We tested the novel hypothesis that men lower in status-linked variables—that is, subjective social status and perceived mate value—are relatively disinclined to offset their high hostile sexism with high benevolent sexism. Findings revealed that mate value, but not social status, moderates the hostile–benevolent sexism link among men: Whereas men high in perceived mate value endorse hostile and benevolent sexism linearly across the attitude range, men low in mate value show curvilinear sexism, characterized by declining benevolence as hostility increases above the midpoint. Study 1 (N = 15,205) establishes the curvilinear sexism effect and shows that it is stronger among men than women. Studies 2 (N = 328) and 3 (N = 471) show that the curve is stronger among men low versus high in perceived mate value, and especially if they lack a serious relationship partner (Study 3). Discussion considers the relevance of these findings for understanding misogyny.
AdlerN.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
2.
BaumeisterR. F. (2007, August). Is there anything good about men?Invited Address presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA, United States.
3.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615
4.
BredowC. A.HustonT. L.GlennN. D. (2011). Market value, quality of the pool of potential mates, and singles’ confidence about marrying. Personal Relationships, 18, 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01302.x
5.
BrownD. E. (1991). Human universals. Temple University Press.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.FoulshamT.KingstoneA.HenrichJ. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030398
8.
CohenP.CohenJ.AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1999). The problem of units and the circumstances for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 315–346. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_2
9.
ColbowA. J.CannellaE.VispoelW.MorrisC. A.CederbergC.ConradM.. . . LiuW. M. (2016). Development of the Classism Attitudinal Profile (CAP). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(5), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000169
10.
CundiffJ. M.MatthewsK. A. (2017). Is subjective social status a unique correlate of physical health? A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 36, 1109–1125. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000534
11.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015914
12.
DawsonJ. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
13.
DebrayT. P.MoonsK. G.AhmedI.KoffijbergH.RileyR. D. (2013). A framework for developing, implementing, and evaluating clinical prediction models in an individual participant data meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 32, 3158–3180. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5732
14.
DiemerM. A.MistryR. S.WadsworthM. E.LópezI.ReimersF. (2013). Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 77–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12001
15.
DixsonB. J.VaseyP. L. (2012). Beards augment perceptions of men’s age, social status, and aggressiveness, but not attractiveness. Behavioral Ecology, 23, 481–490. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr214
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
17.
FisherM. I.CoxA.BennettS.GavricD. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099347
18.
FisherM. I.HammondM. D. (2019). Personal ties and prejudice: A meta-analysis of romantic attachment and ambivalent sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1084–1098.
19.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
20.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x
21.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
22.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.. . . López-LópezW. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763
23.
GlickP.WhiteheadJ. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41, 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a00025
24.
GoodwinR.MarshallT.FülöpM.AdonuJ.SpiewakS.NetoF.PlazaS. H. (2012). Mate value and self-esteem: Evidence from eight cultural groups. PLOS ONE, 7(4), Article e36106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036106
25.
GuttentagM.SecordP. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. SAGE.
26.
HammondM. D.MilojevP.HuangY.SibleyC. G. (2018). Benevolent sexism and hostile sexism across the ages. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617727588
27.
HammondM. D.OverallN. C. (2017). Dynamics within intimate relationships and the causes, consequences, and functions of sexist attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416686213
28.
HammondM. D.OverallN. C.CrossE. J. (2016). Internalizing sexism within close relationships: Perceptions of intimate partners’ benevolent sexism promote women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 214–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000043
29.
HartJ.HungJ. A.GlickP.DineroR. 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(11), 1495–1505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212454177
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
32.
JackmanM. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. University of California Press.
33.
JakiS.SmedtT. D.GwózdzM.PanchalR.RossaA.De PauwG. (2019). Online hatred of women in the incels.me forum: Linguistic analysis and automatic detection. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7, 240–268. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00026.jak
34.
JorgensenT. D.PornprasertmanitS.MillerP.SchoemannA. (2018). simsem: SIMulated structural equation modeling [Computer software manual]. R package Version 0.5–1.4 https://cran.r-project.org/package=simsem
35.
JostJ.HunyadyO. (2003). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 111–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000046
36.
KrausM.PiffP. K.KeltnerD. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016357
37.
LeeI.PrattoF.JohnsonB. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 1029–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025410
38.
LiJ. C. H. (2018). Curvilinear moderation—A more complete examination of moderation effects in behavioral sciences. Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 4, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fams.2018.00007
39.
MillerJ. W.StromeyerW. R.SchwietermanM. A. (2013). Extensions of the Johnson-Neyman technique to linear models with curvilinear effects: Derivations and analytical tools. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 267–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2013.763567
40.
MillerL. C.FishkinS. A. (1997). On the dynamics of human bonding and reproductive success: Seeking windows on the adapted-for human-environmental interface. In SimpsonJ. A.KenrickD. T. (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 197–236). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
OverallN. C.SibleyC. G.TanR. (2011). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022727
43.
PekJ.HoyleR. H. (2016). On the (in) validity of tests of simple mediation: Threats and solutions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(3), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12237
44.
PenkeL.DenissenJ. J. (2008). Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent shifts in the attunement of self-esteem to self-perceived mate value: Hints to an adaptive mechanism?Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1123–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.003
45.
PituchK. A.StevensJ. P. (2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. Routledge.
46.
RidgewayC. L.NakagawaS. (2015). Status. In McLeodJ. D.LawlerE. J.SchwalbeM. (Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality (pp. 3–25). Springer Science + Business Media.
47.
RobbK.SimonA.WardleJ. (2009). Socioeconomic disparities in optimism and pessimism. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 331–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-008-9018-0
48.
RudmanL. A.GoodwinS. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 494–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494
49.
SibleyC. G.BeckerJ. C. (2012). On the nature of sexist ambivalence: Profiling ambivalent and univalent sexists. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 589–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1870
50.
SibleyC. G.OverallN. C.DuckittJ. (2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 57(9–10), 743–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9306-1
51.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
52.
SimonsohnU. (2018). Two lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918805755
53.
Singh-ManouxA.AdlerN. E.MarmotM. G. (2003). Subjective social status: Its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1321–1333. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00131-4
54.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. 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(6), 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845
55.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
56.
WatkinsP. C.WoodwardK.StoneT.KoltsR. L. (2003). Gratitude and happiness: Development of a measure of gratitude, and relationships with subjective well-being. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(5), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.5.431
57.
WestB.WelchK. B.GaleckiA. (2007). Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
58.
WilsonM.DalyM. (1992). The man who mistook his wife for a chattel. In BarkowJ.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 289–322). Oxford University Press.
59.
WolffL. S.Acevedo-GarciaD.SubramanianS. V.WeberD.KawachiI. (2010). Subjective social status, a new measure in health disparities research: Do race/ethnicity and choice of referent group matter?Journal of Health Psychology, 15(4), 560–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309354345
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.
