We tested a dual process motivational model of ambivalent sexism and gender differences in intimate partner preferences. Meta-analysis of 32 samples (16 with men, 16 with women; N = 5,459) indicated that Benevolent Sexism (BS) in women was associated with greater preferences for high-resource partners (r = 0.24), whereas Hostile Sexism (HS) in men was associated with stronger preferences for physically attractive partners (r = 0.20). Study 2 examined the ideological correlates of this gender difference (N = 249 men, 243 women). For women, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) was associated with greater preferences for high-resource partners, mediated by BS. For men, Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) was associated with greater preferences for attractive partners, mediated by HS. These findings indicate that women’s desire for high-resource partners is related to a protection and security-provision motive, whereas men’s desire for attractive partners is related to a dominance-based status-marker motive. Gender differences in these dual motives have implications for understanding the reciprocal reinforcement of gender inequality. We argue that they exacerbate gender inequality by decreasing women’s immediate motivation for direct access to resources (because they may be provided for by men) and promoting instead goals in women relating to the maintenance of an attractive appearance valued by men.
AltemeyerB. (1996). In The authoritarian spectre. London: Harvard University Press.
2.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.
3.
BussD. M. (1999). In Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
4.
BussD. M.BarnesM. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.
5.
CikaraM.EberhardtJ. L.FiskeS. T. (2011). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 540–551.
6.
CikaraM.LeeT. L.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2009). Ambivalent sexism at home and at work: How attitudes toward women in relationships foster exclusion in the public sphere. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 444–462). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7.
DruV. (2007). Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice: Effects of various self-categorization conditions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 877–883.
8.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 41–113). Vol. 33, New York, NY: Academic Press.
9.
*DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2006). Unpublished data. University of Auckland, New Zealand.
10.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2007). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113–130.
11.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2009). A dual process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98–109.
12.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially moderate intergroup effects on prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24, 583–601.
13.
DuncanL. E.PetersonB. E.AxE. E. (2003). Authoritarianism as an agent of status quo maintenance: Implications for women’s careers and family lives. Sex Roles, 49, 619–630.
14.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.
15.
*EastwickP. W.EaglyA. H.GlickP.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.FiskeS. T.BlumA. M.VolpatoC. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603–614.
16.
EngelsF. (1884/2004). In The origin of the family, private property and the state. Chippendale, Australia: Resistance Books.
17.
FletcherG. J. O. (2002). In The new science of intimate relationships. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
18.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89.
19.
FletcherG. J. O, Tither, J. M.O’LoughlinC.FriesenM.OverallN. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659–679.
20.
*ForbesG. B.CollinsworthL. L.JobeR. L.BraunK. D.WiseL. M. (2007). Sexism, hostility toward women, and endorsement of beauty ideals and practices: Are beauty ideals associated with oppressive beliefs?. Sex Roles, 56, 265–273.
21.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
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.
23.
GlickP.LameriasM.FiskeS. T.EckesT.MasserB.VolpatoC.WellsR. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.
24.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI. (1985). In Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
25.
JackmanM. R. (1994). In The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
26.
*Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.EaglyA. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 322–328.
27.
KoyamaN. F.McGainA.HillR. A. (2004). Self-reported mate preferences and “feminist” attitudes regarding martial relations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 327–335.
28.
KrizanZ. (2010). Synthesizer 1.0: A varying-coefficient meta-analytic tool. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 863–870.
29.
LauG. P.KayA. C.SpencerS. J. (2008). Loving those who justify inequality: The effects of system threat on attraction to women who embody benevolent sexist ideals. Psychological Science, 19, 20–21.
30.
*LeY. -C. L. (2004). Social power and long term mate preferences(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Hawai‘i, HI.
31.
LeeT. L.FiskeS. T.GlickP.ChenZ. (2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationship: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583–601.
32.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.
33.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). In Practical meta-analysis. London: Sage.
34.
MoyaM.GlickP.ExpósitoF.De LemusS.HartJ. (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.
35.
MullerD.JuddC. M.YzerbytV. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.
36.
NavarreteC. D.McDonaldM.MolinaL.SidaniusJ. (2010). Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: An out-group male target hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 933–945.
37.
OverallN. C.SibleyC. G.TanR. (in press). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
38.
OvertonR. C. (1998). A comparison of fixed-effects and random (mixed-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods, 3, 354–379.
39.
PetersonB. E.DuncanL. E. (2007). Midlife women’s generativity and authoritarianism: Marriage, motherhood, and 10 years of aging. Psychology and Aging, 22, 411–419.
40.
PrattoF.HegartyP. (2000). The political psychology of reproductive strategies. Psychological Science, 11, 57–62.
41.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL.MalleB. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
42.
PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D.HayesA. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
43.
RaudenbushS. W. (1994). Random effects models. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301–321). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
44.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. (2008). In The social psychology of gender. New York, NY: Guilford.
45.
RudmanL. A.HeppenJ. B. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1357–1370.
46.
*SibleyC. G. (2009a). [Sexism study, University of Auckland]. Unpublished raw data.
47.
*SibleyC. G. (2009b). [Sexism study, University of Auckland]. Unpublished raw data.
48.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279.
49.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2009). Big-five personality, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes: Further tests of a dual process cognitive-motivational model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 545–561.
50.
SibleyC. G.LiuJ. H. (2010). Social dominance orientation: Testing a global individual difference perspective. Political Psychology, 31, 175–207.
51.
*SibleyC. G.OverallN. C. (2007). [Sexism study, University of Auckland]. Unpublished raw data.
52.
SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S.DuckittJ. (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.
53.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). In Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54.
*TravagliaL. K. (2009). Ambivalent sexism, ideal standards and satisfaction within romantic relationships(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Auckland, New Zealand.
55.
*TravagliaL. K.OverallN. C.SibleyC. G. (2009). Benevolent and hostile sexism and preferences for romantic partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 599–604.
