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

Abstract

Ambivalent sexism theory recognizes that sexist attitudes maintain gender inequalities via sociocultural and close relationship processes. This review advances established work on sociocultural processes by showing how people's need for relationship security is also central to the sources and functions of sexism. Men's hostile sexism—overtly derogatory attitudes toward women—involves insecurities about women exploiting men's relational dependence. Accordingly, men's hostile sexism predicts relational aggression when their dependence on partners is risky. Men's benevolent sexism—patronizing and protective attitudes toward women—offers men relationship security by idealizing traditional gender roles in romantic relationships. Benevolent sexism also appeals to women who seek the security of a devoted partner, but requires women to invest in their relationship at the expense of their independence. Our relationship science perspective reveals that romantic (in)security is critical to why people adopt sexist attitudes and why sexist attitudes create differential costs and benefits for women and men.

Men who endorse hostile sexism feel vulnerable and exploited when seeking support in close relationships.

“…Our results also underscore the theoretical principle that the negativity linked with men’s endorsement of hostile sexism is heightened by relational interdependence (see Hammond et al, 2020). Indeed, no differences in discomfort with support emerged between men who endorsed (vs. rejected) hostile sexism when we experimentally manipulated support provision to be from an acquaintance (i.e., a less dependent other).…”

“…In two out of three cases, this mediation occurred for men but not women, consistent with the prediction of ambivalent sexism theory that hostile sexism encompasses heightened fears about men ’s dependence (Glick & Fiske, 1996). In addition, when examining the role of dependence, the mediation by threat and vulnerability was relatively stronger for closer (vs. more distant) relationships, consistent with the prediction that hostile sexism involves concerns about the risk of investing emotionally in a relationship (see Hammond et al, 2020). Finally, supplementary analyses indicated these links between hostile sexism and discomfort with support were not accounted for by relationship-specific insecurities (i.e., attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance).…”

Abortion Attitudes: An Overview of Demographic and Ideological Differences

“…These idealized relationship roles, as well as the positive relationship dynamics they promise, help explain why women endorse benevolent sexism (Hammond et al, 2020). The romantic qualities expressed by benevolent sexism including the prescription that men should be caring, protective, and devoted partners appeal to women because they provide security in intimate relationships (Cross & Overall, 2018; Cross et al, 2016; Gul & Kupfer, 2019).…”

Men’s Hostile Sexism and Biased Perceptions of Partners’ Support: Underestimating Dependability Rather Than Overestimating Challenges to Dominance

“…Men’s hostile sexism has been conceptualized as involving motives for men’s societal dominance (e.g., believing that women are inferior to men; Hack, 2017) and insecurities about dependability within intimate relationships (e.g., believing that women exploit men’s relatedness needs; Glick & Fiske, 1996). These two conceptualizations offer different perspectives about the primary concerns associated with men’s hostile sexism that generates more negative views of women (e.g., Cross et al, 2017; Glick et al, 1997; Hammond et al, 2020; Hammond & Overall, 2013). We differentiated these perspectives according to a functional criterion: Men who endorse hostile sexism should exhibit biased perceptions regarding partner behaviors that are diagnostic of their fundamental concerns.…”

“…Extant theory and research often conceptualize hostile sexism as stemming from motives for dominance —or competitive worldviews about maintaining men’s social power (e.g., Christopher & Mull, 2006; Sibley et al, 2007). Yet, this principal focus on motives for dominance overlooks that insecurities about dependence are also central to hostile sexism, including beliefs that men’s dependence in heterosexual relationships leaves them vulnerable to exploitation by women (Glick & Fiske, 1996; also see Cross et al, 2017; Hammond et al, 2020; Hammond & Overall, 2017).…”