Personal Ties and Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis of Romantic Attachment and Ambivalent Sexism

Abstract

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.,

Relationship (in)security is central to the sources and outcomes of sexist attitudes

“…Moreover, relationship security is central to this attitude alignment. Our studies indicate that partners' endorsement of benevolent sexism signals to women (but not men) that their partners will be heavily invested and devoted to the relationship, which prompts feelings of relationship security and thus fosters women's own endorsement of benevolent sexism (Hammond et al, ; also see Cross & Overall, ; Fisher & Hammond, ; Thomae & Houston, ). In sum, benevolent sexism appeals to women by offering security of partners' provision and protection as well as more relational forms of security, including promises of partners' unwavering devotion.…”

“…That other women are the target of women's hostile sexism aligns with our relationship (in)security perspective. Women's hostile sexism is associated with greater attachment insecurity (Fisher & Hammond, ) and greater problems with jealousy in romantic relationships (Cross et al, ). Thus, it is plausible that relational insecurities, including heightened concerns about male partners' commitment and fidelity, generate antagonism toward other women who are viewed as threats to their relationship.…”

“…However, when relationships do not provide this source of devotion, such as when male partners do not endorse benevolent sexism, women's endorsement of sexism declines (Hammond et al, ). Similarly, more secure women are not attracted to the obligated devotion offered by benevolent sexism (Cross & Overall, ; Fisher & Hammond, ). Thus, when people are able to attain relational security without drawing from the prescriptions of benevolent sexism, this should interrupt the cycles of aggression and amplified dependence that emerge from endorsing sexist attitudes.…”

“…However, hostile sexism contains exaggerated characterizations of women intentionally manipulating men and taking advantage of men's dependence on female partners (Glick & Fiske, 1996;Yakushko, 2005). Indeed, there is growing evidence that men's hostile sexism overlaps with relationship-based insecurities (Fisher & Hammond, 2019;Hart, Glick, & Dinero, 2013). Fisher and Hammond (2019) have provided the strongest evidence by conducting a meta-analysis that integrated sexism with one of the most studied indicators of relationship insecurity.…”

“…That other women are the target of women's hostile sexism aligns with our relationship (in)security perspective. Women's hostile sexism is associated with greater attachment insecurity (Fisher & Hammond, 2019) and greater problems with jealousy in romantic relationships (Mastari et al, 2019;Montañés et al, 2015;Viejo et al, 2015), suggesting that other factors may play a larger role. Our relationship (in)security perspective highlights that rather than simply having experience with romantic relationships, sexist attitudes will be shaped by the degree to which their relationships elicited insecurity versus fostered security and trust.…”