Perceptions of Dating Behavior: The Role of Ambivalent Sexism

Abstract

This research investigates whether ambivalent sexism impacts individuals' perceptions of what is appropriate and valued dating behavior, as these perceptions may contribute to the perpetuation of traditional dating scripts. Two hundred seventeen undergraduate students from the Midwestern United States read a gender-stereotypic, gender-counter stereotypic, or egalitarian heterosexual dating vignette. Participants made judgments of appropriateness, warmth, and competence separately for the man and woman on the date. Overall, gender stereotypic dates were evaluated most positively, consistent with previous work suggesting that dating behaviors remain gendered. Evidence of the restrictive nature of the masculine gender role was obtained. Men in egalitarian and counter-stereotypic dating scenarios were evaluated negatively in terms of warmth, competence, and appropriateness, thus potentially experiencing backlash effects. Indeed, the man in the gender counter-stereotypic condition was rated as less competent, warm, and appropriate than the women, but the man in the gender stereotypic condition was rated as more competent, warm, and appropriate than the woman. Consistent with predictions, those high in ambivalent sexism had more negative reactions to gender counterstereotypic dating scenarios than those low in ambivalent sexism. However, ambivalent sexism did not predict different reactions towards gender stereotypic and egalitarian dating scenarios, and egalitarian dates were rated as most typical regardless of participants' ambivalent sexism. Thus, greater acceptance of gender counter-stereotypic dates was observed among those low in ambivalent sexism, and even those high in ambivalent sexism were accepting of egalitarian dating practices.

Do Sexist Mothers Change More Diapers? Ambivalent Sexism, Maternal Gatekeeping, and the Division of Childcare

“…For example, benevolent and hostile sexism were related to attitudes toward dating and sexual behavior (McCarty and Kelly 2015;Paynter and Leaper 2016;Zaikman and Marks 2014), tolerance of sexual harassment and rape (Durán et al 2016;Russell and Trigg 2004), and attitudes toward women's reproductive rights, pregnancy, and abortion (Hodson and MacInnis 2017;Huang et al 2016;Sutton et al 2011). Particularly important for our purposes, many findings indicate that sexist attitudes affect relationship and marriage norms and promote preferences for romantic partners who possess qualities congruent with traditional gender roles (Bermúdez et al 2015;Chen et al 2009;Thomae and Houston 2016).…”

Perceptions of Psychological Abuse: The Role of Perpetrator Gender, Victim’s Response, and Sexism

“…Second, Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) was assessed using the 22 items (α = .79) developed by Glick and Fiske (1996). Past researchers have combined the benevolent and hostile subscales of the ASI into one measure of sexism as the subscales are positively and significantly correlated (e.g., McCarty & Kelly, 2015; Yamawaki et al, 2009). Sample items include, “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men” (Hostile Sexism Subscale) and “Women should be cherished and protected by men” (Benevolent Sexism Subscale).…”

Little Between-Region and Between-Country Variance When People Form Impressions of Others

“…These perceiver-by-target interactions are central to intergroup research, in which individuals in different groups differentially evaluate stimuli that vary by race, gender, or other identities. For example, perceivers higher in ambivalent sexism perceive men in egalitarian (rather than stereotypic) relationships as less warm and competent (McCarty & Kelly, 2015). Dynamic models of impression formation map out how target and perceiver characteristics continually interact across multiple levels of processing during impression formation (Freeman et al, 2020; Kunda & Thagard, 1996).…”