Leveraging Man−Woman Romantic Relationships to Promote Men’s Awareness of Sexism and Gender Discrimination

Abstract

Despite decades of research and growing public awareness, sexism and gender discrimination remain pervasive, partly due to men’s lower awareness of sexism. Here, we explored whether man−woman romantic relationships can be leveraged to promote men’s awareness of sexism. In Study 1 (N = 576), men who read about gender discrimination targeting their ostensible partner (versus a friend or stranger) were more likely to perspective-take and appraise the situation as sexist, and in turn, reported greater broader awareness of gender discrimination toward women and less sexist attitudes. In Study 2 (N = 570), 76% of men reported that their partner had disclosed an experience of sexism. Greater perspective-taking was associated with recognizing these experiences as sexist and greater awareness of sexism and allyship behaviors (n = 432). The findings suggest that man−woman romantic relationships offer a unique context to promote men’s awareness of sexism and gender discrimination, revealing both novel insights and challenges for reducing sexism.

Keywords

sexism interdependence gender discrimination disclosure responsiveness romantic relationships

Despite decades of research attention and growing public awareness, sexist attitudes and gender discrimination against women remain prevalent (United Nations, 2017, 2024). Sexism has far-reaching consequences; countries with a higher prevalence of sexist attitudes report greater intimate partner violence and gender pay inequity, and poorer health outcomes for both women and men (Agadullina et al., 2022; Zawisza et al., 2025). Although movements such as #metoo and #timesup have highlighted some of the harmful consequences of sexism, predominantly sexual assault and harassment, this increased awareness has not translated into meaningful (or accelerated) reductions in sexism (Archer & Kam, 2020). While there are many reasons for these slow gains—including structural and cultural barriers (e.g., regressive government policies, pandemic-related gender-equity setbacks), and the broader difficulty of identifying sexism (Hopkins-Doyle et al., 2019)— increasing men’s awareness of gender inequality remains a central challenge. Men, on average, have more difficulty identifying sexism and perceive sexist scenarios as less discriminatory and harmful than women (Becker & Swim, 2011; Blodorn et al., 2012; Drury & Kaiser, 2014; Rotundo et al., 2001; Women and Gender Equity Canada, 2020). However, evidence suggests perspective-taking with targets of sexism can increase men’s awareness (Zawadzki et al., 2014). Given the interdependence inherent in romantic relationships (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003), we test whether men report greater perspective-taking when the target of sexism is an ostensible romantic partner (versus a friend or stranger), and whether this in turn predicts perceiving the situation as more sexist and discriminatory (Study 1). We also test whether greater perspective-taking in response to a recalled disclosure of sexism from a romantic partner predicts viewing the situation as more sexist (Study 2) and, in turn, greater awareness of sexism and lower endorsement of gender-based attitudes (Studies 1–2).

Perspective-Taking as a Strategy for Promoting Men’s Awareness of Gender Discrimination and Reducing Sexism

Unlike other forms of prejudice, sexism involves attitudes about groups (men and women) who are often dependent on one another (i.e., for reproduction, intimacy, and support). Therefore, established prejudice-reduction strategies (i.e., increased contact with targeted groups) do not reduce sexism (Glick, 2014) and novel approaches to sexism reduction are needed. Prompted by calls to reduce harmful gender-based attitudes (Becker et al., 2014; Glick, 2014; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), researchers have increasingly targeted men’s awareness of sexism and gender discrimination. This work, which to date has predominantly involved high school and college-age men (De Lemus et al., 2014; Guthridge et al., 2022; Stewart et al., 2021; Van Laar et al., 2024; Zawadzki et al., 2014) reveals an uncomfortable truth: promoting men’s awareness of gender discrimination and inequities is especially challenging.

Yet some approaches to reducing sexism show promise. Perspective-taking promotes empathy for targets of discrimination and increases the likelihood that people will recognize and label discrimination (see Todd & Galinsky, 2014 for review) and appears critical for promoting men’s awareness of gender discrimination (Cundiff et al., 2014; Zawadzki et al., 2014). For example, while paying attention to daily acts of sexism reduces women’s sexist attitudes, for men the same effect only appears when they are instructed to take the perspective of the (unknown) woman experiencing discrimination (Becker & Swim, 2011). Similarly, the Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation (WAGES) showed that simulating the experience of gender discrimination reduced sexist attitudes, increased interest in reducing gender inequality, improved detection of subtle biases, and heightened concerns about gender bias for men and women (Cundiff et al., 2014; Zawadzki et al., 2014). By allowing participants to experience the disadvantages faced by women, the WAGES intervention encourages men—who might otherwise resist acknowledging the extent of gender discrimination—to empathize with women’s experiences and develop greater awareness of the harms of sexism. Below we propose that man–woman romantic relationships offer a powerful context to promote men’s awareness of sexism, as the interdependence inherent in these relationships motivates men (and women) to consider their partner’s perspective and experiences.

Romantic Relationships: A Key Context for Perspective-Taking

Interdependence theory suggests that when people’s needs, goals, and well-being are closely tied to another person (i.e., high levels of dependence), they are more motivated to understand and consider that person’s perspective (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Romantic relationships, in particular, are characterized by high levels of interdependence, wherein partners’ experiences, emotions, and well-being are deeply intertwined (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003). Thus, in the context of man−woman romantic relationships, men should be highly motivated to perspective-take with their romantic partners. Given that men’s ability to perspective-take increases awareness of, and motivation to confront, sexism (Becker & Swim, 2011; Gervais et al., 2010; Good et al., 2018), learning about a romantic partner’s experience of sexism or discrimination may enhance men’s recognition and awareness of sexism and gender discrimination. Recent research reveals women do share experiences of sexism with men partners (i.e., past sexual assault; Person et al., 2024), and report receiving support from partners after experiencing sexism (Maimon & Sanchez, 2022) suggesting that men may learn about instances of sexism through their partners. However, whether such disclosures increase men’s awareness of sexism and gender discrimination remains an open question.

The Current Research

Across two studies, we tested whether men’s perspective-taking predicts recognizing a woman’s experience of gender discrimination as sexist, and broader awareness of gender discrimination and gender-based (sexist) attitudes. In Study 1, we tested the basic proposition that given the interdependence inherent in romantic relationships (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003), men (in relationships with women) would report greater perspective-taking (ability to put themselves in the other’s shoes) when the target of sexism is their ostensive romantic partner compared to a woman with whom they are less close (i.e., friend, stranger), and be more likely to view the situation as sexist/discriminatory. We also explored the downstream consequences for men’s broader awareness of gender discrimination and sexist attitudes, as identifying specific instances of sexism can reduce broader sexist attitudes (Becker & Swim, 2011).

In Study 2, we extended Study 1 by examining men’s recalled experiences in their current romantic relationships. Specifically, we tested whether men who reported greater perspective-taking in response to a partner’s disclosure of sexism/discrimination were more likely to appraise the situation as sexist, and in turn, report greater general awareness of gender discrimination (as experienced by their partner and women in general), less sexist attitudes, and greater allyship (i.e., commitment to learning about and confronting gender discrimination). Across studies, we also explored the role of men’s existing sexist attitudes, general perspective-taking, and relationship quality. See OSF for Study 1 preregistration, and data/syntax across studies. Supplemental materials (SM) detail recruitment, target sample sizes, and data exclusions across studies.

Study 1

Method

Procedure and Participants

Eligible participants were above 18 years old, identified as a man, and were in a relationship with a woman for at least 1 year, recruited via Prolific Academic, an online recruitment website. A priori power analyses (G*Power.31; Faul et al., 2009) indicated a sample of 390 provides power (.95) to detect small (r = .20) main effects of condition. As preregistered, participants were excluded for failing at least one attention/comprehension check (n = 144), admitting dishonesty (n = 3), or being less than 18 (n = 1). In total, 19.97% (n = 149) of the 725 collected responses failed preregistered data quality checks, leaving a sample of 576.

Participants first reported their demographics, relationship quality, sexist attitudes, and general tendency to perspective-take, and were randomly assigned to read a scenario in which a woman—their romantic partner (35.9%, n = 207), a friend (29.7%, n = 171), or stranger (34.4%, n = 198)—shared an experience of perceived gender discrimination related to paid work. Afterward, they answered questions about the situation, including their ability to perspective-take with the woman, whether they perceived the scenario as sexism or discrimination, and their broader awareness of sexism and gender-based attitudes.¹

Measures

Table 1 defines key constructs and provides representative items and scales across measures. Items were averaged to create scale scores. Higher scores reflect higher levels of the construct. Table 2 presents sample information.

Table 1

Key Constructs, Definitions, and Representative Items Across Studies

Construct	Scale	Two example items
Study 1
Pre-manipulation measures
Benevolent sexism	−3 = Strongly disagree to 3 = strongly agree	“Women should be cherished and protected by men.”; “No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete unless he has the love of a woman.”
Hostile sexism	−3 = Strongly disagree to 3 = strongly agree	“Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.”; “Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash.”
Relationship quality	1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree	Three items to assess satisfaction (“I feel satisfied with our relationship”), and five items to assess commitment (“I want our relationship to last a very long time”)
Habitual perspective-taking	1 = Does not describe me well to 5 = Describes me well	“I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective”, “When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to “put myself in his shoes” for a while.”
Post-manipulation measures
Perspective-taking	1 = Not at all to 7 = very much	“To what extent were you able to “put yourself in her shoes” while imagining this situation?”
Perceived the situation as sexist/to reflect gender discrimination	1 = Definitely not sexist[discrimination], 2 = Might be [discrimination], 3 = probably [discrimination], 4 = definitely [discrimination]	“To what extent would you perceive the situation she is describing as sexist?”, “To what extent would you think the situation she described involves gender discrimination?”
Awareness of women facing gender discrimination	1 = Not at all - 7 = Very much agree	“How often do you think women in general face gender discrimination (being treated unfairly because they are a woman)?”
Protective paternalism	1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree	“Men should provide help to women”, “Men should protect women”
Modern sexism	1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree	“Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in this country”
Study 2
Habitual perspective-taking	1 = Not at all - 7 = Completely	“I try to see where my partner is coming from”, “I really get my partner’s point of view”
Perspective-taking.	1 = Not at all - 7 = a great deal	To what extent were you able to “put yourself in your partner’s shoes” during the disclosure?”
Perceived the situation shared as sexist/gender discrimination.	1 = Definitely not sexist[discrimination], 2 = Might be [discrimination], 3 = probably [discrimination], 4 = [discrimination]	“To what extent would you perceive the situation your partner described as sexist?”, “To what extent would you perceive the situation your partner described as gender discrimination?”
Awareness of women facing gender discrimination.	1 = Never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, 5 = very frequently	“How often do you think women in general face gender discrimination (being treated unfairly because they are a woman)?”
Awareness of partner facing gender discrimination.	1 = Never, 2 = rarely, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, 5 = very frequently	How often do you think your partner faces gender discrimination (being treated unfairly because your partner is a woman)?”
Allyship behavior.	1 = Strongly disagree – 7 Strongly Agree	“If I see discrimination against a woman, I actively work to confront it”, “I try to increase my knowledge of women’s and gender issues”

Note. Hostile and Benevolent Sexism and Relationship quality were assessed in Study 2 using identical measures to Study 1. Reliabilities are reported in text (see Methods).

Table 2

Demographic Information Across Studies

Demographics	Study 1 (N = 576)	Study 2 (N = 432)
Age	M = 40.31 years, SD = 12.08 years Range 18–77 years	M = 41.76 years, SD = 12.58 years Range 20–78 years
Sexual orientation	Straight/heterosexual 100%	Straight/heterosexual 99.3% Bisexual 0.7% (n = 3)
Gender	Cisgender 96% (n = 549) Unsure how to answer 1.4% (n = 8) None of these describe me 2.6% (n = 15) of these 6 identified as “Male”, “Man”, others did not specify	Cisgender 93.6% (n = 398) None of these describe me 6.1% (n = 26) of these 16 identified as “Male”, “Man”, and others did not specify Unsure/Prefer not to answer n = 1
Rel status	Cohabitating 87.2%, Monogamous 98.8% Married 66.3%, Seriously Dating 26.0%, Engaged 2.6% Common-Law 3.3%	Cohabitating 90.3%, Monogamous 99.0% Married 66.2%, Seriously Dating 19.0%, Engaged 7.4% Common-Law 6.5%
Country	United States 89.7%, Canada 10.3%	United Kingdom 64.6%, United States 18.5%, Canada 11.5%, Australia 3.5%, New Zealand 1.9%
Ethnicity	White: for example, North American, European, etc. 72.0% Black: for example, African, Caribbean, etc. 4.3% East Asian: for example, Chinese, Korean, etc. 8.3% South Asian: for example, Indian, Pakistani, etc. 2.6% Latin American: for example, Mexican, Columbian, etc. 7.5% Indigenous: for example, First Nations, Metis, Inuit etc. 0.2% Middle Eastern: for example, Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, etc. 0.9% Bi- or multi-ethnic/racial: for example, White/Black, East Asian/South Asian, etc. (please specify) 3.0% Other (self-identified) 1.2%	White: for example, North American, European, etc. 67.1% Black: for example, African, Caribbean, etc. 12.0% East Asian: for example, Chinese, Korean, etc. 5.8% South Asian: for example, Indian, Pakistani, etc. 4.6% Latin American: for example, Mexican, Columbian, etc. 3.5% Indigenous: for example, First Nations, Metis, Inuit etc. 0.2% Middle Eastern: for example, Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, etc. 2.1% Bi- or multi-ethnic/racial: for example, White/Black, East Asian/South Asian, etc. (please specify) 2.8% Self-Identify 1.9%

Note. Participation was restricted to the United States and Canada in Study 1, and the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in Study 2. In Study 2, we did not directly ask about country; country demographics above were generated from currency participants reported. See SM for full gender measures.

Pre-Manipulation Measures

Sexist Attitudes

Hostile and benevolent sexism were assessed with 11 items each (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory; Glick & Fiske, 1996).

Relationship Quality

Three items assessed satisfaction and five items assessed commitment (combined to index relationship quality, Rusbult et al., 1998).

Habitual Perspective-Taking

The seven-item Perspective-Taking subscale of the 28-item Interpersonal Reactivity Index was used (Davis, 1983).

Scenario

After completing pre-manipulation measures, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions where the woman making the disclosure varied. In the romantic partner condition (coded 0), participants read: Please imagine you are having a conversation with your current romantic partner. In the friend condition (coded 1), participants read: Please imagine you are having a conversation with a woman you have been friends with for a long time. In the stranger condition (coded 2), participants read: Please imagine you overhear a woman you do not know at the next table talking to her partner.

All participants were told She shares the following situation and read: I just found out that a guy who started his job at the same time as me, is at the same level as me, and has the exact same degree as me, is making more money than me. If anything, I have more experience than he does, but his salary is almost 25% more than what I am making! I can only assume this is because I am a woman. There is no reason he should be making more money than me. I think the company is being unfair and I am not sure what to do about it.

Attention Checks

Three questions assessed attention and comprehension: (a) Who shared the experience? (1 = Unknown woman, 2 = Friend, 3 = Romantic partner, 4 = Co-worker, 5 = Sister); (b) What was the situation? (1 = A man at her work made more than her [correct], 2 = A man-made less, 3 = A co-worker took her job, 4=A woman made more); (c) Did the person have similar experience? (1 = Yes [correct], 2 = No, he had more experience). As preregistered, only participants answering all three correctly were included in analyses.

Post-Manipulation Measures

Following the manipulation participants completed measures of Perspective-taking (one item), Perceived the situation as sexist/to reflect gender discrimination (reflect perceiving the situation as sexist and gender discrimination, two items; r = .820), Awareness of women facing gender discrimination (one item), Protective Paternalism (two items; r = .701), Modern Sexism (eight items α = .911; Modern Sexism Scale; Swim et al., 1995).²

Results

We conducted a series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) (in SPSS 29) to test our key proposition that men are more likely to perspective-take when sexism targets a romantic partner (versus a friend or stranger) and that this will be associated with their appraisal of the situation as sexist, and broader awareness of sexism/discrimination. The models tested whether the condition (romantic partner, friend, or stranger) influenced men’s: (a) perspective-taking, (b) appraisal of sexism, (c) awareness of gender discrimination, and (d) broader gender-based attitudes.

As predicted, men’s perspective-taking (i.e., ability to “put themselves in her shoes”) differed across conditions, F(2, 573) = 13.21, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .044). Bonferroni post hoc tests (see Panel A, Figure 1) showed that participants reported greater perspective-taking in response to a situation of sexism targeting their romantic partner compared to a friend (Mdiff = .54, SE = .14, p < .001, confidence interval [CI] = [.19, .88]), or stranger (Mdiff = .67, SE = .14, p < .001, CI = [.34, 1.00]), with no significant difference between the friend and stranger conditions. Also, in line with our predictions, men’s appraisal of the situation as sexist and discriminatory differed across conditions, F(2, 573) = 6.50, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .022. As shown in Panel B, Figure 1, men in the partner condition appraised the situation as more sexist/gender discriminatory compared to the friend (Mdiff = .27, SE = .08, p = .002, CI = [.08, .46]) and stranger (Mdiff = .19, SE = .08, p = .041, CI = [.01, .37]) conditions, with no significant difference between friend and stranger. Therefore, consistent with our predictions, men were better able to perspective-take when reading about an experience of gender discrimination from an ostensible romantic partner (versus a friend or stranger) and were more likely to appraise the situation as involving sexism or gender discrimination.

Figure 1

Bar Graphs Displaying the Effect of Condition (Partner vs Friend vs Stranger) on Perspective-Taking With Target (Panel A), Appraising the Situation Described to Reflect Sexism and Gender Discrimination (Panel B), Awareness of Women Facing Gender Discrimination (Panel C), Protective Paternalism (Panel D), and Modern Sexism (Panel E)

Next, we explored whether imagining their partner disclosing an experience of sexism (versus a friend or stranger) would affect men’s broader awareness of women’s experiences of gender discrimination or their broader gender-based attitudes. Yet, there were no significant effects of condition on men’s broader awareness of women facing gender discrimination, F(2, 573) = 1.81, p = .165, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .006 (Panel C, Figure 1); protective paternalism, F(2, 573) = 1.88, p = .153, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .007 (Panel D); or modern sexism, F(2, 573) = 1.99, p = .137, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .007 (Panel E). Therefore, although the condition affects men’s perspective-taking and appraisals of the situation, it does not directly affect broader awareness or sexist attitudes.

Exploratory Serial Mediations

Since the condition influenced more proximal outcomes (perspective-taking and appraisals of sexism) but not broader attitudes (awareness of women facing gender discrimination, protective paternalism, modern sexism), we explored potential indirect effects. These analyses were not preregistered and were conducted post hoc after reviewing the results above. Using PROCESS in SPSS (29), we tested whether the effect of condition (e.g., partner vs. friend or stranger) on perspective-taking was associated with appraising the situation as sexist, which in turn predicted greater awareness of sexism and less sexist attitudes (i.e., serial mediation; Model 6 in PROCESS). Significant indirect effects emerged across outcomes (except protective paternalism) for both partner versus friend and partner versus stranger (see Table 3). Men who imagined their partner (vs. a friend or stranger) disclosing discrimination were more likely to perspective-take, leading to greater recognition of sexism, which predicted increased awareness of gender discrimination and lower modern sexism. However, several alternative pathways (see Tables SM2 and 3) with different sequencing of perspective-taking, appraisals, and broader awareness and attitudes were also significant, warranting cautious interpretation and inconclusive results.

Table 3

Mediations Across Outcomes for Study 1

Pathways	Partner vs Friend			Partner vs Stranger
Pathways	Indirect effect	LL	UL	Indirect effect	LL	UL
Condition → Perspective taking → Appraised as sexist/gender discrimination → Awareness of women facing gender discrimination	–.045	–.078	–.020	–.056	–.093	–.028
Condition → Perspective taking → Appraised as sexist/gender discrimination → Protective paternalism	.000	–.010	.010	.000	–.013	.013
Condition → Perspective taking → Appraised as sexist/gender discrimination → Modern sexism	.053	.023	.092	.066	.032	.111

Note. Significant effects are shown in bold. In the analyses a negative indirect effect indicates the effect is weaker for the friend or stranger condition compared to the partner condition (which was coded as 0, the default), whereas a positive effect indicates that the indirect effect is stronger for the friend or stranger condition compared to the partner condition.

Additional Analyses

As preregistered, we tested whether the main effects of the condition held controlling for theoretically relevant variables: (a) men’s sexist attitudes (hostile and benevolent), (b) general perspective-taking tendencies, and (c) relationship quality. Rerunning analyses with these controls (in separate models) revealed the focal effects remained unchanged (Tables SM4 and 5). These results confirm the findings are not due to individual differences in men’s endorsement of sexism or general tendencies to perspective-take in everyday life and rule out the possibility that men in higher-quality relationships may be more motivated to perspective-take or appraise the situation as sexist and discriminatory. We also tested whether these variables moderated the effects of condition, and no significant interactions emerged (see Table SM6). The exploratory mediation pathways outlined above remained robust when controlling for these variables (see Table SM3). Together these results highlight the critical, and independent, role of the relational context in shaping perspective-taking, sexism appraisals, and in turn, broader awareness of women’s experiences.

Study 2

In Study 2, we aimed to conceptually replicate and extend Study 1, enhancing ecological validity by examining men’s reactions to a previous instance of their partner sharing an experience of sexism or gender discrimination. Men reported whether their partner had previously disclosed an experience of sexism or gender discrimination to them. If so, they responded to questions about the situation their partner described. Accordingly, we focus only on romantic partners’ disclosures of experiences of gender discrimination and consider variation in men’s perspective-taking and, in turn, appraisals of the situation as sexist, and their broader sexist attitudes.

We predicted that greater self-reported perspective-taking during these recalled discussions would be associated with a greater likelihood of appraising the situation as sexist and discriminatory. We also predicted that in turn, greater appraisals of the situation as sexist would be associated with greater awareness of women experiencing gender discrimination. New to Study 2, we also assessed whether greater perspective-taking via appraisals were associated with greater awareness of their partner’s broader experiences of sexism, and greater self-reported allyship behaviors (e.g., commitment to learning about and addressing gender discrimination). Finally, we tested whether the focal associations were independent of men’s sexist attitudes, general partner perspective-taking, and relationship quality. See OSF and SM for preregistration details.

Method

Procedure and Participants

Eligibility required participants to identify as men, be above 18, and be in a relationship with a woman for at least 1 year, recruited via Prolific. We collected 587 responses. Men who could not recall or were unsure whether their partner had shared an experience of gender discrimination read and responded to the Study 1 scenario (romantic partner condition, see SM). As preregistered, we excluded participants for failing attention checks (n = 12 and n = 4 did not respond) or admitting dishonesty (n = 1). The final sample included 570 participants, but analyses focused on the 432 men whose partners had shared a discrimination experience (which provided adequate power [.99, G*Power.31] to detect small [r = .20] effects).

Measures

Table 1 displays representative items, Table 2 sample information, and Table 4 descriptive statistics, reliabilities, and correlations.

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations for Primary Measures (Study 2)

	a	M	SD	Correlations
Measures	a	M	SD	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Relationship quality	.934	6.173	0.839	–.117*	.057	.572***	.211***	.090	.009	.029	.285***
2. Hostile sexism	.907	–0.553	1.407		.448***	–.139**	–.025	–.076	–.162***	–.071	–.255***
3. Benevolent sexism	.832	0.162	1.225			.088	.153***	.049	.021	.051	.081
4. Habitual perspective taking	.559	5.883	0.880				.431***	.105*	–.023	.043	.375***
5. Perspective taking during recalled discussion	—	5.640	1.425					.177***	.043	–.010	.301***
6. Appraised the situation described by partner as sexist and gender discrimination	.538	3.270	0.763						.357***	.357***	.377***
7. Awareness of gender discrimination toward women (in general)	—	3.613	0.818							.536**	.389***
8. Awareness of gender discrimination toward partner	—	3.005	0.849								.298***
9. Allyship behaviors	.708	5.415	0.979

Note. All reliabilities represent Cronbach’s alpha except for habitual perspective taking and appraised situation as sexist and gender discrimination which represent correlations.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Relationship Quality

Participants completed the same scale as Study 1.

Sexist Attitudes

Participants completed the short 12-item version of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996). Six items assessed endorsement of benevolent sexism and six items assessed hostile sexism .

Habitual Perspective-Taking

Participants rated two items adapted from the Perceived Responsiveness and Insensitivity Scale (Crasta et al., 2021).

Partner Sharing an Experience of Sexism or Gender Discrimination

To prompt men to reflect on their partner sharing experiences of sexism, men rated the extent to which their romantic partner had experienced gender discrimination using a 26-item scale (Becker & Swim, 2012) assessing stereotypes, gender bias, unwanted sexual attention (e.g., “ogling, unwanted touching”), complaints (e.g., “negative attitudes about gender inequality”), and sexist behavior (e.g., “sexist jokes”; 1 = Never–5 = Very Often). Participants were then asked “Thinking about your responses above, and other experiences your partner may have had that they would consider sexism or gender discrimination. Has your partner ever told you about one of these experiences?” (1 = Yes, 2 = No, 3 = I’m not sure, 4 = Yes, but I didn’t label it sexism or gender discrimination). If they answered “Yes” or “Yes, but I didn’t label it,” they were asked to “Please describe the experience of sexism or gender discrimination that your partner shared with you. Please try to describe in some detail” and rated the following measures.

Perspective-Taking

Participants completed the same item as Study 1, replacing “put yourself in her shoes” with “put yourself in your partner’s shoes.”

Perceived the Situation Shared as Sexist/Gender Discrimination

Participants completed the same two items as Study 1, replacing “she” with “your partner.”

Awareness of Women in General and Partners Facing Gender Discrimination

Participants completed the same item in Study 1 assessing awareness of women facing gender discrimination and another item specific to the partner; “How often do you think your partner faces gender discrimination (being treated unfairly because your partner is a woman)?” These items were assessed in independent analyses.

Allyship Behavior

Three items assessed engagement in allyship behaviors.

Results

We first tested the percentage of men who reported that their partner had shared an experience of sexism or gender discrimination (i.e., responded “yes” or “yes, but did not label it sexism”), and found 75.8% (n = 432 of 570) of men reported that their partner had disclosed such an experience. The disclosed experiences included paternalism (e.g., “mansplaining”), objectification (e.g., unwanted sexual attention), exclusion (e.g., overlooked for opportunities based on gender), derogation (e.g., sexist jokes), and gender stereotyping (e.g., hearing messages about how men and women should act). Participants who answered “no” (16.1%) or “I don’t know” (8.1%) were presented with the imagined scenario, partner condition, from Study 1 (additional analyses replicate the pattern found in Study 1, see Table SM7).

Next, linear regression results demonstrated that men who reported greater perspective-taking (i.e., were able to put themselves “in her shoes”) in response to their partner’s recalled disclosure were more likely to appraise the situation as involving sexism or gender discrimination (β = .177 [95% CI lower limit (LL) = .045, upper limit (UL) = .145], t = 3.735, p < .001). In turn, as shown in Table 5, appraising the situation as more sexist and discriminatory was associated with (a) greater awareness of gender discrimination experienced by women (in general) and partners, and (b) greater allyship behaviors (i.e., a commitment to increasing knowledge of and confronting gender discrimination). All direct and indirect effects were significant, supporting the hypothesized pathways.

Table 5

Mediations Across Outcomes for Study 2

	Partner shared experience
Pathways	Indirect Effect	LL	UL
Perspective Taking during recalled discussion → Appraised as Sexist/Gender Discrimination → Awareness of Women Facing Gender Discrimination	.037	.016	.058
Perspective Taking during recalled discussion → Appraised as Sexist/Gender Discrimination → Awareness of Partner Facing Gender Discrimination	.039	.017	.063
Perspective Taking during recalled discussion → Appraised as Sexist/Gender Discrimination → Allyship Behaviors	.041	.018	.066

Note. Significant effects are shown in bold. The effects above are from participants who recalled their woman partners sharing an experience of gender discrimination (n = 435). The results replicated using responses from participants who did not recall their partner sharing an experience of sexism or gender discrimination (n = 120) and were instead asked to imagine their partner sharing the scenario used in Study 1 (e.g., partners finding out her similarly qualified/experienced man colleague is being paid more than her). Analyses comparing the two samples (as if they were conditions, like in Study 1) revealed stronger effects for those who recalled their partners sharing an experience versus imagined their partner sharing an experience of discrimination. See SM for details.

Given the correlational nature of our data, we again tested all potential alternative pathways (see Table SM8). Our predicted pathway had the strongest support across outcomes. Yet, one of the five alternative pathways tested for each outcome also emerged as significant for 2/3 outcomes. In these alternative models, greater awareness of the extent to which women in general, or partners, experience gender discrimination predicted greater appraisals and, in turn, greater perspective-taking, suggesting that appraising situations as sexist is a consistent mediator across both pathways, and both perspective-taking and awareness of gender discrimination play reciprocal roles in shaping men’s responses to their partners’ experiences of sexism. For allyship behaviors, a more complicated pattern emerged; with three significant alternative pathways, suggesting reciprocal relationships between perspective-taking, appraising situations as sexist, and allyship behaviors (see SM).

Additional Analyses

Consistent with Study 1, we tested whether the focal associations, across three outcomes, remained significant when controlling for (a) men’s sexist attitudes, (b) general partner-focused perspective-taking, and (c) relationship quality (see Table SM9). All associations (hypothesized and alternative) remained significant, reinforcing the robustness of our findings. These results indicate that the effects are not driven by ideological biases toward gender (in)equality or general tendencies to perspective-take but reflect meaningful situational and relational dynamics. Moreover, independence from relationship quality suggests these effects are not merely a byproduct of higher-quality relationships.

Discussion

The current set of studies provides novel evidence that man−woman romantic relationships are a powerful context to promote men’s awareness of gender discrimination. Across two studies, we examined how men partnered with women responded to their partners’ experience of gender discrimination, focusing on the role of the relational context in shaping these responses. In Study 1, men were more likely to engage in perspective-taking and appraise a situation as sexist and discriminatory when the disclosure came from their ostensible romantic partner compared with a woman friend or stranger. Study 2 replicated and extended these findings, showing that when men partnered with women reported greater perspective-taking in response to their partner’s disclosure of an experience of sexism, they appraised the situation as more sexist/discriminatory, and in turn, reported greater awareness of sexism (experienced by women in general and their partner) and greater allyship behaviors. These associations were robust to individual differences in sexist attitudes, general partner perspective-taking, and relationship quality. Together, these findings highlight the unique potential of man−woman romantic relationships as a context for fostering men’s awareness of gender discrimination and sexism.

Man− Woman Romantic Relationships: A Promising Context to Promote Men’s Awareness of Gender Discrimination

Romantic relationships involve high levels of interdependence in which partners are invested in each other’s well-being (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003). Past work demonstrates that the interdependence inherent in man−woman romantic relationships makes this a context in which the consequences of sexism are often most acutely experienced (see Cross et al., 2019; Fisher & Hammond, 2019; Hammond et al., 2020; Hammond & Overall, 2017). Yet, the current findings suggest this interdependence can be leveraged to heighten men’s awareness of sexism and gender discrimination. The findings are in line with broader theory and evidence suggesting that perspective-taking improves intergroup relations, in part, because it fosters people’s greater recognition of discrimination (see Todd & Galinsky, 2014). Relatedly, research shows that learning about a close other’s experience of racial discrimination can increase awareness of racial prejudice (Carter & Murphy, 2017). However, responsibility should not fall solely on those experiencing discrimination; partners must actively engage in perspective-taking. Indeed, other research indicates that close relationships can be a safe and productive space for discussing discrimination, but only when disclosures are met with validation and support (McNeil Smith et al., 2020; Rice et al., 2023).

These findings also highlight challenges for broadening awareness beyond the context of partner disclosures. A key challenge is encouraging men to reflect on their behavior and biases, which may involve confronting how certain attitudes or behaviors complicity upholding gender inequality (Van Laar et al., 2024) or how societal norms discourage men’s emotional vulnerability (Levant, 2011). High-quality listening (i.e., attentive, empathic, nonjudgmental listening) is a trainable skill that promotes partner responsiveness and autonomy support during difficult conversations (Itzchakov, 2020; Itzchakov et al., 2022, 2023; Reis & Itzchakov, 2023). High-quality listening serves as a promising intervention by reducing defensiveness, facilitating attitude change (DeMarree et al., 2023; Itzchakov et al., 2017; Moin et al., 2025) and reducing prejudice (Itzchakov et al., 2020; Weinstein et al., 2022). As discrimination is often less visible to those not targeted (Roberts & Rizzo, 2021), hearing about it from a close other can increase empathy and awareness (Carter & Murphy, 2017). However, for this to be effective those sharing their experiences must feel understood and validated (Bergseiker, 2023). We encourage researchers to explore high-quality listening as a strategy for fostering responsive conversations about gender discrimination to promote awareness of gender inequality.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current research introduced a novel relationship-centered approach to increasing men’s awareness of sexism, but open questions remain. Interdependence theory (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003) would suggest a linear effect of relational closeness across conditions (partner, friend, stranger), yet no significant differences emerged across friend and stranger conditions (Study 1) highlighting the unique role of romantic relationships. This may stem from the study design; we did not confirm whether men had a specific woman friend in mind. Prompting men to consider a specific woman friend, and assess their closeness, could provide clearer insights. In addition, future research should explore whether similar effects emerge in other interdependent relationships (e.g., mothers, sisters), and examine how relational factors like emotional attachment, caregiving roles, or shared history shape perspective-taking and awareness of gender discrimination.

Our findings highlight the role of perspective-taking in men’s identification and awareness of sexism, but further research is needed. Romantic relationships provide a context in which men are motivated to empathize with their partners (Rusbult & van Lange, 2003), and affective empathy has been linked to reduced gender stereotyping (Guthridge et al., 2023). However, leveraging this relational context to enhance men’s awareness of gender inequality remains largely underexplored. Lab-based studies are particularly well-suited to advance this work: observing man−woman couples as they discuss experiences of sexism would offer insight into whether men’s recognition of sexism is shaped by how women share the experience, and the personal and relational costs women might face when disclosures are met with unsupportive responses. Importantly, while partner disclosures may raise awareness, they may risk placing additional emotional burden on women (Dean et al., 2022). We emphasize that women should not bear the responsibility for educating men about sexism. Hence, future research should also explore alternative strategies—such as structured conversations, media interventions, or virtual reality simulations featuring close others (partner, sister, mother)—to promote perspective-taking and examine the flow on effects.

A key avenue for future research is to clarify the temporal sequence of these processes. Although our predicted direction aligns with theory and prior evidence that perspective-taking can lead to greater identification of discrimination (e.g., Todd & Galinsky, 2014), it is possible that men who are more aware of sexism may, in turn, be more likely to perspective take with their partners and appraise their experiences as sexist. Given plausible alternative pathways (see SM), an important next step is to conduct a longitudinal experience-sampling study with man–woman couples to clarify the causal direction of these processes.

Finally, future research should examine different relational and individual factors in how men respond to disclosures of sexism. As is common in relationship research (Barton et al., 2020) our samples involved men in relatively high-quality relationships raising the question of whether effects differ in lower-quality or less interdependent relationships. Future work should clarify the role of sexist ideologies as neither men’s benevolent or hostile sexism moderated the effects, especially unexpected for hostile sexism given prior links with lower responsiveness (Overall et al., 2025) and relationship difficulties (Cross & Overall, 2019). Another priority is identifying which behaviors men recognize as sexist. In Study 2, men reported partner disclosures on different types of sexism (e.g., objectification, exclusion, paternalism, etc.), but we did not assess which they viewed as most sexist. Since men are less likely than women to identify certain behaviors as sexist (e.g., sexual harassment; Rotundo et al., 2001), examining what men recognize—or fail to recognize—as sexism may shed light on gender gaps in awareness.

Conclusion

Man−woman romantic relationships can serve as a powerful context for increasing men’s awareness of sexism and gender discrimination. The interdependence in these relationships may foster greater perspective-taking, leading men to recognize gender inequities more readily. However, broadening this awareness beyond direct partner disclosures remains challenging, as it requires men to reflect on their own biases and behaviors. We hope this research inspires future work on innovative ways to increase men’s awareness of sexism and gender discrimination, including structured discussions or interactive interventions that engage men without overburdening women.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251345111 – Supplemental material for Leveraging Man−Woman Romantic Relationships to Promote Men’s Awareness of Sexism and Gender Discrimination

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251345111 for Leveraging Man−Woman Romantic Relationships to Promote Men’s Awareness of Sexism and Gender Discrimination by Emily. J. Cross, Alyssa DeBlaere and Amy Muise in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Handling Editor: Shenel Husnu

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: via the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Grant (no. 611-2024-0104) and Insight Development Grant (no. 430-2022-00746).

ORCID iDs

Emily. J. Cross

Amy Muise

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Emily J. Cross is a senior research associate in the Department of Psychology, York University, Canada. Emily’s research examines the impact of sexist attitudes on social relationships, including how hostile and benevolent sexism predict distress, relationship problems, and aggression within couple and parent−child relationships. cross.emily.jane@gmail.com

Alyssa DeBlaere is a graduate student in the Department of Psychology, York University, Canada. Alyssa’s research focuses on understanding women’s experiences of sexism and gender discrimination.

Amy Muise is an associate professor and director of the Sexual Health and Relationships (SHaRe) lab in the Department of Psychology, York University, Canada. Amy’s research explores how couples maintain satisfying relationships and fulfilling sex lives over time. Her work identifies individual and relational factors that help couples navigate challenges and maintain sexual desire and relationship satisfaction.

References

Agadullina

Lovakov

Balezina

Gulevich

O. A.

(2022). Ambivalent sexism and violence toward women: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(5–6), 819–859. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2855

Archer

A. M.

Kam

C. D.

(2020). Modern sexism in modern times public opinion in the #metoo era. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(4), 813–837. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa058

Barton

A. W.

Lavner

J. A.

Stanley

S. M.

Johnson

M. D.

Rhoades

G. K.

(2020). “Will you complete this survey too?” Differences between individual versus dyadic samples in relationship research. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(2), 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000583

Becker

J. C.

Swim

J. K.

(2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684310397509

Becker

J. C.

Swim

J. K.

(2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs. Social Psychology, 43(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000091

Becker

J. C.

Zawadzki

M. J.

Shields

S. A.

(2014). Confronting and reducing sexism: A call for research on intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12081

Bergseiker

(2023, June). Reactions to racial discrimination: Contrasting preferred, intended, and received responses [Social Personality Preconference at the Canadian Psychology Association].

Blodorn

O’Brien

L. T.

Kordys

(2012). Responding to sex-based discrimination: Gender differences in perceived discrimination and implications for legal decision making. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(3), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211427172

Carter

E. R.

Murphy

M. C.

(2017). Consensus and consistency: Exposure to multiple discrimination claims shapes Whites’ intergroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.001

10.

Crasta

Rogge

R. D.

Maniaci

M. R.

Reis

H. T.

(2021). Toward an optimized measure of perceived partner responsiveness: Development and validation of the perceived responsiveness and insensitivity scale. Psychological Assessment, 33(4), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000986

11.

Cross

E. J.

Overall

N. C.

(2019). Women experience more serious relationship problems when male partners endorse hostile sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(5), 1022–1041. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2560

12.

Cross

E. J.

Overall

N. C.

Low

R. S. T.

McNulty

J. K.

(2019). An interdependence account of sexism and power: Men’s hostile sexism, biased perceptions of low power, and relationship aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 338–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000167

13.

Cundiff

J. L.

Zawadzki

M. J.

Danube

C. L.

Shields

S. A.

(2014). Using experiential learning to increase the recognition of everyday sexism as harmful: The WAGES intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 703–721. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12087

14.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

15.

Dean

Churchill

Ruppanner

(2022). The mental load: Building a deeper theoretical understanding of how cognitive and emotional labor over load women and mothers. Community, Work & Family, 25(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2021.2002813

16.

De Lemus

Navarro

Velásquez

M. J.

Ryan

Megías

J. L

. (2014). From sex to gender: A university intervention to reduce sexism in Argentina, Spain, and El Salvador. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12089

17.

DeMarree

K. G.

Chang

Y.-H.

Lee

Venezia

(2023). Listening and attitude change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 53, 101641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101641

18.

Drury

B. J.

Kaiser

C. R.

(2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12083

19.

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

20.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218804551

21.

Gervais

S. J.

Hillard

A. L.

Vescio

T. K.

(2010). Confronting sexism: The role of relationship orientation and gender. Sex Roles, 63(7), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9838-7

22.

Glick

(2014). Commentary: Encouraging confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 779–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12091

23.

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

24.

Good

J. J.

Sanchez

D. T.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

(2018). A paternalistic duty to protect? Predicting men’s decisions to confront sexism. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000077

25.

Guthridge

Kirkman

Penovic

Giummarra

M. J.

(2022). Promoting gender equality: A systematic review of interventions. Social Justice Research, 35(3), 318–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-022-00398-z

26.

Guthridge

Penovic

Kirkman

Giummarra

M. J.

(2023). The role of affective empathy in eliminating discrimination against women: A conceptual proposition. Human Rights Review, 24(3), 433–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-023-00692-6

27.

Hammond

M. D.

Cross

E. J.

Overall

N. C.

(2020). Sexist attitudes and intimate Relationships; Relationship (in)security is central to the sources and outcomes of sexism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14(3), e12522. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12522

28.

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(2), 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416686213

29.

Hopkins-Doyle

Sutton

R. M.

Douglas

K. M.

Calogero

R. M.

(2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135

30.

Itzchakov

(2020). Can listening training empower service employees? The mediating roles of anxiety and perspective-taking. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(6), 938–952. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.1776701

31.

Itzchakov

Kluger

A. N.

Castro

D. R.

(2017). I am aware of my inconsistencies but can tolerate them: The effect of high- quality listening on speakers’ attitude ambivalence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675339

32.

Itzchakov

Weinstein

Legate

Amar

(2020). Can high quality listening predict lower speakers’ prejudiced attitudes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104022

33.

Itzchakov

Weinstein

Vinokur

Yomtovian

(2023). Communicating for workplace connection: A longitudinal study of the outcomes of listening training on teachers’ autonomy, psychological safety, and relational climate. Psychology in the Schools, 60(4), 1279–1298. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22835

34.

Kelley

H. H.

Thibaut

J. W.

(1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. Wiley.

35.

Levant

R. F.

(2011). Research in the psychology of men and masculinity using the gender role strain paradigm as a framework. American Psychologist, 66(8), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025034

36.

Maimon

M. R.

Sanchez

D. T.

(2022). Women’s sexism-related coping support from male romantic partners. Gender Issues, 39(4), 478–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09301-1

37.

McNeil Smith

Williamson

L. D.

Branch

Fincham

F. D

. (2020). Racial discrimination, racism-specific support, and self-reported health among African American couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(3), 779–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519878519

38.

Moin

Itzchakov

Kasriel

Weinstein

(2025). Deep listening training to bridge divides: Fostering attitudinal change through intimacy and self insight. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 55(4), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.13086.

39.

Overall

N. C.

Cross

E. J.

Low

R. S.

McRae

C. S.

Henderson

A. M.

Chang

V. T.

(2025). Fathers’ and mothers’ sexism predict less responsive parenting behavior during family interactions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 16(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231200296

40.

Person

A. I.

Frazier

P. A.

Simpson

J. A.

(2024). Disclosing past adult sexual assault to romantic partners: A mixed methods analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 49(1), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843241297310

41.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

42.

Reis

H. T.

Itzchakov

(2023). “Do you hear me?” Understanding the interplay of listening and perceived partner responsiveness. Current Opinion in Psychology, 52, 101615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101615

43.

Rice

T. M.

Jenkins

A. I.

Smith

S. M.

Alexander

McGregor

C. M.

(2023). Racial discrimination and romantic relationship dynamics among Black Americans: A systematic review. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 15(4), 793–821. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12535

44.

Roberts

S. O.

Rizzo

M. T.

(2021). The psychology of American racism. American Psychologist, 76(3), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000642

45.

Rotundo

Nguyen

D. H.

Sackett

P. R.

(2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 914–922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.914

46.

Rusbult

C. E.

van Lange

P. A.

(2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059

47.

Rusbult

C. E.

Martz

Agnew

C. R.

(1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14756811.1998.tb00177.x

48.

Stewart

Wright

Smith

Roberts

Russell

(2021). Gendered stereotypes and norms: A systematic review of interventions designed to shift attitudes and behaviour. Heliyon, 7(4), e06660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06660

49.

Swim

J. K.

Aikin

K. J.

Hall

W. S.

Hunter

B. A.

(1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199

50.

Todd

A. R.

Galinsky

A. D.

(2014). Perspective-taking as a strategy for improving intergroup relations: Evidence, mechanisms, and qualifications. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 374–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12116

51.

Tougas

Brown

Beaton

A. M.

Joly

(1995). Neo-sexism: Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), 842–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218007

52.

United Nations. (2017). The sustainable development goals report 2017. thesustainabledevelopmentgoalsreport2017.pdf

53.

United Nations. (2024). The sustainable development goals report 2024. thesustainabledevelopmentgoalsreport2024.pdf

54.

Van Laar

Van Rossum

Kosakowska-Berezecka

Bongiorno

Block

. (2024). MANdatory-why men need (and are needed for) gender equality progress. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1263313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1263313

55.

Weinstein

Itzchakov

Legate

(2022). The motivational value of listening during intimate and difficult conversations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(2), e12651. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12651

56.

Women and Gender Equity Canada. (2020). “Calling Men and Boys In” what we heard: Report from the roundtables on engaging men and boys to advance gender equality.

57.

Zawadzki

M. J.

Danube

C. L.

Shields

S. A.

(2012). How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles, 67(11–12), 605–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0181-z

58.

Zawadzki

M. J.

Shields

S. A.

Danube

C. L.

Swim

J. K.

(2014). Reducing the endorsement of sexism using experiential learning: The Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation (WAGES). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313498573

59.

Zawisza

Kosakowska-Berezecka

Glick

Olech

Besta

Jurek

Sobiecki

Best

D. L.

Bosson

J. K.

Vandello

J. A.

Safdar

Włodarczyk

Żadkowska

(2025). Worse for women, bad for all: A 62-nation study confirms and extends ambivalent sexism principles to reveal greater social dysfunction in sexist nations. Social Psychological & Personality Science, Online First. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241302882

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

0.26 MB