Child Development in Same-Sex Families: Beliefs of Chinese Lesbians, Gays, and Heterosexuals

Zhao, Ruobing; Zheng, Yong

doi:10.1007/s13178-020-00483-5

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hostile sexism is also associated with negative attitudes towards non-traditional family planning, such as surrogacy 162 . However, there is little research on how ambivalent sexism influences minority sexual relationships 163 , 164 . Furthermore, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory produces different means and item loadings across heterosexual individuals and sexual-minority individuals 46 .…”

Section: Effects On Heterosexual Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, little is known about how ambivalent sexism influences wellbeing and relationship functioning in same-sex couples. There is evidence that sexism contributes to intimate partner violence 163 , attitudes towards same-sex parenting 164 and objectification 170 by sexual-minority individuals and within minority sexual relationships. However, these studies used a measure that is now known not to adequately capture sexism in these populations 46 .…”

Section: Summary and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Benevolent and hostile sexism in a shifting global context

Barreto

Doyle

2022

Nat Rev Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theory of and research on ambivalent sexism — which encompasses both attitudes that are overtly negative (hostile sexism) and those that seem subjectively positive but are actually harmful (benevolent sexism) — have made substantial contributions to understanding how sexism operates and the consequences it has for women. It is now clear that sexism takes different forms, some of which can be disguised as protection and flattery. However, all forms of sexism have negative effects on how women are perceived and treated by others as well as on women themselves. Some of these findings have implications for understanding other social inequalities, such as ableism, ageism, racism and classism. In this Review, we summarize what is known about the predictors of ambivalent sexism and its effects. Although we focus on women, we also consider some effects on men, in particular those that indirectly influence women. Throughout the Review we point to societal shifts that are likely to influence how sexism is manifested, experienced and understood. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of these changes and specifying areas of enquiry that need to be addressed to continue making progress in understanding the mechanisms that underlie social inequalities.

show abstract

Section: Effects On Heterosexual Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benevolent and hostile sexism in a shifting global context

Barreto

Doyle

2022

Nat Rev Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…E. Whitley, 2001) or HS (Uluboy & Husnu, 2020), and some pointed to differences in these associations depending on the participants’ gender (J. L. Nagoshi et al, 2008; Rye et al, 2019) or sexual orientation (López-Sáez et al, 2020a; Warriner et al, 2013; Zhao & Zheng, 2021), targets’ gender (C. T. Nagoshi et al, 2019), and social context (Buck & Obzud, 2018; Gulevich et al, 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of these articles examined prejudiced views of sexual and gender minorities and showed that ambivalent sexism is positively associated with negative attitudes (e.g., Pistella et al, 2018), stereotypes (e.g., Morrison & Bearden, 2007), or affect (e.g., Davies, 2004) toward gay, lesbian, and transgender people, as well as lower support for the rights of these groups (e.g., Masser & Abrams, 1999). Although some of these articles indicated these associations for both HS and BS (e.g., Masser & Abrams, 1999;Pistella et al, 2018), some obtained specific associations with either BS (B. E. Whitley, 2001) or HS (Uluboy & Husnu, 2020), and some pointed to differences in these associations depending on the participants' gender (J. L. Nagoshi et al, 2008;Rye et al, 2019) or sexual orientation (Lo ´pez- Sáez et al, 2020a;Warriner et al, 2013;Zhao & Zheng, 2021), targets' gender (C. T. Nagoshi et al, 2019), and social context (Buck & Obzud, 2018;Gulevich et al, 2021). Yet, slightly more evidence indicates that BS is a better predictor of sexual and gender minority prejudice than HS (e.g., Gulevich et al, 2021;B.…”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles.

Bareket,

Fiske

2023

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996), the coexistence of gendered power differences and mutual interdependence creates two apparently opposing but complementary sexist ideologies: hostile sexism (HS; viewing women as manipulative competitors who seek to gain power over men) coincides with benevolent sexism (BS; a chivalrous view of women as pure and moral, yet weak and passive, deserving men’s protection and admiration, as long as they conform). The research on these ideologies employs the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, used extensively in psychology and allied disciplines, often to understand the roles sexist attitudes play in reinforcing gender inequality. Following contemporary guidelines, this systematic review utilizes a principled approach to synthesize the multidisciplinary empirical literature on ambivalent sexism. After screening 1,870 potentially relevant articles and fully reviewing 654 eligible articles, five main domains emerge in ambivalent sexism research (social ideologies, violence, workplace, stereotypes, intimate relationships). The accumulating evidence across domains offers bottom-up empirical support for ambivalent sexism as a coordinated system to maintain control over women (and sometimes men). Hostile sexism acts through the direct and diverse paths of envious/resentful prejudices, being more sensitive to power and sexuality cues; Benevolent sexism acts through prejudices related to interdependence (primarily gender-based paternalism and gender-role differentiation), enforcing traditional gender relations and being more sensitive to role-related cues. Discussion points to common methodological limitations, suggests guidelines, and finds future avenues for ambivalent sexism research.

show abstract