Curvilinear Sexism and Its Links to Men’s Perceived Mate Value

Abstract

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.

Keywords

hostile sexism benevolent sexism ambivalent sexism social status mate value

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adler

Epel

E. S.

Castellazzo

Ickovics

J. 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

Baumeister

R. 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.

Becker

J. C.

Wright

(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

Bredow

C. A.

Huston

T. L.

Glenn

N. 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

Brown

D. E.

(1991). Human universals. Temple University Press.

Buss

D. M.

Barnes

(1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559

Cheng

J. T.

Tracy

J. L.

Foulsham

Kingstone

Henrich

(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

Cohen

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1999). The problem of units and the circumstances for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 315–346. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_2

Colbow

A. J.

Cannella

Vispoel

Morris

C. A.

Cederberg

Conrad

. . . Liu

W. M.

(2016). Development of the Classism Attitudinal Profile (CAP). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(5), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000169

10.

Cundiff

J. M.

Matthews

K. 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.

Curran

P. J.

Hussong

A. M.

(2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015914

12.

Dawson

J. 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.

Debray

T. P.

Moons

K. G.

Ahmed

Koffijberg

Riley

R. 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.

Diemer

M. A.

Mistry

R. S.

Wadsworth

M. E.

López

Reimers

(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.

Dixson

B. J.

Vasey

P. 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.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-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.

Fisher

M. I.

Cox

Bennett

Gavric

(2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099347

18.

Fisher

M. I.

Hammond

M. 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.

Glick

Fiske

S. 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.

Glick

Fiske

S. 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.

Glick

Fiske

S. 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.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

Mladinic

Saiz

J. L.

Abrams

Masser

. . . López-López

(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.

Glick

Whitehead

(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.

Goodwin

Marshall

Fülöp

Adonu

Spiewak

Neto

Plaza

S. 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.

Guttentag

Secord

P. F.

(1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. SAGE.

26.

Hammond

M. D.

Milojev

Huang

Sibley

C. 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.

Hammond

M. D.

Overall

N. 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.

Hammond

M. D.

Overall

N. C.

Cross

E. 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.

Hart

Hung

J. A.

Glick

Dinero

R. 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

30.

Hasty

Maner

J. K.

(2020). Power, status, and social judgment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.007

31.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

32.

Jackman

M. R.

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

33.

Jaki

Smedt

T. D.

Gwózdz

Panchal

Rossa

De Pauw

(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.

Jorgensen

T. D.

Pornprasertmanit

Miller

Schoemann

(2018). simsem: SIMulated structural equation modeling [Computer software manual]. R package Version 0.5–1.4 https://cran.r-project.org/package=simsem

35.

Jost

Hunyady

(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.

Kraus

Piff

P. K.

Keltner

(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.

Lee

Pratto

Johnson

B. 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.

J. 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.

Miller

J. W.

Stromeyer

W. R.

Schwieterman

M. 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.

Miller

L. C.

Fishkin

S. A.

(1997). On the dynamics of human bonding and reproductive success: Seeking windows on the adapted-for human-environmental interface. In Simpson

J. A.

Kenrick

D. T.

(Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 197–236). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

41.

Noël

R. A.

(2018, May). Race, economics, and social status. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2018/race-economics-and-social-status/pdf/race-economics-and-social-status.pdf

42.

Overall

N. C.

Sibley

C. G.

Tan

(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.

Pek

Hoyle

R. 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.

Penke

Denissen

J. 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.

Pituch

K. A.

Stevens

J. P.

(2016). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. Routledge.

46.

Ridgeway

C. L.

Nakagawa

(2015). Status. In McLeod

J. D.

Lawler

E. J.

Schwalbe

(Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality (pp. 3–25). Springer Science + Business Media.

47.

Robb

Simon

Wardle

(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.

Rudman

L. A.

Goodwin

S. 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.

Sibley

C. G.

Becker

J. 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.

Sibley

C. G.

Overall

N. C.

Duckitt

(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.

Sidanius

Pratto

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043

52.

Simonsohn

(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-Manoux

Adler

N. E.

Marmot

M. 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.

Spencer

S. J.

Zanna

M. P.

Fong

G. 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.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

56.

Watkins

P. C.

Woodward

Stone

Kolts

R. 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.

West

Welch

K. B.

Galecki

(2007). Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software (2nd ed.). CRC Press.

58.

Wilson

Daly

(1992). The man who mistook his wife for a chattel. In Barkow

Cosmides

Tooby

(Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 289–322). Oxford University Press.

59.

Wolff

L. S.

Acevedo-Garcia

Subramanian

S. V.

Weber

Kawachi

(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.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB