Although Benevolent Sexism (BS)—an ideology that highly reveres women who conform to traditional gender roles—is cloaked in a superficially positive tone, being placed upon a pedestal is inherently restrictive. Accordingly, because the paternalistic beliefs associated with BS are based on the idealization of traditional gender roles (which include motherhood), BS should predict people’s attitudes toward women’s reproductive rights. Using data from a nationwide longitudinal panel study (N = 12,299), Study 1 showed that BS (but not Hostile Sexism) had cross-lagged effects on opposition to both elective and traumatic abortion. Study 2 (N = 309) extended these findings by showing that the relationship between BS and support for abortion was fully mediated by attitudes toward motherhood. These results highlight the pernicious nature of BS by demonstrating that the idealization of women—and motherhood, in particular—comes at a substantial cost (namely, the restriction of women’s reproductive rights).
AckerM. (2009). Breast is best . . . but not everywhere: Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward private and public breastfeeding. Sex Roles, 61, 476-490. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9655-z
2.
AdebayoA. (1990). Male attitudes toward abortion: An analysis of urban survey data. Social Indicators Research, 22, 213-228. doi:10.1007/BF00354841
3.
AgostinoM. B.WahlbergV. (1991). Adolescents’ attitudes to abortion in samples from Italy and Sweden. Social Science & Medicine, 33, 77-82. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(91)90458-O
4.
AlsupR.GillespieD. F. (1997). Stability of attitudes toward abortion and sex roles: A two-factor measurement model at two points in time. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 338-352. doi:10.1080/10705519709540080
5.
AlvarezR. M.BrehmJ. (1995). American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1055-1082. doi:10.2307/2111669
6.
BahrS. J.MarcosA. C. (2003). Cross-cultural attitudes toward abortion: Greeks versus Americans. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 402-424. doi:10.1177/0192513X02250892
7.
BarretoM.EllemersN. (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
8.
BeckerJ. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles, 62, 453-467. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9707-4
9.
BegunS.WallsN. E. (2015). Pedestal or gutter: Exploring ambivalent sexism’s relationship with abortion attitudes. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 30, 200-215. doi:10.1177/0886109914555216
10.
BeninM. H. (1985). Determinants of opposition to abortion: An analysis of the hard and soft scales. Sociological Perspectives, 28, 199-216. doi:10.2307/1389057
11.
BrescollV. L.UhlmannE. L. (2005). Attitudes toward traditional and nontraditional parents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 436-445. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00244.x
12.
ChrislerJ. C.GormanJ. A.MarvánM. L.Johnston-RobledoI. (2013). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women in different stages of reproductive life: A semantic, cross-cultural approach. Health Care for Women International, 35, 634-657. doi:10.1080/07399332.2012.740113
13.
CookE. A.JelenT. G.WilcoxC. (1992). Between two absolutes: Public opinion and the politics of abortion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
14.
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
15.
CraigS. C.KaneJ. G.MartinezM. D. (2002). Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don’t: Citizens’ ambivalence about abortion. Political Psychology, 23, 285-301. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00282
16.
EbaughH. R. F.HaneyC. A. (1980). Shifts in abortion attitudes: 1972-1978. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 491-499. doi:10.2307/351894
17.
EllisonC. G.EchevarriaS.SmithB. (2005). Religion and abortion attitudes among U.S. Hispanics: Findings from the 1990 Latino National Political Survey. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 192-208. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00298.x
18.
EndersC. K.BandalosD. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 430-457. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
19.
EspositoC. L.BasowS. A. (1995). College students’ attitudes toward abortion: The role of knowledge and demographic variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1996-2017. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01828.x
20.
EtaughC.FolgerD. (1998). Perceptions of parents whose work and parenting behaviors deviate from role expectations. Sex Roles, 39, 215-223. doi:10.1023/A:1018850404838
21.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
FinlayB. A. (1981). Sex differences in correlates of abortion attitudes among college students. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 571-582. doi:10.2307/351758
23.
FischerA. R. (2006). Women’s benevolent sexism as reaction to hostility. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 410-416. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00316.x
24.
FraserG.OsborneD.SibleyC. G. (2015). “We want you in the workplace, but only in a skirt!” Social Dominance Orientation, gender-based affirmative action and the moderating role of Benevolent Sexism. Sex Roles, 73, 231-244. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0515-8
25.
GayD.LynxwilerJ. (1999). The impact of religiosity on race variations in abortion attitudes. Sociological Spectrum, 19, 359-377. doi:10.1080/027321799280190
26.
GillespieM. W.Ten VergertE. M.KingmaJ. (1988). Secular trends in abortion attitudes: 1975-1980-1985. The Journal of Psychology, 122, 323-341. doi:10.1080/00223980.1988.9915520
27.
GlickP.DieboldJ.Bailey-WernerB.ZhuL. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323-1334. doi:10.1177/01461672972312009
28.
GlickP.FiskeS. 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
29.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). 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
30.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.. . . LopezW. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
31.
Hare-MustinR. T.BennettS. K.BroderickP. C. (1983). Attitude toward motherhood: Gender, generational, and religious comparisons. Sex Roles, 9, 643-661. doi:10.1007/BF00290071
32.
Hare-MustinR. T.BroderickP. C. (1979). The myth of motherhood: A study of attitudes toward motherhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 114-128. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1979.tb00702.x
33.
HeblM. R.KingE. B.GlickP.SingletaryS. L.KazamaS. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1499-1511. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1499
34.
HessJ. A.RuebJ. D. (2005). Attitudes toward abortion, religion, and party affiliation among college students. Current Psychology, 24, 24-42. doi:10.1007/s12144-005-1002-0
35.
HoltonS.FisherJ.RoweH. (2009). Attitudes toward women and motherhood: Their role in Australian women’s childbearing behaviour. Sex Roles, 61, 677-687. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9659-8
36.
HuL.-T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
37.
HuangY.OsborneD.SibleyC. G.DaviesP. G. (2014). The precious vessel: Ambivalent sexism and opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Sex Roles, 71, 436-449. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0423-3
38.
JackmanM. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
39.
JelenT. G.WilcoxC. (1997). Attitudes toward abortion in Poland and the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 907-921.
40.
JostJ. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651-670. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.651
41.
KrishnanV. (1991). Abortion in Canada: Religious and ideological dimensions of women’s attitudes. Biodemography and Social Biology, 38, 249-257. doi:10.1080/19485565.1991.9988792
42.
MacCallumR. C.RoznowskiM.NecowitzL. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490-504. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490
MurphyA. O.SuttonR. M.DouglasK. M.McClellanL. M. (2011). Ambivalent sexism and the “do”s and “don’t”s of pregnancy: Examining attitudes toward proscriptions and the women who flout them. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 812-816. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.031
45.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
46.
OsborneD.DaviesP. G. (2009). Social dominance orientation, ambivalent sexism, and abortion: Explaining pro-choice and pro-life attitudes. In PalcroftL. B.LopezM. V. (Eds.), Personality assessment: New research (pp. 309-320). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
47.
OsborneD.DaviesP. G. (2012). When benevolence backfires: Benevolent sexists’ opposition to elective and traumatic abortion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 291-307. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00890.x
48.
PatelC. J.JohnsL. (2009). Gender role attitudes and attitudes to abortion: Are there gender differences?The Social Science Journal, 46, 493-505. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2009.02.006
49.
PatelC. J.KooverjeeT. (2009). Abortion and contraception: Attitudes of South African university students. Health Care for Women International, 30, 550-568. doi:10.1080/07399330902886105
50.
PrattoF.StallworthL. M.Conway-LanzS. (1998). Social dominance orientation and the ideological legitimization of social policy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1853-1875. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01349.x
51.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
52.
RiedleJ. E. (1991). Exploring the subcategories of stereotypes: Not all mothers are the same. Sex Roles, 24, 711-723. doi:10.1007/BF00288208
53.
RussoN. F. (1976). The motherhood mandate. Journal of the Social Sciences, 32, 143-153. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02603.x
54.
SaharG.KarasawaK. (2005). Is the personal always political? A cross-cultural analysis of abortion attitudes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 285-296. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2704_1
55.
SibleyC. G.WilsonM. 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
56.
SmithT. W.MarsdenP. V.HoutM.KimJ. (2011). General Social Surveys, 1972-2010: Cumulative codebook. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.
57.
StricklerJ.DanigelisN. L. (2002). Changing frameworks in attitudes toward abortion. Sociological Forum, 17, 187-201. doi:10.1023/A:1016033012225
58.
SuttonR. M.DouglasK. M.McClellanL. M. (2011). Benevolent sexism, perceived health risks, and the inclination to restrict pregnant women’s freedoms. Sex Roles, 65, 596-605. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9869-0
59.
WallS. N.FriezeI. H.FerligojA.JarosovaE.PauknerovaD.HorvatJ.SarlijaN. (1999). Gender role and religion as predictors of attitude toward abortion in Croatia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 443-465. doi:10.1177/0022022199030004004
60.
ZuckerG. S. (1999). Attributional and symbolic predictors of abortion attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1218-1245. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02037.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
