Attachment theory describes how people have a cognitive system that is shaped by experiences of the availability and quality of support they receive when threatened or stressed (Bowlby, 1969; Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). This system guides people's behavioral, cognitive, and affective responses to obtain, or suppress the need for, interpersonal support (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Individual differences in attachment orientation occur along two dimensions: attachment anxiety, the extent to which people view themselves as reliant on others for support and fear being abandoned (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000; Simpson & Rholes, 2012), and attachment avoidance, the extent to which people view others as unreliable support providers and shun dependence (Fraley et al., 2000; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). One focus of the attachment literature is how romantic attachment produces patterns of interpersonal behavior and cognition that shape relationship dynamics and wellbeing (Li & Chan, 2012; Simpson & Rholes, 2012). However, attachment orientations also shape people's social beliefs beyond their immediate relationships. For example, higher attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance are predictive of holding more prejudicial attitudes toward outgroups (e.g.,

Hostile sexism encompasses beliefs about the risks of depending on women, so men's endorsement of hostile sexism should interrupt access to social support. Across two studies, U.S. and Canadian men who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism expressed lower satisfaction with support from female romantic partners (Study 1; N = 293) and lower desire for support from close others in stressful scenarios (Study 2; N = 396). Moderation and mediation analyses identified more (vs. less) interdependent relationships as a key context of discomfort with support and two potential mechanisms: Men who endorsed hostile sexism perceived support as potentially threatening and felt more vulnerable when seeking support, partially explaining their discomfort with support. Surprisingly, results for women's hostile sexism showed similar patterns of discomfort with support. Our findings illustrate that endorsing hostile sexism has costs for men themselves, but also suggest the effects of hostile sexism are less gender specific than previously theorized. Public Significance StatementMen who more strongly endorsed hostile sexism toward women expressed more discomfort with support from both romantic partners and nonromantic close others. Feelings of vulnerability and threat when depending on others partially explained this discomfort with support and offered possible targets for interventions aimed to improve men's access to social support.