13

SEXISM

Julia C. Becker
UNIVERSITY OF OSNABRUECK

Chris G. Sibley
UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND

Coercion is the least efficient means of obtaining order.

(Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia (1974))

How do you write women so well?

I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.
(Screenplay by Mark Andrus and James L. Brooks, As Good as it Gets (1997))

On first glance, these quotes may seem unusual choices with which to introduce a review
of research on sexism. On closer consideration, however, they emphasize two of the criti-
cal processes or features that we think underlie sexism and continued gender inequality
in many nations. The first quote, by renowned science fiction author Ursula K. Le Guin
writing 40 years ago, highlights a key premise underlying contemporary theories of sex-
ism. The premise is: for patriarchy and gender inequality to persist, women need to be
provided with subjective benefits that keep them relatively happy and thus make it less
likely for them to mobilize as a group and directly challenge the system (Jackman, 1994;
Glick & Fiske, 1996). Coercion, in this sense, is the least efficient means of maintaining
order because it should only become necessary when those who are disadvantaged are
aware of system-wide inequalities, and mobilize to directly challenge it. In other words,
if one wants to maintain inequality, far better never to let it get to the point where coer-
cion is needed. Rather, set up a system that offers some subjective benefits, and provides
mechanisms for offering appeasement for other inequalities or disadvantages without
directly addressing them.
The second quote positions women as “like men” but different in that they lack
qualities relating to competence and capability. This is a common theme in stereotypes
about what women are like. It is also a recurring theme in many sexist beliefs: that is,
316 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

women are less capable than men. If one accepts this premise, then it in turn leads
logically (in terms of the internal logic of sexist statements of this nature) to the
conclusion that because women are less competent they need men to act for them on
their behalf, to protect and provide for them, and to look out for their best interests as
they may not be capable of recognizing what these are, and so on. And this in turn brings
us back to the quote by Ursula K. Le Guin, because statements and beliefs that imply that
women need to be protected, cared for and cherished, because they are positioned as
weaker or less competent than men, provide a rather excellent form of control that does
not require overt coercion. Rather, it can seem caring and protective. We call this sexism.
More broadly, sexism can be defined as the individual’s beliefs and behaviors and
organizational practices that either harm individuals based upon their gender or con-
tribute to the maintenance of gender inequality in the society at large (see Swim & Hyers,
2009). It is the second part of this definition, that sexism constitutes beliefs, behaviors
and practices that contribute to the maintenance of gender inequality in society, which
tends to be debated. Or at least, that we think tends to be somewhat misunderstood. The
crux here is that if we define sexist beliefs in this way, then statements and beliefs that
imply that women need to be protected, cared for and cherished, because they are posi-
tioned as weaker or less competent than men, can be defined as sexist to the extent that
they help to systematically maintain inequality between men and women (Glick & Fiske,
1996; Jackman, 1994). Although sexism can be directed at all genders—and thus also at
men (e.g., when men are less likely hired as kindergartner than women), sexism is mostly
directed at women, because women are the less powerful group compared to men in all
societies around the world (e.g., United Nations, 2012).
In this chapter, we first introduce the foundation of sexist beliefs: gender stereotypes.
We then go on with presenting an overview of contemporary forms of sexism—with a
strong focus on what are referred to in the research literature as “benevolent sexist beliefs”
(or the oft-employed acronym BS) and its negative consequences for women. Further-
more, we elaborate on sexism in romantic relationships in detail with a focus on the
trade-off that it seems women may make in endorsing benevolent sexism in their
romantic relationships and in broader social contexts (such as in the workplace).
Finally, we outline direct and indirect consequences of sexism and introduce research on
confronting and reducing sexism.

GENDER STEREOTYPES
From early childhood on (and even before, Rothman, 1988), we learn how women are
like, how men are like, how women should behave, how men should behave. Countless
stereotypes, particularly promoted by popular media and literature (e.g., books like Men
Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, Gray, 2004) suggest fundamental differences
between women and men. The overall stereotype is that women are communal, caring
and concerned with others, not independent and tend to be passive. Or, as implied in one
of the quotes with which we began this manuscript, as having less reason and account-
ability than men. Men, in contrast, tend to be characterized by complementary stereotypes,
such as being agentic, dominant, non-emotional, rough, ambitious, and self-concerned
(Guimond, 2008).
You may wonder whether or not there might be a “kernel of truth”—that is, whether
some of these stereotypes might be based on fact. Indeed, Swim (1994) found in a
 Sexism • 317

meta-analysis of the accuracy of gender stereotypes that women and men were quite
accurate in their perception of how women vs. men are alike. However, it is important to
note that stereotypes can never be accurate, because they are broad generalizations of
members of groups that are applied to each single individual in this group. Moreover,
other scientific evidence revealed that most of our perceptions of gender differences are
overinflated. Janet Hyde (2005) conducted a meta-analysis to test which gender differences
are large, medium, small or non-existent (expressed in effect sizes). Against popular
assumptions, she found that 78% of all gender differences are small or close to zero
(Hyde, 2005). Large gender differences were found in motor behaviors (i.e., throwing
distance) and some aspects of sexuality. A moderate gender difference was found in
measures of aggression. Thus, according to this meta-analysis, women and men are more
alike than different on most psychological variables.
In line with Hyde’s gender similarity hypothesis, cross-cultural research revealed that
perceived similarities and differences between women and men are not universal, but
differ across cultures (e.g., Guimond, 2008). Although typical gender stereotypes can be
found in most cultures (Williams & Best, 1986), women and men from individualistic
cultures (e.g., North America, Western Europe) are more likely to differ in terms of per-
sonality, self-construal, values, and emotions than individuals in collectivistic cultures
(e.g., Asia, Africa, Guimond, 2008; Costa, Terracciano & McCrae, 2001; Fischer &
Manstead, 2000). On first glance, it seems surprising that individuals in individualistic
cultures show greater gender differences than individuals in collectivistic cultures: Social
Role Theory (Eagly & Wood, 1999) posits that gender differences have their origin in dif-
ferent social roles that women and men enact in society. Thus, in societies with traditional
gender roles (that is, in which men are the breadwinners and women responsible for
child-rearing and household-tasks), gender stereotypes should be more likely compared
to more egalitarian societies.
In line with this reasoning, research shows that gender stereotypes are activated based
on social roles. For instance, two fictitious groups described as “city workers” or “child
raisers” activate different stereotypes (Hoffman & Hurst, 1990). Given that people in
many African and Asian cultures are more likely to perform traditional gender roles
than people from many individualistic cultures, one would expect that individuals
in collectivistic cultures should exhibit greater stereotype use. Indeed, supporting this
reasoning, students from wealthy, more individualistic countries responded more
egalitarian with respect to gender and family roles than students from less wealthy, more
collectivist countries (Gibbons, Stiles & Shkodriani, 1991). Likewise, traditional gender
roles are more likely endorsed in less wealthy, more collectivistic regions of the world
compared to wealthier, individualistic regions of the world (Swim, Becker, Lee & Pruitt,
2009). Thus, although people in collectivistic cultures are more likely to stereotype
and to endorse traditional gender roles (Gibbons et al., 1991; Swim et al., 2009), they are
paradoxically less likely to show gender differences in self-construal compared to people
from individualistic cultures (e.g., Guimond et al., 2007).
How can these contradictory findings be reconciled? First, it is important to note that
those who found less egalitarian attitudes in less wealthy, collectivist countries measured
participant’s endorsement of beliefs toward traditional gender roles (Gibbons et al., 1991;
Swim et al., 2009). In contrast, those who found greater gender differences in individual-
istic cultures did not use measures that directly compared women’s and men’s beliefs
about social roles. Instead, they compared women’s and men’s self-reports on personality
318 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

variables, emotions and self-construal (e.g., Costa et al., 2001; Fischer & Manstead, 2000;
Guimond et al., 2007). The former (beliefs about gender roles) requires between-group
(here: between-gender) comparisons, the latter (self-reports on personality variables,
self-construal) do not necessarily require between-group comparisons. Given that
individuals from collectivistic cultures are less likely to engage in between group com-
parisons and self-stereotyping compared to individuals from individualistic cultures
(e.g., Yuki, 2003), Guimond et al. (2007) suggested that the absence of these between
group-comparisons and self-stereotyping is crucial in explaining why gender differences
in self-construals are less pronounced in collectivistic cultures (see also Bornholt, 2000;
Guimond, 2008).
In sum, although women and men seem to be more similar than different, gender
stereotypes are widespread and can be found around the world. They differ between
cultures depending on the measures used, on individual’s tendency to engage in between-
group comparisons and self-stereotyping and on the extent to which traditional gender
roles are enacted in a given society. Gender stereotypes are important to study, because
they built the foundation of sexist beliefs and behaviors. In the following, we provide a
detailed overview of different forms of contemporary sexist beliefs.

CONTEMPORARY SEXIST BELIEFS

Beliefs such as “Women belong to home and children”, or “Women are not as smart as
men” reflect old-fashioned sexism (Swim, Aiken, Hall & Hunter, 1995). Old-fashioned
sexism is clearly recognized as discriminatory (e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2005) and has
become less and less accepted in Western societies (e.g., Twenge, 1997). However, rather
than appearing in blatant expressions or open endorsement of sexist beliefs, sexism has
changed its appearance to more covert and subtle manifestations. These changes in the
expression of sexist beliefs are reflected in researchers’ development of concepts that mir-
ror contemporary forms of sexism. The most important developments during the last 20
years have been the concepts of modern sexist/neosexist beliefs, and the concept of
ambivalent sexist beliefs. In the following, we present the three types of sexism. By doing
so, we focus on benevolent sexism for two reasons. First, because this concept represents
a particularly novel approach by taking into account that sexism is not ultimately nega-
tive (as has been suggested in earlier research) but can also appear under the guise of
chivalry. Second, the concept of benevolent sexism has often been misunderstood and
has produced the most controversial discussions so far (e.g., “Is it not allowed any more
to open a door for a woman?”). We aim to provide an up-to-date overview about research
on benevolent sexism and to clarify controversial issues.

Modern Sexism and Neosexism

The concepts of Modern Sexism (Swim et al., 1995) and Neosexism (Tougas, Brown,
Beaton & Joly, 1995) were adapted from the concept of Modern Racism and Symbolic
Racism (McConahay, 1986; Kinder & Sears, 1981). Modern sexism reflects a denial of
discrimination against women and resentment of complaints about sexism and efforts to
assist women. That is, modern sexists acknowledge that there is systematic inequality
between women and men, but stress that this is not due to any form of disadvantage (e.g.,
Barreto & Ellemers, 2009). Neosexism is defined as “manifestation of a conflict between
egalitarian values and residual negative feelings toward women” (p. 843, Tougas et al.,
 Sexism • 319

1995). Both forms of sexism are perceived as a socially acceptable way of expressing
prejudice: People are generally disinclined to identify Modern Sexism as an expression of
gender discrimination (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005).
Modern Sexism and Neosexism entail three components: 1) the denial of continued
discrimination against women (e.g., “Discrimination against women is no longer a problem
in the United States” Swim et al., 1995); 2) negative reactions to complaints about inequality
(e.g., “Women’s requests in terms of equality between the sexes are simply exaggerated”,
Tougas et al., 1995); and 3) resistance to efforts addressing sexism (“Over the past few years,
women have gotten more from the government than they deserve”, Tougas et al., 1995).
Although both scales appear to be quite similar, they differ in their operationalization.
Whereas the Modern Sexism Scale particularly represents the first component (denial of
continued discrimination), the Neosexism Scale primarily measures the last two
components (negative reactions to complaints and resistance to efforts addressing sexism).
Modern Sexism and Neosexism are expressions of sexism because they blame women
instead of systematic disadvantage for gender inequality and contribute to the mainte-
nance of the unequal gender status quo. For example, modern and neosexists believe that
women are fully responsible for not being represented in important decision-making
positions. Moreover, the more individuals endorse modern and neosexist beliefs, the
more they overestimate the number of women in masculine domains (Swim et al., 1995),
the more likely they have negative attitudes toward Affirmative Action (Tougas et al.,
1995), the more they evaluate feminists negatively (Campbell, Schellenberg & Senn,
1997), the less their likelihood of judging incidents as sexual harassment (Swim & Cohen,
1997), and the more likely they use sexist language (e.g., Swim, Mallet & Stangor, 2004).
Research also indicates that modern sexism directly leads to an inhibition of social pro-
test: Women exposed to modern sexist beliefs were less interested in protest against
gender inequality (e.g., Ellemers & Barreto, 2009).

Ambivalent Sexism: The Concept

The idea behind the concept of ambivalent sexism refers to the question how women can
be oppressed and loved at the same time (Glick & Fiske, 1996). According to Peter Glick
and Susan Fiske, this paradox derives from intimate relationships between women and
men, and the interplay of structural power (control over economic, legal and political
institutions) and dyadic power (power that stems from dependencies in relationships,
(Guttentag & Secord, 1983)). Whereas structural power is concentrated in men’s hands
within the context of patriarchal structures, dyadic power can be exercised by women
and men in intimate relationships (see also Jackman, 1994). The interplay of structural
and dyadic power leads to ambivalent sexist attitudes, which are composed of hostile
sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS; Glick & Fiske, 1996). Structural power leads to
HS—a clearly negative attitude, grounded in the belief that men deserve a higher status—
accompanied by the fear that women use feminist ideology or their sexuality in order to
obtain control over men. However, Glick and Fiske (1996) argue that even the worst HS,
heterosexual man might desire an intimate relationship with a woman and offspring.
This dependence of men on women lends women some degree of dyadic power and
motivates men to behave in a benevolently sexist manner (see Guttentag & Secord, 1983).
Therefore, BS appears to be charming and flattering.
BS is composed of paternalism, complementary gender differentiation and hetero-
sexual intimacy. Paternalism reflects the belief that women should be protected and
320 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

financially provided for by men (“In a disaster, women should be rescued before men”).
Complementary gender differentiation refers to a characterization of women as “the better
sex”—as wonderful, warm, caring and as possessing special qualities that few men possess
(“Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility”). Heterosexual
intimacy is expressed by an idealization of women as romantic partners. Women are
perceived as essential for true happiness in life (“Men are incomplete without women”).
On first glance, these beliefs appear to be positive and well intentioned. However, they
are patronizing and imply women’s inferiority. This has insidious downsides. The belief
that women need male protection characterizes women as childlike and as being unable
to take care of themselves. The belief that women are warmer and have special qualities
that few men possess solely refers to descriptions that fit lower status and conventional
gender roles, such as “other-profitable” traits (Peeters & Czapinski, 1990)—in contrast to
“self-profitable” traits which include the competence dimension which high-status
groups excel on. Finally, the idealization of women as romantic partners puts the concept
of heterosexual love as one of the most desired goals people have to accomplish in life.
Moreover, as noted above, this belief can be accompanied by the fear that women use
their sexuality in order to control men.
It is important to note that benevolent behaviors are simply polite but not sexist as
long as they are normative for both genders. For example, imagine a man offers to help a
woman who is setting up a computer program. This behavior would not be benevolently
sexist, if the man accepts the woman’s help in a similar situation. However, it would be
benevolently sexist if he believes that setting up a computer program is easier for men to
complete and nothing a woman should grapple with. Before we enlarge upon negative
aspects of BS, we first present some empirical findings regarding the measurement scales.

Ambivalent Sexism: Empirical Findings

In order to measure HS and BS, Glick and Fiske (1996) developed the Ambivalent Sexism
Inventory (ASI). Cross-cultural research indicates that HS and BS are positively correlated
in at least 19 countries worldwide (Glick et al., 2000). Correlations between HS and BS
were higher for women (average r = .37) than for men (average r = .23). Moreover, they
were higher in low sexist nations than in high sexist nations. On a societal level, HS and
BS are strongly correlated (r = .89), supporting the argument that BS and HS form
complementary ideologies, promoting support for and faith in the patriarchal system
(e.g., Jackman, 1994). In line with this, research shows that people are most likely to hold
similar levels of BS and HS at the same time. Univalent sexism (being only HS or BS) is,
in contrast, exceedingly rare: Only 2% of the people in a nationally representative New
Zealand sample solely endorse HS but not BS and only 5% endorse BS but not HS (Sibley
& Becker, 2012).
Furthermore, BS and HS are related to objective indicators of gender inequality (e.g.,
the gender empowerment measure or the gender development index), indicating that
people are more likely to endorse sexist attitudes in countries with high levels of gender
inequality. However, despite the high correlations of BS and HS, it is important to note
that both beliefs are not necessarily directed at the same woman, but instead target
different subtypes of women. HS is mostly directed at women who do not conform to
traditional gender roles (e.g., Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner & Zhu, 1997; Viki & Abrams,
2002; Viki, Massey & Masser, 2005). For instance, HS is more likely directed at the non-
traditional female subtypes feminists and career women than at women “in general”
 Sexism • 321

(Becker, 2010), and are also more likely directed at the negative sexual subtype of
“promiscuous” women than at “chaste” women (Sibley & Wilson, 2004). In contrast, BS
is directed at women who conform to traditional gender roles such as breastfeeding
women (Forbes, Adams-Curtis, Hamm & White, 2003), or housewives (Becker, 2010;
Eckes, 2001; Glick et al., 1997).
This combination of BS directed at women in traditional roles and HS directed at
women in non-traditional roles has been nicely illustrated by Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary
and Kazama (2007). They conducted a field study in which either a non-pregnant woman
or a pregnant woman (the same woman wearing a pregnancy prosthesis) behaved in line
with traditional gender roles (being a store customer) or violated traditional gender roles
(posed as job applicant). Researchers tested whether participants would “reward” the
traditional woman with BS, whereas “punish” the non-traditional woman with hostility.
Results confirmed the authors’ hypotheses: Store employees were more hostile (e.g.,
rude) toward a pregnant (vs. non-pregnant) woman who applied for a job (particularly
a masculine job). In contrast, they behaved more benevolently (e.g., by touching her, by
being overfriendly) toward a pregnant (vs. non-pregnant) woman who was a store cus-
tomer (Hebl et al., 2007). This field study impressively illustrates how the same woman
encounters hostility or benevolence—depending on whether she confirms or discon-
firms traditional gender roles. Importantly, this work also illustrates that not only men,
but also women respond with hostility toward a pregnant woman applying for a mascu-
line job (Hebl et al., 2007, Study 2).
How can women be sexist against their own gender group? Research shows that
women who endorse HS do not direct hostility toward themselves or to women “in
general” but to non-traditional subtypes (e.g., feminists), with whom they do not identify
(Becker, 2010). Furthermore, in many cultures, women are more likely to endorse BS
compared to men. Indeed, BS can appear to be flattering and women can like being
cherished and protected by men. This is in line with work showing that women do not
only like benevolent sexists more than hostile sexists (Kilianski & Rudman, 1998), but
that women even like benevolent sexists more than non-sexists (Bohner, Ahlborn &
Steiner, 2010). In Mary Jackman’s (1994) words, this exemplifies the ways in which
unequal relationships work effectively without the use of force but with consensually
shared legitimizing ideologies.

The Dark Side of Chivalry

Although BS appears appealing, it entails harmful consequences for women as individuals
(on a “micro” level) and for women as a social category on a societal (“macro”) level.
With regard to negative effects on the micro level, research shows that BS results in
women’s assimilation to the stereotypical views implied by BS (e.g., Barreto, Ellemers,
Piebinga & Moya, 2010; Dardenne, Dumont & Bollier, 2007). That is, women exposed to
BS were more likely to self-define themselves in relational terms and were less likely to
describe themselves in task-related terms compared to when they were exposed to HS or
no sexism (Barreto et al., 2010).
Moreover, research indicates that exposure to BS reduces women’s cognitive perfor-
mance (Dardenne et al., 2007). In this study, women were randomly assigned to different
experimental conditions (exposure to BS, HS, no sexism). In the BS condition they
received the following message expressed by a male recruiter as part of training for job
interviews:
322 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

Industry is now restricted to choose women instead of men in case of equal

performance. You’ll work with men only, but don’t worry, they will cooperate and help
you to get used to the job. They know that the new employee could be a woman, and
they agreed to give you time and help.
(Dardenne et al., 2007, p. 767)

Afterwards, the female job applicants completed a problem-solving task. Results show
that women exposed to this benevolent sexist message performed worse in this task than
those who received an HS message or no sexist message.
Dardenne and colleagues (2007) demonstrated in further studies that although
women exposed to BS did not identify the BS statement as being discriminatory, they
nevertheless described the context as equally unpleasant as the HS context. In order to
explain why BS impaired women’s performance further studies revealed that BS elicited
mental intrusions (that is, thoughts such as “during the task, I thought that my perfor-
mance would be poor”), which impedes optimal cognitive performance (Dardenne et al.,
2007). As further evidence that BS modifies task-related brain activity, the authors used
functional MRI (fMRI) and demonstrated that supplementary brain regions, namely
those areas associated with intrusive thought suppression reacted to exposure to BS but
neither to HS nor to a neutral control condition during the performance of the task
(Dardenne et al., 2013).
As a further example of the harmful effects of BS for individual women, research
shows that exposure to BS increases self-objectification: In a study conducted by Calogero
and Jost (2011), women were randomly assigned to read either BS statements, or HS
statements or non-sexist statements. Compared to the HS and non-sexist condition,
women who read BS statements were more likely to rank appearance-based attributes as
more important than competence-based attributes (self-objectification), were more
worried how they look to other people (self-surveillance) and felt more body shame
(Calogero & Jost, 2011). Women who endorse BS do also conform to current beauty
ideals and practices. For instance, they report more use of cosmetics (Forbes, Collinsworth,
Jobe, Braun & Wise, 2007; Forbes, Jung & Haas, 2006; Franzio, 2001) and higher levels
of body dissatisfaction (Forbes et al., 2005). The above reported studies illustrate the
pernicious consequences of BS for women on a “micro level.” How can BS be harmful for
women on the societal level?
On a societal level, BS contributes to the maintenance of gender stereotypes and in
turn fosters gender inequality. First and foremost, BS portrays women not only as
“wonderful and warm” but reinforces patriarchy by characterizing women as childlike,
incompetent and weak and therefore as best suited for low status roles. As noted above,
only those women who behave in line with sexist prescriptions for maintaining traditional
gender role behavior are “rewarded” with affection; those who challenge men’s power are
punished with hostility (Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner & Zhu, 1997; Hebl et al., 2009).
Second, BS works as a pacifier by decreasing women’s resistance against gender
discrimination (Becker & Wright, 2011; Jackman, 1994; Moya, Glick, Exposito, de Lemus
& Hart, 2007). In her influential book, Mary Jackman (1994) has argued that benevolent
behavior (toward Blacks, working-class people and women) works as “the iron fist in the
velvet glove”—a subtle tool of oppression, able to win the voluntary acceptance of
subordinates and thus exemplifies the ways in which members of low-status groups can
be coopted. With regard to the quote by Ursula Le Guin with which we opened this
 Sexism • 323

chapter, Jackman’s thesis would imply that coercion is the least efficient means of
obtaining order. This is particularly true in gender relations, or other types of intergroup
relations where there is a power imbalance and where the dominant group has a vested
interest in keeping members of the disadvantaged group happy with their place in the
social order.
Consistent with Jackman’s (1994) insightful and founding argument, research
indicates that BS leads not only to greater acceptance of individual discrimination (see
Moya et al., 2007), but undermines direct protest against gender inequality. How can this
be explained? System justification theory posits that individuals are motivated to
positively evaluate not only themselves and their groups, but also the societal system they
belong to (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Research illustrates that if people believe that there
is not a single group in society who monopolizes everything “good,” but that a group’s
advantages balance the group’s disadvantages, the overall societal system is perceived to
be fair (e.g., Jost & Burgess, 2000). If something is perceived to be fair, resistance becomes
obsolete. HS and BS can be perceived as an example of such complementary ideologies:
Women are not only treated negatively (i.e., via HS) but also ostensibly positively (via
BS). Thus, women exposed to BS or complementary ideologies (BS and HS) should be
more likely to perceive the gender system (and in extension the societal system) to be fair.
This is exactly what research found (Jost & Kay, 2005; see also Sibley, Overall & Duckitt,
2007): After exposure to BS, women were more likely to perceive the general societal
system to be fair by endorsing items such as “Everyone has a fair shot at wealth and
happiness.” Thus, as long as women believe that the gender system is balanced because
they might receive benefits from BS behavior, their system justification increases.
Following this logic, researchers also demonstrated that exposure to BS directly
undermined women’s engagement in collective action in order to change gender
inequality (Becker & Wright, 2011). In this study, female students allegedly participated
in a memory study. Depending on experimental condition, they learned BS, HS, or
neutral sentences and were told that they would complete a memory test later. Before
answering the memory test, participants engaged in diverse activities. Results show that
participants exposed to BS took less gender-related flyers and were less likely to sign the
petition for gender equality when they were exposed to BS (compared to HS and the
neutral condition). Mediation analyses suggested that BS undermined collective action,
because women found the gender system to be fairer and perceived more advantages of
being a woman compared to the HS and neutral condition (Becker & Wright, 2011).
In sum, the above reported studies illustrate the insidious power of BS ideology for
women as individuals and as social category: Although BS often goes unnoticed or is not
identified as sexist, exposure to BS decreases women’s cognitive performance, increases
conformity to beauty ideals, promotes traditional gender stereotypes, and portrays
women as best fitting into low-status roles. Moreover, BS reduces resistance against
individual discrimination as well as engagement in collective action for social change.

Ambivalence toward Men

In order to round out the review about ambivalent sexism, we briefly present the
“Ambivalence toward Men Inventory” (Glick & Fiske, 1999). Ambivalent attitudes
toward men also consist of hostile and benevolent beliefs. Hostility toward men is
reflected in an unfavorable evaluation of men and comprises three components.
Resentment of paternalism reflects the beliefs that men will always have a power advantage
324 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

(“men will always fight to have greater control in society than women”). Second,
compensatory gender differentiation is characterized by feelings of contempt regarding
men’s domestic abilities (“men act like babies when they are sick”). Third, heterosexual
intimacy expresses the belief that all men view women as sexual objects (“a man who is
sexually attracted to a woman typically has no morals about doing whatever it takes to
get her in bed”). Benevolence toward men is expressed in the belief that women need to
take care of men in the domestic realm (maternalism: “even if both members of a couple
work, the woman ought to be more attentive to taking care of her man at home”), in a
positive evaluation of men as being providers and protectors (complementary gender
differentiation: “men are more willing to put themselves in danger to protect others”),
and in the belief that without a husband a woman’s life is not complete (heterosexual
intimacy: “every woman ought to have a man she adores”). Hostile and benevolent
attitudes toward men are moderately positively related to each other and to HS and BS
toward women (as measured by the ASI, Glick & Fiske, 1999).
Hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men neither reflect increased levels of
delegitimization of men’s greater power nor do they aim to change gender inequality.
In contrast, hostility against men is accompanied by the belief that gender relations
are not changeable and that men will always remain the powerful group. Benevolence
toward men is an example of prejudice in favor of the advantaged group. Casting
advantaged groups in a positive light maintains the unequal status quo at least as much
as prejudice against the disadvantaged group, because these stereotypes imply that the
advantaged group deserves its higher position (Glick & Fiske, 1999; Jost & Banaji, 1994;
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Tajfel, 1981). Thus, women and men holding benevolent
attitudes toward men justify the intergroup hierarchy, for instance, by legitimizing the
traditional division of labor.

SEXISM IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Sexism and Partner Ideals
Although systemic interpersonal dependency between men and women has been recog-
nized as a critical antecedent of different forms of sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996), our
understanding of the role and function of sexism within heterosexual relationships
remains surprisingly limited (see Rudman & Glick, 2008). Previous research has consist-
ently shown that men value attractiveness in potential partners more than women do,
whereas women value resources in potential partners more than men do (see Fletcher,
2002, for review).
However, while there may be overall effects across men and women, some men value
attractiveness more than other men and some women value status more than other
women. What predicts this variation? Sibley and Overall (2011) collated and meta-
analyzed data from 32 samples on levels of sexism and what people value in a partner,
and showed that sexism was a key predictor of how much men and women value these
traits in potential romantic partners. Their analysis focused solely on heterosexual
relationship ideals. It turns out that women high in BS tend to value status and resources
in potential romantic partners, whereas women low in BS place less emphasis on
these traits.
What about men? For men, their level of HS is more predictive of what they value in
a partner. Men high in HS tend to value having an attractive female partner, whereas for
 Sexism • 325

men low in HS, their partner’s attractiveness is less important. For men the desire for a
highly attractive female partner tends to be associated with their level of Social Dominance
Orientation and HS (Sibley & Overall, 2011). For men, this link probably occurs because
HS expresses dominance-motivated negative evaluations of women who refuse to
conform to gender roles that compliment men as a marker of status and success in
relation to other men (a status marker, or “trophy” motive).
Recent neuroimaging research by Cikara, Eberhardt and Fiske (2011) is consistent
with the argument that HS in men leads to a tendency to view women specifically as
objects. Cikara et al. (2011) reported that men high in HS showed less activation of
specific regions of the brain associated with social cognition and attribution (such as the
medial prefrontal cortex) when viewing images of sexualized women. This effect was
limited specifically to viewing images of sexualized women rather than images of women
not explicitly sexualized in nature. These results indicate that men high in HS show a
differential pattern of neural activation when viewing sexualized women. This differential
pattern of activation is associated with viewing sexualized women as objects rather than
as people, in that men high in HS are making less use of parts of the brain associated with
sociocognitive faculties when they view such images. Men high in HS tend to be more
likely to view women as objects, at least under certain conditions.
What of women? Sibley and Overall (2011) argued that the underlying reasons for
why women prefer partners who can provide resources are similar to why women adopt
BS: to gain protection and security. Consistent with this, in a second study, Sibley and
Overall (2011) showed that women high in a general threat-driven motive for collective
security (indexed by authoritarianism) tended to also value status and power in men—
that is, they tended to value traits that would allow them to protect and provide for their
female partner. Moreover, the link between this motive and women’s status mate
preferences was mediated by BS. This suggests that the link between women’s BS and
their desire for a high-status partner may result from a more general and global concern
about security and the level of threat in society. This lends further support to the idea
that it is when women tend to perceive societal threat that they tend to perceive BS as a
way to promote their being protected and cherished; and part of this is an increase in the
desire for a high-status partner capable of doing the protecting and providing.
The desire for a partner high in status and provision also tends to form part of a
broader constellation of ideals about the “perfect” partner or “prince charming” archetype
who is charming, as well as able to protect and provide (Rudman & Heppen, 2003).
However, a woman’s desire for an idealized protector also tends to be correlated with
other critical outcomes that maintain her reliance and dependence on her partner.
Rudman and Heppen (2003) reported that, for women, an implicit romantic fantasy of
one’s partner as being like (or associated with) concepts such as “Prince Charming,” a
“white knight,” or a “superhero” predicted lower educational goals and less interest in
attaining a high-status job. Idealization of the perfect partner in this way is associated
with less emphasis on gaining direct access to education, status and resources.

Sexism and Romantic Relationships

There is good evidence that endorsing BS hurts women at the group level. To return
to some of examples mentioned earlier: Endorsing BS reduces women’s motivation
to fight for collective change (Becker & Wright, 2011). Exposure to BS also reduces
women’s performance on cognitive tests in job-testing situations (Dardenne et al., 2007).
326 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

An analysis of data on trends in gender inequality across 57 nations even indicates

that levels of sexism predicted increased gender inequality at the national level (Brandt,
2011).
However, BS also provides women with power within specific relational domains
(Overall, Sibley & Tan, 2013; Hammond & Overall, 2013). Not only this, but research
by Hammond, Sibley and Overall (2014) now suggests that in certain contexts women’s
BS may increase as a result of the narcissistic-based motivation for personal gain.
Hammond et al. (2014) showed that women who are higher in psychological entitlement
(a specific component of narcissistic personality) tend to become higher in BS over time.
This effect is specific to women; men high in psychological entitlement do not show the
same effect. The crux here is that the gains for women associated with BS may be real and
of consequence; they are specific to individual women within their romantic relation-
ships. In this sense, there is growing evidence that BS may offer tangible rewards for
women within traditional patriarchal relationships, while simultaneously reducing their
motivation for group-based social change and collective action (see Becker & Wright,
2011).
These benefits facilitate a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy, where women may benefit in
their individual romantic relationships, but as a group fail to gain equal access to status
and resources in other (non-relationship) domains. The access to power within
relationships provided by BS is restricted to traditional relational domains. In other
respects, women’s and men’s sexism can have other negative effects that still play out
within relationship contexts. For instance, women are more open to accepting restrictions
on their behavior outside the home imposed by their partners when those restrictions
are framed in terms of benevolence or protective paternalism.
Moya and colleagues (2007) provided a powerful demonstration of this in a lab-based
relationship study. Female students majoring in psychology, education or sociology were
told as part of a research experiment that they might be eligible to take part in a workshop
learning to help counsel men convicted of rape or wife abuse. Their male partners were
recruited as confederates during the experiment, and asked to oppose their participation
in the workshop. However, the male partners were asked to offer different (pre-prepared
and controlled) written reasons for why they opposed their female partner taking part in
the workshop. In one condition they offered a protective justification “it would not be
safe for her. I think she would find it really stressful.” Male partners in another condition
offered a more hostile justification “this is not a situation in which a woman, compared
to a man, could be effective.” In a third condition, other male partners were asked simply
to oppose the workshop without offering a specific reason.
Not surprisingly, the women in Moya and colleagues’ (2007) study reacted differently
depending on the justification that their partner provided for their opposition. However,
women’s own levels of BS also affected how they responded. Women generally reacted
most positively when their partner offered a protective justification for their opposition
to a practicum that was presumably highly relevant and seen as a valuable career training
opportunity for many of their women in the study (recall that the women were all
majoring in subjects potentially relevant to counseling).
The most startling effect, however, is how high and low BS women differed from one
another in the way that they reacted when their partner did not offer a justification. In
the no-justification condition, women high in BS reported feeling more positive (assessed
using the items: protected, cherished, important to their partner and flattered) toward
 Sexism • 327

their partner. Women low in BS, in contrast, felt significantly less positive toward their
partner in the no-justification condition. The results of Moya and colleagues’ (2007)
study suggest that women high in BS may be more open to their partner’s attempts to
control certain aspects of their lives when the rationale offered by their male partner is
ambiguous, and when it relates to control in a non-relationship domain (such as work or
career training that is not consistent with traditional roles for women).
Other research, in contrast, suggests that in domains directly related to romantic
relationships, BS does quite the opposite, and may provide women with power and control
(Hammond & Overall, 2013; Overall, Sibley & Tan, 2011). Power and control, however,
that is specific to the relationship domain. Overall et al. (2011) invited couples in ongoing
heterosexual relationships into their lab, and then unobtrusively recorded them (with
their permission) while they discussed aspects of each other that they wanted to change.
Overall et al. (2011) showed that men who were high in BS behaved more positively
when their partner was trying to change them, and were more open to change. Men high
in BS, it seems, are more attentive to their partner’s requests for change within the
relationship domain. For women, however, the pattern differed. Women who were high
in BS tended to react to their partners’ attempts to change them with more hostility and
less openness, but only when they were with a male partner who was low in BS. In couples
where both partners were high in BS, women tended to react with less hostility and to
view their discussions with their partner as more successful. These findings indicate that
in situations of relationship conflict, women high in BS tend to react more negatively and
with more hostility when their partner does not share their BS values. If one expects to
be idealized and cherished as a woman who is “weak but wonderful” within one’s
romantic relationship, then it might be quite a shock to discover that one’s partner has
more egalitarian attitudes and views one as an equal who should also be expected to
change, rather than being idealized just the way one is.
A series of studies by Hammond and Overall (2013) have expanded on the intriguing
suggestion that women high in BS seem to display greater hostility and negativity in their
romantic relationships when their partners are not meeting their ideals. Hammond and
Overall (2013) measured women’s evaluations of their relationship each day using a daily
diary. They showed that women high in BS tended to be more affected by their partner’s
hurtful behavior than low-BS women. On days where their partner was critical or
unpleasant toward them, women high in BS showed a more pronounced drop in their
levels of relationship satisfaction (e.g., how much they felt loved and cared about in
general). Moreover, the reactive effect was most pronounced for women high in BS who
had been with their partner for a longer period of time, and who thus presumably had
more invested in the relationship.
Hammond and Overall’s (2013; Overall et al., 2013) research in this area is important
because it speaks to a core point about the costs and benefits of BS, and hence the
insidious power of this ideology. Women high in BS tend to invest more heavily in their
romantic relationships. They may be more likely to view gender roles as an implicit
relational contract where their end of the deal is in adhering to traditional gender roles
and being swayed by their partner when it comes to other domains such as career
aspirations or taking up on educational opportunities (as shown by Moya et al., 2007).
However, the other side of this deal is that they will be idealized, cherished and provided
for by their partner, who should act as a “prince charming” (as implied by Rudman &
Heppen, 2003). Relationship conflict or disagreements may challenge this implicit
328 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

expectation because they signal that one’s male partner does not view one as perfect and
might desire one to change in some way.
What Hammond and Overall’s work demonstrates is that women high in BS are highly
attuned to signals of relationship conflict or dissatisfaction from their partner, probably
because they have so much more invested in the relationship conforming to traditional
gender roles. Under such conditions, BS may empower women, within this specific
domain, to challenge their partner, react more negatively toward them, and experience
more pronounced declines in relationship satisfaction. This points to one of the core
trade-offs made by women who subscribe to BS in their romantic relationships. High BS
women may be more likely to be protected and provided for within their relationships
(to the extent that they value status and resource provision in their partners; Sibley &
Overall, 2011). This is the seductive side of BS, and one that research indicates can seem
highly appealing to many women (Kilianski & Rudman, 1998). However, because they
have more invested in such relationships, high BS women who enter into such relationship
“contracts” will tend to be the ones to react most negatively and experience the sharpest
declines in their daily evaluation of their relationship (how loved they feel by their
partner, etc.), when their partner does not live up to their ideals.

CONSEQUENCES OF SEXISM
Sexism can affect women directly and indirectly (Stangor et al., 2003; Swim & Hyers,
2009). We first provide a brief overview on direct consequences of sexism by focusing on
violence and discrimination against women. Second, we present indirect consequences
by introducing stereotype threat, and the consequences of internalizing sexist beliefs (i.e.,
self-silencing beliefs, self-objectification).

Direct Consequences: Violence and Discrimination

The most extreme form of direct consequences of sexism is physical violence against women,
including murder, sexual aggression and interpersonal violence. The global prevalence of
physical or sexual intimate partner violence among women is 30.0% (WHO, 2013).
Moreover, recent data indicates that 35% of women worldwide have experienced either
intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime.
Another direct consequence of sexism can be seen in the discrimination against
women in terms of employment and income. The gender pay gap may be the clearest
example illustrating that women get less payment for the same job compared to men
(e.g., DeStatis, 2013). Moreover, in one study, it was experimentally examined whether
gaining children disadvantages women on the job market more than men (Cuddy, Fiske
& Glick, 2004). In this study, participants read a scenario about an associate consultant in
an organization. This consultant was either a woman (Kate) or a man (Dan). Furthermore,
half of the participants read that Kate and her husband (or Dan and his wife) “recently
had their first baby”; the other half of participants did not get information about the
consultant’s parental status. Afterwards participants completed diverse measures, among
other things, discriminatory intentions (e.g., how likely they would be to recommend
Kate/Dan for a promotion). Higher scores indicate less discrimination. Results show that
the working mom was more discriminated against (i.e., less likely promoted, M = 4.16)
than the childless working woman (M = 4.86). In contrast, gaining a child did not affect
discriminatory intentions regarding the male worker: Working dads (M = 4.81) and the
 Sexism • 329

childless working man (M = 4.62) received equally low scores on the discrimination
intention scale (Cuddy et al., 2004).

Indirect Consequences: Stereotype Threat and Internalization of Sexist Beliefs

Indirect effects of sexism occur when a woman perceives that she is discriminated
against, which can attenuate but also accentuate the negative consequence of experiencing
sexism. According to the well-researched effect of stereotype threat, knowing a certain
stereotype about one’s own group leads to confirming this stereotype in performance
situations. For example, most women know the stereotype that women are bad at math.
In an experimental study conducted by Spencer, Steele and Quinn (1999) women were
either told that a math test produces gender differences (high stereotype threat condition)
or not (low stereotype threat condition) and were asked to complete the math test.
Results show that women in the high stereotype threat condition performed worse than
equally qualified men did, whereas there was no gender difference in the low stereotype
threat condition (Spencer et al., 1999). Thus, simply activating the stereotypes about
one’s ingroup dampens women’s cognitive performance.
Moreover, we argue that the indirect effects of sexism also occur when women are
influenced in their behavior by having internalized sexist beliefs and gender role
expectations. The insidious consequences of BS as one example of internalization have
been reported above. In addition to internalized BS beliefs, the internalization of
prescriptive gender role expectations in general can be harmful for women. According to
a “doing gender” perspective, gender is socially constructed, constituted by interaction
and internalized by women and men (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Men are “doing” more
dominance and women are “doing” more deference, which reinforces and legitimizes
gender inequality. For instance, women are often taken less seriously compared to men
because they express themselves in less powerful ways: Women are more likely than men
to use unfinished sentences, disclaimers (“I could be wrong, but . . .”) and hedges (“hum,
ah”), and they are also more likely than men to speak more tentatively and use more tag
questions (“It’s a nice day, isn’t it?”). In conversations, women are more likely to ask
questions than make statements (e.g., Carli, 1990; Lakoff, 1975; Reid, Keerie & Palomares,
2003). When men are talking, many women are more likely than men to respond with a
smile, attentive listening and nodding (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995). However, if women
do not behave in line with these role expectations, but present themselves more assertively,
they risk being less liked and described in more negative terms compared to men behaving
in the same way (e.g., Rudman & Glick, 1999, 2001).
Moreover, internalized gender roles can contribute to the explanation of the gender
pay gap. Women are expected to be warm, caring, selfless and modest. Prescriptive
gender stereotypes suggest that a good woman puts others’ needs ahead of her own
needs. These beliefs are called self-silencing beliefs (e.g., Jack & Dill, 1992). Despite some
significant changes since the entering of women in the work world, these self-silencing
beliefs remain surprisingly up to date. If women are expected to avoid being assertive and
demanding, but to be modest and selfless, it is not surprising that women make lower
salary requests compared to men in salary negotiations (e.g., Barron, 2003). Evidently, if
women request a lower salary, they receive a lower salary. Thus, one reason for the gender
pay gap—in addition to structural factors such as male networks and the glass ceiling—
can be seen in these role restrictions (e.g., Barron, 2003; Wade, 2001) and internalized
norms of social inequality (e.g., the belief that women are entitled to deserve lesser
330 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

outcomes, e.g., Major, 1994). Gendered self-silencing beliefs are not only prevalent in
work contexts but also in interpersonal relationships. Although self-silencing beliefs are
intended to protect harmony in relationships, they are problematic if only women are
inclined not to express their thoughts and feelings in interpersonal interactions. Indeed,
the more women endorse self-silencing beliefs, the worse their psychological well-being
(Jack & Dill, 1992) and the less they confront sexism in their everyday lives (Swim, Eyssell,
Quinlivan Murdoch & Ferguson, 2010).
A further example of internalization of sexism is self-objectification. Self-objectification
means to apply an observer’s perspective on one’s body and appearance (e.g., Fredrickson
& Roberts, 1997). Self-objectification leads to a permanent monitoring whether or not
one’s body fits the cultural standards of appearance. This has a negative impact on women
(e.g., Calogero, Pina, Park & Rahemtulla, 2010). Specifically, an experimental manipula-
tion of self-objectification (wearing a swimsuit versus a sweater) increased women’s body
shame, which in turn predicted restrained eating (Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn &
Twenge, 1998). Furthermore, self-objectification also undermined women’s math perfor-
mance via depletion of attention resources (Fredrickson et al., 1998).
This section focused on direct and indirect consequences of sexism. Indirect conse-
quences are more ambiguous and more difficult to observe. However, several examples
illustrate the insidious danger of internalizing traditional gender role expectations and
sexist beliefs. In light of these harmful consequences of sexism for women, it is key to ask
how sexism can be changed. One way to break through habitual behaviors is by confront-
ing sexist incidents. The next two paragraphs summarize research on confronting and
reducing sexism.

CONFRONTING SEXISM
Confronting sexism is a volitional process that aims at expressing one’s dissatisfaction
with sexist treatment to the person (or group) responsible for it (Becker, Zawadzki &
Shields, 2014; Kaiser & Miller, 2004; Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore & Hill, 2006). Although
women are generally inclined to confront sexism when they are asked to imagine a sexist
encounter, in reality most women remain silent (Swim & Hyers, 1999; Swim et al., 2010).
This might be due to the fact that confronting sexism presents a double-edged sword for
women, because confronting can have negative and positive consequences for the
confronter.
The negative consequences of confronting refer to social costs: Confronters are often
perceived as oversensitive and overreacting troublemakers, as interpersonally cold, or
fearful of retaliation (e.g., Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Dodd, Giuliano, Boutell & Moran,
2001; Feagin & Sikes, 1994; Kaiser & Miller, 2001, 2003; Kaiser, Hagiwara, Malahy &
Wilkins, 2009). Compared to men confronting sexism, female confronters are at risk to be
perceived as self-interested and egoistic (Drury & Kaiser, 2014). Especially low-power tar-
gets are reluctant to confront high-power perpetrators (e.g., Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2014).
However, although confronting can entail some negative consequences, it can produce
a broad range of positive psychological outcomes: confronting increases an individual’s
perceived competence, self-esteem, empowerment (Gervais et al., 2010; Swim & Thomas,
2005) and satisfaction (Hyers, 2007). Importantly, confronting prejudice can reduce sub-
sequent stereotype use in perpetrators (Czopp, Monteith & Mark, 2006) and observers
(Rasinski & Czopp, 2010). Thus, confronting sexism can prevent future encounters with
 Sexism • 331

sexism by educating the perpetrator (e.g., Hyers, 2007) or more broadly through chang-
ing social norms (e.g., Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham & Vaughn, 1994).
When faced with a sexist encounter, individuals have diverse options to respond. Many
individuals may ask themselves which ways of confronting are most successful, and may
maximize the benefits and minimize the social costs. First evidence suggests that when
faced with sexism, observers are more likely to support non-aggressive confrontation
(e.g., tactfully addressing the perpetrator) compared to aggressive confrontation (slap-
ping the perpetrator) and no confrontation at all (Becker & Barreto, 2014). Thus, these
findings suggest that confronting sexism is preferred over non-confronting by female
and male observers. Moreover, confronters are more likely supported when they con-
front non-aggressively compared to aggressively. However, women highly identified with
their gender and men weakly identified with their gender are supportive of aggressive
and non-aggressive confrontation compared to no confrontation at all (Becker &
Barreto, 2014; see also Kaiser, Hagiwara, Malahy & Wilkins, 2009).

REDUCING SEXISM
Compared to research on reducing other forms of prejudice (e.g., racism), research on
interventions to reduce sexism is relatively rare (but see Becker et al., 2014).
One reason for this refers to the fact that intergroup contact as the most successful
paradigm to reduce prejudice based on ethnicity, age or disability cannot be applied to
reducing sexism. It has been argued that gender is special because of the prescriptive
aspects of gender stereotypes, the inherent power asymmetries between women and
men, close contact, and the sexual and biological facets of intimate relationships (Fiske &
Stevens, 1993). Women and men are in continuous close contact and do not experience
intergroup anxiety. Accordingly, mechanisms that are successful in reducing other forms
of prejudice (e.g., racism) cannot simply be adapted to sexism research. Thus, in order to
reduce sexism, alternative interventions need to be developed.
So far, first interventions have been conducted, in which participants are provided
with certain information that aims to change their attitudes. For instance, Shields,
Zawadzki and Johnson (2011) introduced the Workshop Activity for Gender Equity
Simulation in the Academy (WAGES-Academic), which simulates the cumulative effects
of unconscious bias in the academic workplace. By playing WAGES-Academic, partici-
pants experientially learn that the accumulation of their minor biases can hinder
advancement and results in inequality. Indeed, playing WAGES reduced individual’s
acceptance of sexism (e.g., Zawadzki, Shields, Danube & Swim, 2013).
Other interventions, for instance the multi-component intervention program to
reduce sexism evaluated by de Lemus, Navarro, Velásquez, Ryan and Megías (2014),
suggest that it is more challenging to reduce an individual’s endorsement of BS than HS.
Likewise, research indicated that it is particularly difficult to change men’s endorsement
of BS. In a diary study, women and men were asked to complete sexism diaries (or stress
diaries). Keeping sexism diaries reduced women’s but not men’s endorsement of BS,
modern and neosexist beliefs (Becker & Swim, 2011). How can men’s endorsement of
sexism be changed? Men reduced their endorsement of modern and neosexism only when
they were explicitly asked to increase their empathy by imagining the target’s emotions.
However, men’s endorsement of BS remained unaffected by the diary method (presumably
because the men imagined that the target had positive emotions when confronted with
332 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

BS). Building on this, further research illustrates that men’s endorsement of BS can be
reduced by providing information about the harmful effects of BS (Becker & Swim, 2012).
In sum, first intervention studies provide useful information on how different types of
sexism can be successfully reduced (for an overview, see Becker et al., 2014). It is important
to note, however, that these psychological “micro-level” interventions (such as confronting
sexist perpetrators, participating in programs to reduce sexism) present only a first step in
changing unequal gender relations. In reality, gender equality can only be achieved by sub-
tracting power from the advantaged group (Jackman, 1994). Obviously, most members of
the dominant group do not give up their privileges voluntarily. According to Gramsci’s
(1971) concept of hegemony, consent between all members of society is produced
and transmitted by the civil society (e.g., political parties, political organizations, church,
schools, the media or family). Thus, in order to reach actual gender equality, negotiations
carried out in all institutions of society and culture are necessary. Moreover, from an inter-
sectionality perspective (e.g., Cole, 2009; Shields, 2008), women and men embody various
social identities that conjointly affect our beliefs about and experiences with sexism. In
order to sustainably change sexism in society, all kinds of expropriate and unequal relation-
ships between groups need to be taken into account and addressed at different levels.

REFERENCES
Ashburn-Nardo, L., Blanchar, J. C., Petersson, J., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2014). Do you say something
when it’s your boss? The role of perpetrator power in prejudice confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 70,
615–636.
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of
gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 633–642.
Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Piebinga, L., & Moya, M. (2010). How nice of us and how dumb of me: The effects of
exposure to benevolent sexism on women’s task and relational self-descriptions. Sex Roles, 62, 532–544.
Barron, L. A. (2003). Ask and you shall receive? Gender differences in negotiators’ beliefs about requests for a higher
salary. Human Relations, 56(6), 635–662.
Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and
personalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles, 62, 453–467.
Becker, J. C., & Barreto, M. (2014). Ways to go: Men’s and women’s support for aggressive and non-aggressive
confrontation of sexism as a function of gender identification. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 668–686.
Becker, J. C. & Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as a way to reduce
sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 227– 242.
Becker, J. C. & Swim, J. K. (2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: Differential
effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Social Psychology, 43, 127–137.
Becker, J. C. & Wright, S. C. (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.
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, 603–614.
Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism: Blatant, subtle, and covert discrimination (2nd ed.).
Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blanchard, F. A., Crandall, C. S., Brigham, J. C., & Vaughn, L. A. (1994). Condemning and condoning racism: A
social context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 993–997.
Bohner, G., Ahlborn, K., & Steiner, R. (2010). How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response
profiles in the ambivalent sexism inventory. Sex Roles, 62, 568–582.
Bornholt, L. J. (2000). The gendered nature of competence: Specific and general aspects of self-knowledge in social
contexts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 350–370.
Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1413–1418.
Calogero, R. M., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification,
and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100,
211–228.
 Sexism • 333

Calogero, R. M., Pina, A., Park, L. E., & Rahemtulla, Z. (2010). Objectification theory predicts college women’s
attitudes toward cosmetic surgery. Sex Roles, 63(1–2), 32–41.
Campbell, B., Schellenberg, E. G., & Senn, C. Y. (1997). Evaluating measures of contemporary sexism. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 21, 89–102.
Carli, L.L. (1990). Gender, language, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 565–576.
Cikara, M., Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to
sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 540–551.
Cole, E.R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.
Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures:
Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322–331.
Cuddy, A. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice.
Journal of Social Issues, 60(4), 701–718.
Czopp, A. M., & Monteith, M. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and
gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–544.
Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal
confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784–803.
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764–779.
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., Phillips, C., Balteau, E., Degueldre, C., & Collette, F. (2013). Benevolent
sexism alters executive brain responses. Neuroreport: For Rapid Communication of Neuroscience Research,
24(10), 572–577.
De Lemus, S., Navarro, L., Velásquez, M., Ryan, E. & Megias, J. L. (2014). From sex to gender: A university
intervention to reduce sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 741–762.
DeStatis (Statistisches Bundesamt) (2013). Gender Pay Gap. Retrieved from www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/
GesamtwirtschaftUmwelt/VerdiensteArbeitskosten/VerdiensteVerdienstunterschiede/Tabellen/Gender
PayGap_EU.html
Dodd, E. H., Giuliano, T. A., Boutell, J. M., & Moran, B. E. (2001). Respected or rejected: Perceptions of women who
confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles, 45, 567–577.
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.
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus
social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.
Eckes, T. (2001). Ambivalenter Sexismus und die Polarisierung von Geschlechterstereotypen (Ambivalent sexism
and the polarization of gender stereotypes). Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 32, 235–247.
Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2009). Collective action in modern times: How modern expressions of prejudice
prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 749–768. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x
Feagin, J. R., & Sikes, M. P. (1994). Living with racism: The Black middle-class experience. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S.
Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 173–196). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fletcher, G. J. O. (2002). The new science of intimate relationships. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Forbes, G. B., Jung, J., & Haas, K. B. (2006). Benevolent sexism and cosmetic use: A replication with three college
samples and one adult sample. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 635–640.
Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L., Hamm, N., & White, K. (2003). Perceptions of the woman who breastfeeds: The
role of erotophobia, sexism, and attitudinal variables. Sex Roles, 49, 379–388.
Forbes, G. B., Collinsworth, L. L., Jobe, R. L., Braun, K. D., & Wise, L. 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.
Forbes, G. B., Curtis, L., Jobe, R. L., White, K. B., Revak, J., Zivcic-Becirevic, I. et al. (2005). Body dissatisfaction in
college women and their mothers: Cohort effects, developmental effects, and the influences of body size,
sexism, and the thin body ideal. Sex Roles, 53, 281–296.
Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 44, 177–188.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences
and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., & Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex
differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75(1), 269–284.
334 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

Gervais, S. J., Hillard, A. L., & Vescio, T. K. (2010). Confronting sexism: The role of relationship orientation and
gender. Sex Roles, 63, 463–474.
Gibbons, J. L., Stiles, D. A., & Shkodriani, G. M. (1991). Adolescents’ attitudes toward family and gender roles:
An international comparison. Sex Roles, 25(11–12), 625–643.
Glick, P., & Fiske S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent
beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized
attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple
antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
763–775.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Ed. and Trans. Q. Hoare & G.N. Smith). New York:
International Publishers.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus: A practical guide for improving communication and
getting what you want in your relationships. New York: HarperCollins.
Guimond, S. (2008). Psychological similarities and differences between women and men across cultures. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 494–510.
Guimond, S., Branscombe, N. R., Brunot, S., Buunk, A. P., Chatard, A., Désert, M., & Yzerbyt, V. (2007). Culture,
gender, and the self: Variations and impact of social comparison processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92(6), 1118.
Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. (1983). Too many women? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2013). When relationships do not live up to benevolent ideals: Women’s
benevolent sexism and sensitivity to relationship problems. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3),
212–223.
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2014). Endorsing benevolent sexism magnifies willingness to dissolve
relationships when facing partner-ideal discrepancies. Personal Relationships, 21(2), 272–287.
Hammond, M., Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2014). The allure of sexism: Psychological entitlement fosters
women’s endorsement of benevolent sexism over time. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 5(4),
422–429.
Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Singletary, S. L., & Kazama, S. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward
pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1499–1511.
Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58(2), 197–208.
Hyde, J. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.60.6.581
Hyers, L. (2007). Resisting prejudice every day: Exploring women’s assertive responses to anti-Black racism, anti-
semitism, heterosexism, and sexism. Sex Roles, 56, 1–12.
Jack, D. C., & Dill, D. (1992). The silencing the self scale: Schemas of intimacy associated with depression in women.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 97–106.
Jackman, M.R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false-
consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification
motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293–305.
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences
for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263.
Kaiser, C., & Miller, C. (2003). Derogating the victim: The interpersonal consequences of blaming events on
discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 227–237.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2004). A stress and coping perspective on confronting sexism. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 28, 168–178.
Kaiser, C. R., Hagiwara, N., Malahy, L. W., & Wilkins, C. L. (2009). Group identification moderates attitudes toward
ingroup members who confront discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 770–777.
 Sexism • 335

Kilianski, S. E., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles,
39, 333–352.
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414–431.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Basic Books.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. D. Dovidio & S. L.
Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy
appraisals, and group membership. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 293–355.
Moya, M., Glick, P., Expósito, F., De Lemus, S., & Hart, J. (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent sexism and
women’s tolerance of paternalistic discrimination by intimate partners. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 33, 1421–1434.
Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. (2011). The costs and benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during
relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 271–290.
Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive–negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective
and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 33–60.
Rasinski, H. M., & Czopp, A. M. (2010). The effect of target status on witnesses’ reactions to confrontations of bias.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 8–16.
Reid, S. A., Keerie, N., & Palomares, N. A. (2003). Language, gender salience and social influence. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 22(2), 210–233.
Rothman, B. (1988). The tentative pregnancy: Prenatal diagnosis and the future of motherhood. London: Pandora.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs
to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5),
1004–1010.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of
Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations.
New York: Guilford Press.
Rudman, L.A., & Heppen, J. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: A glass
slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1357–1370.
Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore, J., & Hill, D. M. (2006). Silence is not golden: Intrapersonal consequences
of not confronting prejudice. In S. Levin & C. Van Laar (Eds.), Social stigma and group inequality: Social
psychological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shields, S. A. (2008). Intersectionality of social identities: A gender perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311.
Shields, S. A., Zawadzki, M. J., & Johnson, R. N. (2011). The impact of the “Workshop Activity for Gender Equity
Simulation in the Academy” (WAGES-Academic) in demonstrating cumulative effects of gender bias. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 4, 120–129.
Sibley, C. G. & Becker, J. C. (2012). A typology of sexists: Profiling ambivalent and univalent sexists in a national
probability sample. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 589–601.
Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2011). A dual-process motivational model of ambivalent sexism and gender
differences in romantic partner preferences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 303–317.
Sibley, C.G., & Wilson, M.S. (2004). Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes toward positive and
negative sexual female subtypes. Sex Roles, 51, 687–696.
Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender:
The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 56(9–10), 743–754.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 4–28.
Stangor, C., Swim, J. K., Sechrist, G. B., DeCoster, J., VanAllen, K. L., & Ottenbreit, A. (2003). Ask, answer and
announce: Three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.),
European review of social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 277–311). Hove, UK: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Swim, J. K. (1994). Perceived versus meta-analytic effect sizes: An assessment of the accuracy of gender stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 21–36. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.21
Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert and subtle sexism. A comparison between the attitudes toward
women and Modern Sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103–118.
Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?!: Women’s public and private responses to
sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68–88.
336 • Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (2009). Sexism. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and
discrimination (pp. 407–430). New York: Psychology Press.
Swim, J. K., & Thomas, M. A. (2005). Responding to everyday discrimination: A synthesis of research on goal-
directed, self-regulatory coping behaviors. In S. Levin & C. Van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality (pp.
105–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Swim, J. K., Mallett, R., & Stangor, C. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use of sexist language.
Sex Roles, 51, 117–128.
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, 199–214.
Swim, J. K., Becker, J., Lee, E. & Pruitt, E. R. (2009). Sexism reloaded: Worldwide evidence for its endorsement,
expression, and emergence in multiple contexts. In H. Landrine & N. Russo (Eds.). Handbook of diversity in
feminist psychology (pp. 137–172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Swim, J. K., Eyssell, K. M., Murdoch, Q. E., & Ferguson, M. J. (2010). Self-silencing to sexism. Journal of Social Issues,
66, 493–507.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social identity and intergroup relations. London: Cambridge University Press.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849.
Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21,
35–52.
United Nations (2012). Gender Inequality Index. Retrieved from: http://data.un.org/DocumentData.aspx?q=
HDI+&id=332 (accessed November 25, 2014).
Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who
violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289–293.
Viki, G. T., Massey, K., & Masser, B. (2005). When chivalry backfires: Benevolent sexism and attitudes toward Myra
Hindley. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 109–120.
Wade, M. (2001). Women and salary negotiation: The costs of self-advocacy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25,
65–76.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. In J. Lorbeer & S. A. Farell (Eds.), The social construction of
gender (pp. 13–37). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
WHO (World Health Organization) (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence
and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Retrieved from http://apps.
who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85239/1/9789241564625_eng.pdf?ua=1 (accessed November 25, 2014).
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1986). Sex stereotypes and intergroup relations. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 244–259). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Yuki, M. (2003). Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social
identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2),
166–183.
Zawadzki, M. J., Shields, S. A., Danube, C. L., & Swim, J. K. (2013). Using WAGES to raise awareness of and
reduce endorsement of sexism via experiential learning. Psychology of Women Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/
0361684313498573