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 658-672.