Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 1

Running head: AMBIVALENT SEXISM AND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A WOMAN

“What It Means To Be a Woman”

Ambivalent Sexism in Female College Students’ Experiences and Attitudes

Alice M. Fields1, Suzanne Swan1, 2, and Bret Kloos1

1Department of Psychology and 2Women’s Studies Program, University of South Carolina

The authors thank Mary Asbill and William Blackmon for their participation on the Coding

Team, Jessica Burton for administrative assistance, and those who participated in the study.

Direct correspondence about this study to:

Alice M. Fields, M.A., Department of Psychology, Barnwell College, PO Box 59

University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208

Email: fieldsa@mailbox.sc.edu

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 2

Abstract

This study used content analysis to examine if themes related to ambivalent

sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996) emerged when female students wrote an essay answering

the question “What does it mean to be a woman?” and examined the relationship between

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) scores (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and content analysis.

Participants were 78 female undergraduate students in the Southeastern U.S. Findings

revealed themes related to ambivalent sexism were present in 99% of essays, indicating

that ambivalent sexism is highly relevant to women’s gendered experiences. Furthermore

participants’ ASI scores were positively correlated with a sexism score created from

coded essay content. The discussion addresses theoretical and contextual implications of

the findings.

Keywords: ambivalent sexism, sexism, gender role, gender inequality, content analysis

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 3

“What It Means To Be a Woman”

Ambivalent Sexism in Female College Students’ Experiences and Attitudes

Social and cultural constructions of gender create the lens through which people

perceive their gender. In our research, we investigate how these constructions of gender

are experienced by women in their daily lives. A group of female undergraduate students

from the Southeastern United States were asked to write an essay that described their

perceptions of what it means to be a woman. One goal of the study was to examine essay

content to see if themes related to ambivalent sexism were spontaneously generated when

women described their gender-based experiences. A second goal of the study was to

examine participants’ perceptions about differences between their own attitudes

regarding gender roles as compared to their perceptions of older familial female role

models; that is, we were interested in exploring if the college women in the study

identified a “narrative of progress” in which they perceived themselves as being more

liberated from sexism than the previous generation of women in their family. The third

goal of the study was to examine the relationship between participants’ essay themes and

their scores on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996).

In a hallmark study, Glick and colleagues (Glick et al., 2000) examined ambivalent

sexism and gender equality indices at the national level in a large multi-national study. In a

comparison of the national gender equality indices with the average ambivalent sexism scores for

participants by nation, they found that participants who were citizens of nations with higher

gender inequality, and lower status for women, also had higher sexism scores. In that study, the

U.S. was among those nations with relatively higher status of women. In the U.S. as well as

other nations, many improvements have been made in women’s rights and gender roles;

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 4

however, equality between women and men is still a long way off. For example, the

Southeastern U.S., compared to other areas of the nation, has strong ties with more traditional, or

conservative, ideology. Reports of gender equality indices at the state level indicate that South

Carolina, as compared to other states, ranks low for the status of women (Hartmann, Sorokina, &

Williams, 2006; Caiazza, Shaw, & Werschkul, 2006; Goldberg & Hill, 2007). Keeping the

cultural context of the region in mind, the present study’s examination of American college

women’s ambivalent sexism scores and their descriptions of daily life experiences that relate to

ambivalent sexism may illustrate to other cultures the pervasive nature of attitudes of sexism,

and shed light on which aspects of sexism may change or resist change as women’s roles change

within cultural contexts.

Review of Ambivalent Sexism Theory. Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996)

posits that gender inequality is maintained through stereotypic attitudes and beliefs about women

that operate on two dimensions: hostile sexism (HS), and benevolent sexism (BS). Hostile

sexism is similar to the traditional antipathy model of prejudice (Allport, 1979), and benevolent

sexism is based on “likable” stereotypes of women (Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999).

Benevolent sexism is a less obvious form of sexism (Fiske et al., 1999) that reifies women’s

lower status by making access to resources contingent on conformity to stereotypic gender roles

that are restrictive. Ambivalent sexism theory proposes that while men have more structural

power in patriarchal society, the dyadic nature of heterosexual relationships creates

interdependence between the sexes (Glick & Fiske, 2001a), and this interdependence affords

some degree of power to women, albeit an informal and unofficial form of influence. Thus,

hostile and benevolent sexism operate as “an interlocking set of beliefs that reflect a system of

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 5

rewards (BS) and punishments (HS) that give women strong incentive to accept, rather than to

challenge, power differences between the sexes” (Glick & Fiske, 2001a, p. 117).

Ambivalent sexism theory also identifies three primary domains that play key

roles in how gender relations are defined. Glick and Fiske (2001a) identify these as: 1)

Patriarchy, a social system in which men dominate, which also gives rise to paternalistic

attitudes toward women; 2) Gender Differentiation, or social constructions that

hierarchically segregate men’s and women’s social roles; and 3) Heterosexuality, or the

interdependence of the sexes. Each of these domains operates across the benevolent and

hostile dimensions (shown in Table 1). For benevolent sexism, the domain constructs are

protective paternalism (men ought to protect and provide for the women on whom they

depend to support their dominant role), complementary gender differentiation (women

and men are fundamentally very different; women are the “better sex,” but only in low-

status ways that do not threaten men’s power), and heterosexual intimacy (“heterosexual

romantic relationships are essential for true happiness in life for both sexes” (Glick &

Fiske, 2001a, p. 123)).

The corresponding domain constructs for hostile sexism are called dominative

paternalism (“men ought to have more power than women and the corresponding fear

that women might manage to usurp men’s power” (Glick & Fiske, 2001a, p. 121)),

competitive gender differentiation (women are ultimately inferior to men on competence-

related dimensions), and heterosexual hostility (“fuses sex with power and expresses the

belief in women’s sexuality as dangerous to men” (Glick & Fiske, 2001a, p. 123)). These

components of sexism are operationalized in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, or ASI

(Glick & Fiske, 1996), an attitude measurement instrument designed to assess an

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 6

individual’s level of agreement with attitudes of ambivalent sexism. Factor analysis of

the ASI has confirmed that the BS subscale items do separate into three factors (the 3

domains); however, the HS subscale items load on one factor (Glick & Fiske, 1996).

Ambivalent sexism theory proposes that benevolent and hostile sexism are

entrenched in culture, and so, permeate all levels of society. Klonoff and Landrine

(1995) created a measure to assess the frequency of lifetime and recent events of sexist

discrimination experienced by women (Schedule of Sexist Events (SSE); Klonoff &

Landrine, 1995) and found that 99% of their all-female sample from the Midwestern U.S.

reported experiencing at least one sexist event in their lives. Still, it is not clear to what

extent women incorporate these experiences into their own views and attitudes about

gender.

The primary goal of this study was to examine whether themes relevant to

ambivalent sexism would spontaneously emerge when female students were asked to

write an essay that described their ideas and experiences related to being a woman.

Identifying these themes would provide insight into how specific constructs of

ambivalent sexism manifest in women’s lives, and help demonstrate that the theory

constructs are, indeed, central aspects of women’s experiences. This is an important test

of the ASI, as items for the measure were not generated from the experiences of a broad

sample of participants; rather, they were deliberately constructed to reflect the themes of

paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality across the benevolent and hostile

dimensions (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Thus, if women spontaneously generate themes of

ambivalent sexism when writing the essays, this would support the premise that the

constructs of ambivalent sexism are an actual part of everyday experience for women,

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 7

and not simply an artifact of responding to items on the ASI survey. The extent to which

we are able to identify theory constructs in the narratives will provide a novel kind of

evidence for the construct validity of the ASI.

Based on premises of ambivalent sexism theory, we propose that:

Hypothesis 1a: Essays about participants’ views of ‘what it means to be a woman’ will

contain themes relevant to ambivalent sexism. Specifically, it is hypothesized that statements

related to each of the benevolent and hostile sexism dimensions will appear in students’ essays.

Thus, we predict essays will contain statements relevant to protective paternalism,

complementary gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy, all BS themes; and will

contain statements relevant to dominative paternalism, competitive gender differentiation, and

heterosexual hostility, all HS themes.

Given the changes in attitudes towards women and gender roles that have occurred in

recent decades in the U.S., we also expected that the young women in the sample would express

both agreement, as well as disagreement, with aspects of ambivalent sexism. Forbes and

colleagues (Forbes, Adams-Curtis, & White, 2004) documented changes in attitudes towards

women over time in their review of early and more recent sexism measures. They described how

the feminist movement of the 1970s increased awareness of sexism, which led to a decrease in

the social acceptance of overt, or hostile, sexism. However, even with these changes, which

have reduced certain restrictions for women, sexism is still culturally ingrained and evident in

cultural institutions (Rudman & Glick, 2001; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). Since traditional

college-age women (i.e., 18-24 yrs.) have matured in a society with awareness of sexism, and

policies in place to challenge sexism, we expected the essays to include statements that express

both agreement and disagreement with ambivalent sexism ideology.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 8

Hypothesis 1b: Essays will contain themes that indicate agreement, as well as themes

that indicate disagreement, with ambivalent sexism ideology. Note that for Hypotheses 1a and

1b, we are not predicting that themes for each construct will appear in every essay; rather, we

expect that each theme will appear in at least some essays.

We also wanted to examine essay content regarding participants’ perceptions about

differences in attitudes of sexism between themselves and their familial female role models from

previous generations (specifically, mothers, grandmothers, and aunts). In the essay exercise, we

asked participants to describe how their ideas about being a woman were similar to, or different

from, those of their older familial female role models. We expected that participants may

perceive themselves as less sexist than familial female role models based on the dynamic nature

of gender stereotypes (Diekman, Eagly, Mladinic, & Ferreira, 2005). For example, in Diekman

and colleagues’ (2005) examination of the impact of social changes on gender stereotypes in

Latin America and the U.S., they found that as women’s roles changed through greater

participation in public life and paid employment, the participants perceived that women acquired

an increase in certain traditionally masculine traits (e.g., competitive, analytical, physically

vigorous), as well as a decrease in the degree to which women retained certain traditionally

feminine traits (e.g., nurturance, beauty). Similarly, Twenge (2001) examined historical changes

in the status of women in American society in two meta-analyses and found that changes in

women’s assertiveness, a traditionally male trait that is associated with agency and high status,

increased and decreased in synchrony with changes in women’s social status from 1931 to 1993.

While these findings indicate that changes in women’s social roles influence perceptions of the

degree to which women hold certain characteristics, that does not necessarily imply that women

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 9

are no longer expected to continue to fulfill traditionally feminine roles or are exempt from

displaying (at least some) traditionally feminine attributes (Prentice & Carranza, 2002).

Thus, when asked how their ideas about being a woman compare to those of their familial

female role models, the young women in the current study may describe a “narrative of progress”

in which they perceive themselves as being more liberated from sexism as compared to their

older female role models, including their mothers, aunts, and grandmothers. In order to examine

this, essay content was coded to identify whether statements described participants’ own views

or described participants’ perceptions of these older female role models, and further coded for

whether the statement expressed agreement or disagreement with ambivalent sexism ideology.

Comparing coded content on these dimensions could provide evidence for the predicted

“narrative of progress” as well as illustrate which domains participants perceived themselves to

be the most and least similar to their older female role models. Thus, we predicted:

Hypothesis 2a: Essays will contain more themes that agree with benevolent and hostile

sexism in participants’ descriptions of their familial female role models from earlier generations,

as compared to themes that reflect participants’ own agreement with benevolent sexism and

hostile sexism ideology. In other words, participants will describe their mothers, aunts, and

grandmothers (called “Role Models”) as more sexist than themselves. Thus, we predict the

essays will contain more Role Model statements of agreement with complementary and

competitive gender differentiation; protective and dominative paternalism; and heterosexual

intimacy and hostility, as compared to participants’ Self-statements that describe their own

beliefs for these themes.

Hypothesis 2b: Essays will contain more themes of participants’ beliefs (Self-statements)

that disagree with ambivalent sexism than their descriptions of their Role Models. In other

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 10

words, participants will perceive themselves as more opposed to benevolent and hostile sexism

than their mothers, aunts, and grandmothers. Thus, we predict essays will contain more Self-

statements that disagree with complementary and competitive gender differentiation, protective

and dominative paternalism, and heterosexual intimacy and hostility, than disagree statements

coded for Role Models.

The third goal of the study was to examine the relationship between participants’ ASI

scores and the construct-based narrative themes in the essays. To our knowledge, no prior

studies have examined the construct validity of ambivalent sexism, as measured by the ASI, by

comparing ASI scores with qualitative data assessing participants’ attitudes of ambivalent

sexism. To assess this hypothesis, we created a variable, called the Narrative score, using

participants’ Self-statements, i.e. statements coded as expressing the participants’ own opinion

about ambivalent sexism. Specifically, we created a Narrative score for each essay in which the

number of Self-statements expressing disagreement with ambivalent sexism was subtracted from

the number of Self-statements expressing agreement. Thus, a positive value on a Narrative score

would indicate more statements in the essay that agreed with ambivalent sexism relative to

statements that disagreed (i.e., greater sexism).

Hypothesis 3: We predict there will be a significant positive correlation between ASI

scores and the Narrative Ambivalent Sexism scores. Specifically, we expect Total ASI score to

have a significant positive correlation with the Narrative Total Ambivalent Sexism score; BS

score to have a significant positive correlation with the Narrative BS score; and HS score to have

a significant positive correlation with the Narrative HS score.

To summarize, the current study employed a mixed-methods design with both qualitative

and quantitative data, and is unique, to our knowledge, in its inclusion of qualitative methods to

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 11

examine women’s self-described gender-based experiences from the theoretical framework of

ambivalent sexism theory. The hypotheses are: (1a) Essays about participants’ views of ‘what it

means to be a woman’ will contain themes relevant to ambivalent sexism. (1b) Essays will

contain themes that indicate Agreement, as well as themes that indicate Disagreement, with

ambivalent sexism ideology. (2a) Essays will have significantly more themes of Agreement with

ambivalent sexism for Role Model-statements (participants’ perceptions of familial female role

models) compared to Self-statements (participants’ descriptions of their own beliefs). (2b)

Essays will have significantly more themes of Disagreement with ambivalent sexism for Self-

statements as compared to Role Model-statements. (3) There will be a significant positive

correlation between ASI scores (Total ASI, BS, and HS scores) and Narrative Ambivalent

Sexism scores (Narrative Total Ambivalent Sexism, Narrative BS, and Narrative HS scores).

Method

Participants. Participants were 82 female undergraduate students at a large Southeastern

public university. The final sample consisted of 78 traditional college-age students (defined in

this study as 18-24 years). Four participants were dropped from analyses because they were

older than 24. Participants were recruited from three courses: an introductory level Women’s

Studies course, an upper level Psychology of Women course, and an upper level Social

Psychology course. Participants received extra credit points for participating in the study.

Participants had not been exposed to ambivalent sexism theory through course material prior to

participating in the extra credit exercise. Forty-one percent (n = 32) of the sample was enrolled

in the Women’s Studies course, 31% (n = 24) in the Psychology of Women course, and 27% (n =

21) in the Social Psychology course. Course enrollment information was missing for one

participant.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 12

The average age of the sample was 20.47 (SD = 1.30) years. Eight percent (n = 6) were

age 18, 14% (n = 11) were age 19, 28% (n = 22) were age 20, 28% (n = 22) were age 21, 18% (n

= 14) were age 22, 3% (n = 2) were age 23, and 1% (n = 1) was age 24. Freshmen comprised

9% (n = 7) of the sample, sophomores 18% (n= 14), juniors 33% (n = 26), and seniors 40% (n =

31). Participants self-identified their ethnicity as: Caucasian 71% (n = 55), African American

21% (n = 16), and 9% (n = 7) of the sample listed other ethnicities. Participants were asked to

identify the geographic region where they grew up. Sixty percent (n = 47) of the sample grew up

in South Carolina, and 21% (n = 16) grew up in one of the other Southeastern states, including

FL, GA, KY, LA, NC, TX, and VA. Approximately 12% (n = 9) grew up in states outside of the

Southeast, and 8% (n = 6) grew up outside of the U.S. or in more than one geographic area

(either in the U.S. and/or abroad).

Procedure. Participants were told the web-based study was about gender role

development. The first exercise asked participants to write an essay answering the question

“What does it mean to you to be a woman?” The exercise included nine open-ended questions to

prompt participants to think about how their ideas about what it means to be a woman were

influenced by their immediate and extended family, peers, community, and society. The exercise

also asked participants to describe how their ideas about being a woman were similar to, or

different from, those of their mothers and grandmothers and to describe key experiences or

individuals who influenced their idea of what it means to be a woman. After composing the

essay, participants accessed the website, answered demographic questions, completed the ASI,

and uploaded their essays. Personal identifiers were removed from the essays prior to being

placed in the database. The QSR N6 program was used for coding the essays.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 13

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). The ASI (Glick & Fiske, 1996) assesses

attitudes of ambivalent sexism using a 6-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from

0 as “strongly disagree” to 5 as “strongly agree.” Responses are averaged so that higher

scores indicate higher levels of sexism. The psychometric properties of the ASI have

been well-established by multiple researchers and in a variety of settings and cultures

(e.g., Glick & Fiske, 2001a; Viki, Abrams, & Masser, 2004; Wiener & Hurt, 2000).

Consistent with prior research, in the current study, the HS and BS scales are positively

correlated (r = .56, p < .001), and found to be reliable (α = .93 for HS; α = .88 for BS).

Data Analysis

Analytic techniques for the qualitative data included modified grounded theory (Miles &

Huberman, 1994; Kloos et al., 2005). Essays were coded for themes that were relevant to

ambivalent sexism theory, as well as whether the statement expressed agreement or disagreement

with ambivalent sexism ideology. Essay content was also coded to distinguish between

participants’ descriptions of their own beliefs, called Self-codes, and participants’ perceptions of,

or descriptions of, other people’s beliefs they discussed in the essay, called Other-codes.

Identifying themes and development of the coding system. The first step of qualitative

data analysis involved the creation of the coding system. The basic structure of the coding

system included the six constructs of ambivalent sexism (2 dimensions x 3 domains) (see Table

1). A subset of 20 of the 78 essays was selected to test application of the coding system. This

subset was selected by demographic characteristics to represent a cross-section of the sample

demographics. During the initial phase of coding, the first two authors independently coded

essays by identifying content that was representative of each of the theory constructs and met

regularly to compare findings. The developers of the coding system used an iterative method of

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 14

comparison (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to refine coding criteria for each code category. Once the

coding framework was established, definitions were codified to prepare for coding of each essay.

Coder training and coder reliability. A three-member coding team was assembled,

consisting of the first author and two undergraduate students (one male, one female). Team

members were educated on the structure and premises of ambivalent sexism theory through

published literature and group discussion prior to being introduced to the coding system.

Training emphasized that differences in rater opinions were expected and open discussion of

these differences was critical to establish credibility of the system. The team did not know

participants’ ASI scores throughout the coding process. Prior to coding essays, team members

read the full set of essays to get a general impression of content. First, the subset of essays used

to develop the coding system was coded independently by each coder and then compared to

ensure application of the coding system was replicable and feasible. Team members coded the

full set of essays independently and used a consensus method to resolve coding discrepancies.

Once all essays had been independently coded, inter-rater reliabilities (Cohen’s

unweighted kappa, where k >= .70 is generally considered acceptable) were calculated and

indicated a high degree of reliability for each pair of coders (Coders 1-2, k = .97; Coders 1-3, k =

.97; Coders 2-3, k = .96). Inter-rater reliabilities were also calculated by essay to check for

anomalies, with k ranging from .86-1.0. Kappa could not be calculated for one essay since it

received no coding. These inter-rater reliabilities were calculated on the initial, independently

assigned codes, i.e., prior to group discussion or adjustments. A negative case audit was

conducted to examine potential under-coding of essays (Kloos et. al., 2005) which would not be

detected with kappa analyses. Results suggest no under-coding of essays in these analyses.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 15

Data audits for coded text. After coding was complete, data audits were conducted by

essay (within-case) and by coding category (between-case) (Kloos et al., 2005; Miles &

Huberman, 1994). These audits resulted in the removal of some codes for Agreement with

Complementary Gender Differentiation and Disagreement with Protective Paternalism because

the coding team decided that the meaning of the surrounding text of some coded material was not

explicit enough to retain the code. A final data audit was conducted for coding accuracy for any

essay in which the frequency of codes was two standard deviations higher or lower than the

average number of text units for each code. No other coding adjustments were made.

Results

Essay themes related to ambivalent sexism

Hypothesis 1a. Hypothesis 1a, that participants’ essays about what it means to be a

woman will contain themes relevant to ambivalent sexism, was supported. Overall, essays had

an average of 52 statements (M = 52.01, SD = 25.00), with a range of 22-153 statements. (See

Table 1 for descriptive statistics for the code variables). Essays contained an average of

approximately 12 statements that were coded as having content related to ambivalent sexism (M

= 11.95, SD = 7.53), with 99% (n = 77) of essays containing ASI-relevant codes. These coding

categories include both Agree and Disagree statements as well as Self- and Other-statements.

The following section describes findings for each of the codes relevant to ambivalent sexism.

Benevolent Sexism Codes. Text coded as agreeing with Protective Paternalism reflected

attitudes that women should be dependent on male partners for protection and support, in roles

such as housewives or stay at home moms. Examples for this code include: “Their idea of being

a woman is to support their husband in his career and being the breadwinner of the house…” and

“She sees the husband as the provider and her job is to care for him.” Statements coded as

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 16

disagreeing with Protective Paternalism indicated that women should have the means to be self-

sufficient and have financial autonomy. Examples include: “I feel that all women (and I say

women because men are expected to do this) should …live alone and be self-sufficient before

they settle down” and “As a single mom, my mother has had to become independent in order to

provide for both of us. …I believe that this is a big part of the reason they have instilled in me

the value of independence and education and of being self-supporting.”

Text coded as agreeing with Complementary Gender Differentiation indicated

that the primary social role for women is the performance of domestic duties, such as

housework or childrearing, that women inherently possess communal traits (e.g.

emotional, nurturing), or that women are responsible for upholding moralistic or virtuous

qualities. Examples for this code include: “Women are more caring in general and I

believe that they instinctively know they are to love and care for their children, perhaps

more so than men” and “To be a woman to me means to be an emotional being [who is]

…sensitive, and understanding to everyone around you. To listen to others, to be

respectful, and to be family oriented ….” Text coded as disagreeing with

Complementary Gender Differentiation indicated that it is acceptable for women to

possess agentic traits, to fulfill non-traditional gender roles, or described them as sharing

responsibility for stereotypically female roles with male partners. Examples include:

“My father also has a demanding job, but as we got older, he took a teaching job at X

University so that he could do the cooking and things around the house, as well as watch

over his three children while my mother worked more” and “She was expected to spend

her life raising a family, but she decided to become a doctor instead.”

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 17

Statements coded as agreeing with Heterosexual Intimacy described marriage as a

necessity, pressure to marry, or women as incomplete unless they were married. Examples for

this code include: “Being a woman also means that you have to get married … [whereas] a man

can be single until the day that he dies, and he’s still considered a bachelor, not an ‘old maid’”

and “My grandmother is more old fashioned… [and] feels as though you need a man to help

define who you are. You need a man to be a person, to be complete ….” Text coded as

disagreeing with Heterosexual Intimacy included ideas that reject the idea that women need a

male partner to be fulfilled or complete. Examples for this code include: “After coming to

college …I know that I don’t need a man in my life to feel fulfilled. …it is nice having a man in

my life but it is not necessary for me to feel complete as a woman” and “I do not need a man to

make me happy or to give me an identity.”

Hostile Sexism Codes. Content coded as agreeing with Dominative Paternalism reflected

beliefs that women should be subordinate or submissive to men, and that women should be

excluded from leadership positions. Examples for this code include: “In her day women were

not allowed to …hold positions above men or even be in the government offices” and “My aunt

has always told me that a woman should work for and under her man and not beside him.” Text

coded as disagreeing with Dominative Paternalism portrayed assertive women in positive ways

(e.g., stand up for self, rights, or opinions), portrayed women as active participants in decision-

making processes, or endorsed women’s access to positions of power. Examples include: “My

family and I …believe a woman should have choices in her life such as her career and rights in

decisions about her own body” and “I am from a small town …where the mayor … [is] a

woman. She possesses power and control over her town and runs the community well.”

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 18

Text coded as agreeing with Competitive Gender Differentiation reflected beliefs that

women are less competent than men for employment in positions of high status or power, or that

if women have such positions, they have attained them non-meritoriously. Examples for this

code include: “Growing up I remember my grandfather telling me I could not become a vet

because I was a girl. [Being a doctor] …whether on people or animals [was] for men” and “I

personally feel that they portray women as poor oppressed people who ‘we’ should give special

acknowledgment to because they are, basically, ‘not equal.’ I feel like they give women certain

privileges only because they are women….” Text coded as disagreeing with Competitive Gender

Differentiation reflected beliefs that women are competent and intelligent, endorsed career-

orientation as acceptable for women, or described women as having business acumen. Examples

include: “My grandmother moved to South Carolina when she was about thirty and she opened

her own business. I respect her in that so many years ago she was able to stand on her feet and

begin her own business” and “My mother was a very successful career woman herself and has

taught me many business skills and lessons in life.”

Content coded as agreeing with Heterosexual Hostility reflected ideas that women

use the interdependence of the sexes to exploit men through manipulative gate-keeping of

sexual access, or ideas that objectify women, particularly in sexual terms. The majority

of text for this code reflected messages from media sources. Examples for this code

include: “…women are constantly portrayed as sex symbols, and in most advertisements,

are shown with hardly any clothes on at all. This makes many girls think they have to

look like that, gives the impression that sex is all that women are good for” and “In the

pageants they already exploit women …. Women think that them looking good in this

fashion will lead to more sex or sexual advances and that sex is a tool for survival.” Text

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 19

coded as disagreeing with Heterosexual Hostility included ideas that counter the sexual

objectification of women. An example for this code is: “She does not use her body to

excel in life and she does not use men’s insatiable urge for female attention to get ahead

in life.”

Descriptive findings for Agree and Disagree statements

Hypothesis 1b. The example quotes given in the previous section demonstrate that

Hypothesis 1b, which predicted that essays would contain themes that expressed both Agreement

and Disagreement with ambivalent sexism ideology, was also supported. The following

descriptive statistics for Agree and Disagree statements includes both Self- and Other-statements.

Agree statements. Ninety-two percent of essays (n = 72) contained statements coded for

agreement with Ambivalent Sexism, with an average of six Agree statements per essay (M =

5.67, SD = 4.46). Essays were more likely to contain statements coded for agreement with

Benevolent Sexism than agreement with Hostile Sexism. Eighty-seven percent of essays (n =

68) contained statements coded for agreement with Benevolent Sexism, with an average of four

per essay (M = 4.32, SD = 3.83), and 64% of essays (n = 50) contained statements coded for

agreement with Hostile Sexism, with an average of two per essay (M = 1.54, SD = 1.96).

For Agree statements on the Benevolent Sexism dimension, the domain that appeared

most frequently was Complementary Gender Differentiation, found in 82% (n = 64) of essays.

Thirty-eight percent of essays (n = 30) contained Agree statements for Protective Paternalism,

and 20% (n = 16) contained Agree statements for Heterosexual Intimacy.

For Agree statements on the Hostile Sexism dimension, 41% of essays (n = 32) contained

Agree statements for Dominative Paternalism, 30% (n = 23) contained Agree statements for

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 20

Heterosexual Hostility, and 23% (n = 18) contained Agree statements for Competitive Gender

Differentiation.

Disagree statements. Ninety-seven percent of essays (n = 76) contained statements

coded for disagreement with Ambivalent Sexism, with an average of six Disagree statements per

essay (M = 6.28, SD = 4.48). Essays were more likely to contain statements coded for

disagreement with Hostile Sexism than disagreement with Benevolent Sexism. Ninety-two

percent of essays (n = 72) contained Disagree statements for Hostile Sexism, with an average of

four per essay (M = 4.37, SD = 3.58), and 76% of essays (n = 69) contained Disagree statements

for Benevolent Sexism, with an average of two per essay (M = 2.23, SD = 2.52).

For Disagree statements on the Benevolent Sexism dimension, 50% of the essays (n = 39)

contained Disagree statements for Protective Paternalism, 42% (n = 33) contained Disagree

statements for Complementary Gender Differentiation, and 17% (n = 13) contained Disagree

statements for Heterosexual Intimacy.

For Disagree statements on the Hostile Sexism dimension, 82% of essays (n = 64)

contained Disagree statements for Competitive Gender Differentiation, 67% (n = 52) contained

Disagree statements for Dominative Paternalism, and 5% (n = 4) contained Disagree statements

for Heterosexual Hostility.

In sum, findings supported Hypotheses 1a and 1b: The essays contained themes related

to each of the domains of ambivalent sexism (Hypothesis 1a), including statements of both

agreement and disagreement with ambivalent sexism ideology (Hypothesis 1b). The next section

describes findings for the proposed “narrative of progress” (Hypotheses 2a and 2b).

Perceptions of differences in sexism between participants and familial female role models

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 21

Recall that the essay exercise asked participants to describe how their ideas about being a

woman were similar to, or different from, those of their mothers, grandmothers, and family

members. To examine the hypotheses regarding participants’ perceptions of differences in

sexism between themselves and older familial female role models (Hypotheses 2a and 2b), we

compared Agree and Disagree statements that were further divided into categories to distinguish

between statements that described participants’ own attitudes and experiences, called Self-

statements, and participants’ descriptions of their familial female role models (i.e., mothers,

aunts, and grandmothers), called Role Model statements. (See Table 2 for the descriptive

statistics for code categories for Hypotheses 2a and 2b.)

Hypothesis 2a. Hypothesis 2a predicted that participants will perceive their Role Models

as more sexist than themselves, in that they will describe more Role Model statements that Agree

with ambivalent sexism than Self-statements that Agree with ambivalent sexism. This

hypothesis was only supported by t tests results for the Paternalism domain for both the

benevolent and hostile dimensions (Protective Paternalism, (t (77) = -3.50, p = .001), and

Dominative Paternalism, (t (77) = -2.38, p = .02)). That is, when participants shared their

perceptions of their mothers, aunts, and grandmothers, these Role Models were described as

endorsing more Protective Paternalism (e.g., women should be financially dependent on male

partners) and more Dominative Paternalism (e.g., women should be subordinate to men), as

compared to the participants themselves. No differences were found between participants’ Self-

statements and Role Model statements for Gender Differentiation or Heterosexuality, on either

the benevolent or hostile dimension. There were no Role Model statements coded for hostile

sexism’s Heterosexual Hostility, so this test could not be performed.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 22

Hypothesis 2b. Hypothesis 2b predicted that participants will describe more Self-

statements that Disagree with ambivalent sexism as compared to Role Model statements that

Disagree with ambivalent sexism. This hypothesis was fully supported on both the benevolent

and hostile dimensions with t tests results: Disagree statements for Protective Paternalism, (t(77)

= 2.60, p = .01), and Disagree statements for Dominative Paternalism, (t(77) = 3.87, p = .00);

Disagree statements for Complementary Gender Differentiation, (t (77) = 3.64, p = .00), and

Disagree statements for Competitive Gender Differentiation, (t(77) = 2.378, p = .02); Disagree

statements for Heterosexual Intimacy, (t(77) = 2.36, p = .02), and Disagree statements for

Heterosexual Hostility (t(77) = 2.04, p = .05).

In summary, findings for the hypothesized “narrative of progress” were mixed. In

general, the participants’ narratives did provide evidence for a perceived “narrative of progress”

toward gender equality, but there were two notable exceptions: Participants’ essays did not

describe a significant difference between themselves and their Role Models for Agree statements

on the domains for Gender Differentiation and Heterosexuality. Put another way, the

participants’ narratives described a perceived similarity between themselves and their Role

Models for attitudes that endorse gender differentiation and heterosexuality.

Thus far, we have examined results for hypotheses about thematic content in participants’

essays and t tests that tested for differences between different types of codes. We now shift the

focus to findings that relate to participants’ ASI scores, and the relationship between ASI scores

and themes in the narratives (Hypothesis 3). We begin with the descriptive statistics for ASI

scores.

Findings related to ASI scores: Descriptive statistics and Hypothesis 3

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 23

ASI scores and demographic variables. The relationship between ambivalent sexism

scores and demographic variables, including age, ethnicity, geographic area the participant grew

up in, and which course the participant was enrolled in, were examined to see if ASI scores

differed by demographic groups. The ASI score variables met all statistical assumptions for the

analyses.

Pearson’s correlations were performed for the continuous variable age (18-24 years) and

ASI scores (Total ASI, BS, and HS). There was a significant negative correlation between age

and Total ASI and HS, indicating older students had lower sexism scores. The correlation for BS

and age did not reach significance.

One-way ANOVAs were performed to test for differences in ASI scores (Total ASI, BS

and HS) for categorical demographic variables. There was a significant difference for

Geographic Area, with participants from the Southeast having significantly higher scores for

Total ASI and BS, as compared to participants from states not in the Southeast. No significant

findings were found for Geographic Area for HS scores. There were no significant findings for

Ethnicity and Course.

ASI scores and normative samples. The relationship between ASI mean scores in the

current all-female student sample, predominantly from the Southeastern U.S., as compared to

females in five normative samples from ASI validation studies (Glick, & Fiske, 1996), was also

examined. These ASI validation studies included both college students and community samples

from the Northeastern and Midwestern U.S. (Glick & Fiske, 1996). The current study’s sample

had consistently higher ASI scores than females in the normative samples. In fact, four of the

five normative samples had significantly lower Total ASI scores than the current sample, three

had significantly lower BS scores than the current sample, and three had significantly lower HS

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 24

scores than the current sample. (Sample 1 from the validation studies was not included since it

used a longer measure than the final 22-item ASI.)

Correlations between ASI scores and narrative themes

Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3, which predicted a significant positive correlation between

ASI scores and the Narrative scores, was supported. As described earlier, in order to examine

the relationship between participants’ ASI scores and the construct-based narrative themes in

essays, we created a variable called the Narrative Ambivalent Sexism score, where higher

narrative scores indicate more essay content in agreement with sexism relative to content

expressing disagreement. Hypothesis 3 was tested using Spearman’s nonparametric correlations,

as the code variables were positively skewed, violating assumptions of normality necessary for

Pearson’s correlations. Since the essay-writing task contained open-ended questions, it was

unlikely that each essay would only discuss topics that reflected ambivalent sexism, or even

discuss every construct of the theory. Therefore, it was expected that the code variables would

not be normally distributed. In sum, Hypothesis 3, that ASI scores would have a significant

positive correlation with the Narrative scores, was fully supported (Total ASI score and

Narrative Total Ambivalent Sexism score: r = .33, p = .003; BS score and Narrative BS score: r

= .34, p = .002; HS score and Narrative HS score: r = .26, p = .02).

Discussion

This study found that themes related to ambivalent sexism spontaneously appeared in the

women’s narratives, and provides support for both the theoretical construct of ambivalent sexism

and the ASI used to measure it. When asked to describe their experiences of being a woman,

almost all of the women (99%) spontaneously revealed themes related to ambivalent sexism in

their own lives, or the lives of women they know. This indicates that ambivalent sexism is

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 25

highly relevant and salient to women in framing their gendered experience, and is a confirmation

of Glick and Fiske’s (1996) theory. Furthermore, the finding that 95% of the women described

benevolent sexism and 96% described hostile sexism provides further evidence in support of the

theory’s premise that ambivalent sexism operates through both of these dimensions of opposing

evaluative quality. Construct validity of the ASI is shown by the finding that participants’ scores

on the ASI had a significant positive correlation with the Narrative Ambivalent Sexism scores

created from essay statements that described participants’ own views (a higher narrative score

indicates greater sexism expressed in the essay).

Consistent with previous research, our findings indicate the presence of more acceptance

of benevolent sexism than hostile sexism, as indicated both in the essays and by ASI scores.

Essays contained more Self-statements (describing participants’ own views) agreeing with

benevolent sexism (61%), as compared to only 7% of essays containing Self-statements agreeing

with hostile sexism. Research consistently shows that women are more likely to support the

subjectively positive stereotypes of benevolent sexism, presumably because of the “rewards” of

benevolent sexism for women who must function in systems with gender-based hierarchies

(Glick & Fiske, 2001b). Importantly, another reason for acceptance of benevolent sexism is the

mistaken perception that benevolent sexism has no harmful effects (e.g., Glick et al., 2000; Glick

& Fiske, 2001b). Because hostile sexism is based on antipathy and is more overt, it is more

easily recognized, and thus, more likely to be rejected by women. In fact, 84% of essays

contained Self-statements that disagreed with hostile sexism, as compared to 61% of essays with

Self-statements that disagreed with benevolent sexism.

Also in support of ambivalent sexism theory’s proposal that benevolent sexism ideology

is often perceived as acceptable (Glick & Fiske, 2001b), this study found that the benevolent

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 26

sexism construct for gender differentiation, Complementary Gender Differentiation, was by far

the most endorsed code, with 56% of essays containing Self-statements that agreed with this

construct. In fact, participants showed little agreement with other forms of sexism; 7% or less of

essays contained Self-statements endorsing any other domain of sexism. However,

Complementary Gender Differentiation (e.g. that women are nurturing, emotional, and natural

care-takers) is still a very prevalent belief among this sample of young women.

We also expected content analysis to reveal a “narrative of progress” in which

participants described themselves as being more liberated from sexism as compared to their older

familial female role models. This was operationalized by comparing statements of agreement

and disagreement with ambivalent sexism for participants’ Self-statements and statements

describing Role Models (mothers, aunts, and grandmothers). However, although we

hypothesized across-the-board differences between participants’ own views and perceptions of

their role models (Hypotheses 2a and 2b), a more complex pattern emerged. Findings that do

support the hypothesized “narrative of progress” were found only on the paternalism domain for

statements expressing agreement (Hypothesis 2a): Participants described themselves as less

sexist than their Role Models regarding both benevolent and hostile forms of paternalism (but

not gender differentiation or heterosexuality). That is, participants made significantly fewer

Self-statements of agreement with Protective (7%) and Dominative (2%) Paternalism, compared

to their descriptions of their Role Models (24% of participants described Role Models as

agreeing with protective paternalism, and 17% described Role Models as agreeing with

dominative paternalism). Similarly, regarding disagreement with paternalism, participants made

significantly more Self-statements disagreeing with Protective (41%) and Dominative (57%)

Paternalism, compared to their descriptions of Role Models’ disagreement (20% described Role

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 27

Models as disagreeing with Protective Paternalism, and 27% described Role Models as

disagreeing with Dominative Paternalism). In the essays, this is seen in more Self-statements,

relative to their Role Models, that women should be assertive, that women should stand up for

their rights, and that women should be, or have the means to be, self-sufficient and independent.

Furthermore, participants were significantly more likely to express disagreement with all forms

of benevolent and hostile sexism, as compared to descriptions of their Role Models.

One sample of text reflecting this perceived “narrative of progress” is: “I also run into

some opposition and very traditional rules in being a woman. So, I look at those as a challenge

and try to change them. … My mother almost always took a traditional wife/mother role and my

father always thought we (my sisters and I) should act in the same way. … I have moved away

from [the] …traditional view of women [whereas my] …grandmothers always took the

responsibility for the home and the family and always thought that whatever their husbands

wanted to do with their lives was more important than their own desires for life.” Another

example is: “I also have a better sense of knowing I can take care of myself if I needed to where

my mother and grandmother rely a great deal on my father and grandfather for much of their

support. … In the past, I used to think that women had to be very dependent upon men and that

we couldn’t do anything without them.”

Findings that did not support the “narrative of progress” indicate that, while some

changes have occurred in gender stereotypes regarding acceptable roles for women, attitudes of

sexism on certain domains have been quite resistant to change. Results for this study indicate

more similarity, rather than differences, between participants and their descriptions of Role

Models for attitudes that endorse gender differentiation and heterosexuality. The most

compelling evidence for this was found for statements expressing agreement with

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 28

Complementary Gender Differentiation. Fifty-six percent of participants made Self-statements

expressing agreement, and 57% of participants described their Role Models as agreeing with this

ideology. For example, many essays described women as nurturing, emotionally expressive, and

the “glue” that keeps families and relationships intact. One participant wrote: “A woman has a

right to be traditional. Being a woman means being a nurturer and a caregiver for her family. …

A woman is allowed to communicate openly, to feel and express every emotion humanly

possible, without hesitation. Being a woman means being an emotional being without the world

noticing.” The next example demonstrates some of the perceived “rewards” of benevolent

sexism: “Women are the beautiful sex. … We may be weak physically, but our ultimate power

comes from within. We are sincere and meek. … I like being called a princess, hearing that I’m

pretty, being told that I’m sweet and just being a girl. … We are beautiful, sexy, loving and have

a special glow about us that men wish they could experience.”

Another common theme in the essays related to participants’ awareness of the struggles

of fulfilling multiple or competing roles. Examples include: a) “However I do understand why

woman [sic] as a whole are not paid quite as much as men, women will more than likely need to

leave for a few months and possibly years to raise their children. … I have always wanted to be a

doctor, but then my maternal instincts started to make me question that.”; b) “This goes on

throughout adult hood [sic] when you have children and you have to decide if your [sic] being a

bad parent for leaving your kids in a nursery or if you are letting yourself down by staying at

home. Society seems to want women to do it all, to be that Betty Crocker homemaker and the up

in coming [sic] successful woman.”; and c) “The African American community as a whole

supports the black female as strong, independent, and the care taker. But I do feel that the male

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 29

and females have a better split of familial duties in African American households, but you still

go to church and hear that you're simply supposed to be the helper to your husband.”

Overall, few statements were coded on the Heterosexuality domain, perhaps because the

open-ended nature of questions in the essay writing task were too general to directly assess this

domain. Even so, findings indicate perceived similarities, as opposed to the hypothesized

“narrative of progress,” in content reflecting Heterosexual Intimacy, such as idealized notions of

romance or the “mandate to marry,” with this ideology being endorsed by Self-statements in 5%

and Role Model statements in 4% of essays.

Along with the perceived similarities observed between descriptions of participants and

their Role Models regarding Complementary Gender Differentiation and Heterosexual Intimacy,

findings indicate both participants and Role Model descriptions expressed very little agreement

with Competitive Gender Differentiation, or the notion that women are unsuited for high-status

roles, such as in business ownership or professional careers. Only 2% of participants made Self-

statements expressing agreement, and only 1% of participants described their Role Models as

expressing agreement with this ideology. Indeed, participants were much more likely to make

Self-statements that disagreed with Competitive Gender Differentiation (62%) than to support

the construct, meaning the majority of participants directly referred to women’s competency in

the business world and in leadership positions, or as fulfilling other traditionally male roles (e.g.,

military), that are associated with success and power.

Previous research has demonstrated that some traits of agency are considered acceptable

for women, so long as the important conditions are met that women must not directly challenge

men’s agency, and they must concurrently display certain traditionally feminine traits as well

(Rudman & Glick, 2001; Prentice & Carranza, 2002). For example, Rudman and Glick found

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 30

that female job applicants for a managerial position who displayed the agentic trait of

competence received generally positive evaluations – but only if the applicants also displayed

communal traits and did not exhibit traits of social dominance. Our findings are consistent with

those of other researchers in that the majority of participants in this study agreed with

Complementary Gender Differentiation’s mandate that women should be warm and caring, and

that few agreed with (and many expressed disagreement with) Competitive Gender

Differentiation. Taken together, studies indicate that prevailing social attitudes consider it to be

acceptable for women to display certain masculine characteristics, such as competence in

traditionally masculine careers (e.g., Diekman et al., 2005; Twenge, 2001), as long as strong

cultural prescriptions are observed for women to retain stereotypically feminine characteristics,

particularly caring and empathy (e.g., Prentice & Carranza, 2002).

In contrast to the observed perceived similarities, we believe that findings of this study

that do support the perceived “narrative of progress” also reflect the concept of dynamic

stereotypes put forth by Diekman and colleagues (Diekman et al., 2005). Their research

described a process that occurs when a group’s social roles change, such as the changes in

women’s roles that occurred as a result of the 1970’s women’s movement. During this process

of change, there is often a delay between the implementation of new policies and laws reflecting

those changes, and broad cultural acceptance of attitudes that are ideologically congruent with

the new roles. That the young women’s narratives in this study described less endorsement of

paternalistic ideology, as compared to their perceptions of their familial female role models, may

be indicative of a lessening of the gap between policy changes that afforded more opportunity to

women and widespread cultural attitudes supportive of the accompanying changes associated

with those opportunities and roles.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 31

ASI scores in a predominantly Southeastern sample of college females. Although we

proposed no hypotheses on the topic, we were also interested in how participants’ ASI scores

compared to scores obtained in Glick and Fiske’s (1996) normative samples from the U.S. The

current study’s sample, all undergraduate females at a large Southeastern university, had

consistently higher ASI scores than females in the normative samples from the Northeast and

Midwest. In addition, study participants who grew up in the Southeast had significantly higher

Total ASI scores and BS scores (but not higher HS scores) than participants who grew up in

states from other regions of the U.S.

Why might these differences occur? One possible reason for the relatively higher sexism

scores in this study relates to regional differences in value systems. The Southeastern U.S. is

typically viewed as politically and ideologically conservative, as compared to other regions of

the nation, and South Carolina is reputed to be a highly conservative state. The majority of the

current sample was from the Southeastern U.S., with 60% from South Carolina and another 20%

from other states in the Southeast. The influence of regional context was also reflected in essay

content. For example, one participant who grew up in South Carolina stated, “In the South …I

had to take etiquette classes as a child to learn how to be a ‘proper lady.’ This was a part of the

school curriculum, not a class that was optional.” For comparison, a participant who grew up in

the Northeast stated, “I think culture in South Carolina provides its own pressures for women …

[in that] women are expected to be nice and cheerful at all times ….”

Previous studies conducted in diverse cultural settings have found a relationship between

ambivalent sexism and conservative ideologies, such as high valuation of cultural traditions (Pek

& Leong, 2003), political conservatism (Christopher & Mull, 2006), and higher levels of

religiosity (Glick, Lameiras, & Castro, 2002; Burn & Busso, 2005), and this particularly seems

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 32

to be the case for benevolent sexism (Fernandez, Castro, & Torrejon, 2001) as compared to

hostile sexism. More conservative ideologies tend to emphasize the preservation of traditions,

which tend to maintain status quo power structures. In that way, conservative ideology is highly

compatible with benevolent sexism’s “positive” stereotypes of women and the associated

expectation that women conform to traditional gender roles.

Current sample ASI means and indices of gender equality at the state level. Another

possible explanation for the relatively higher sexism scores in this study relates to the status of

women in the Southeastern U.S. Glick and colleagues (Glick et al., 2000) examined the

relationship between ASI scores and national indices of gender inequality in 19 diverse nations.

The gender inequality indices they used are also used by the United Nations to examine women’s

status as compared to men’s status, by factors such as the number of women, relative to men, in

government positions and high status jobs, as well as women’s share of earned income and

access to education. These studies revealed that ASI scores were positively correlated with

indices of gender inequality at the national level. Similarly, in South Carolina, as compared to

other states in the nation, gender equality indicators show a relatively low number of women in

seats of government and high-status positions, as well as reduced economic opportunities for

women as compared to men (Hartmann et al. 2006; Caiazza et al., 2006; Goldberg & Hill, 2007).

That the current sample’s ASI scores are higher than the normative U.S. samples of Glick and

Fiske (1996) is consistent with the cross-cultural findings (Glick et al., 2000) that higher sexism

scores were related to higher gender inequality and lower status for women.

Limitations. This study used a novel approach to examine women’s self-described

gender-based experiences using the theoretical framework of ambivalent sexism theory.

Findings need to be replicated with more diverse populations, including non-college samples. In

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 33

addition, our sample, which was recruited from an upper level Social Psychology course, a

Psychology of Women course, and a Women’s Studies course, is likely not a representative cross

section of students at the university, and are likely to have more egalitarian attitudes due to self

selection for those courses. The use of qualitative methods limits findings to the nature of the

questions participants were asked when writing their essays. However, one strength of the use of

qualitative methods is an ability to elicit what is most salient about the topic to the respondents.

Also, the “narrative of progress” findings, i.e., the domains for which participants

described themselves as less sexist than their familial female role models, is based solely on the

participants’ perceptions. In future studies, it would be interesting to conduct a cohort study

comparing different generations (e.g., female role models’ ASI scores and essays as compared

with scores and essays of their daughters, granddaughters, and nieces). Similarly, future studies

could examine ASI scores for other geographic areas and ethnic groups within the U.S.

In closing, the current study used an innovative mixed-methods design to demonstrate the

construct validity of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. While many studies have examined

sexism by degree of item endorsement on instruments, no other studies that we are aware of have

examined how findings from sexism attitude measures and content analysis of women’s

descriptions of their experiences converge. This study provides evidence that ambivalent sexism

is not merely a construct that emerges when individuals respond to questions on the ASI, but is a

real part of women’s everyday lives. In conclusion, we hope that future studies continue to

explore regional and cultural differences in sexism, as well as changes in sexism over time, to

better inform efforts to increase gender equality.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 34

References

Allport, G. W. (1979). The Nature of Prejudice: 25th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Perseus Books.

Burn, S. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 412-418.

Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223-230.

Caiazza, A., Shaw, A., & Werschkul, M. (December, 2006). The status of women in the states:

Women’s economic status in the states: Wide disparities by race, ethnicity, and region.

Institute For Women’s Policy Research. www.iwpr.org.

Diekman, A., Eagly, A., & Mladinic, A., & Ferreira, M. C. (2005). Dynamic stereotypes about

women and men in Latin America and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 36(2), 209-226.

Fernandez, M. L., Castro, Y. R., & Torrejon, M. J. S. (2001). Sexism and racism in a Spanish

sample of secondary school students. Social Indicators Research, 54(3), 309-328.

Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (Dis)liking: Status

and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal

of Social Issues, 55(3), 473-489.

Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., & White, K. B. (2004). First- and second-generation

measures of sexism, rape myths, and related beliefs, and hostility toward women: Their

interrelationships and association with college students’ experiences with dating

aggression and sexual coercion. Violence Against Women, 10(3), 236-261.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 35

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and

benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001a). Ambivalent Sexism. In Advances in experimental social

psychology, 33, 115-188.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001b). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as

complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 5(2), 109-

118.

Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond

prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763-775.

Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, Y. R. (2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors

of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47(9-10), 433-441.

Goldberg, J. D., & Hill, C. (April 2007). Behind the pay gap [Electronic version]. American

Association of University Women Educational Foundation. Retrieved from

http://www.aauw.org.

Hartmann, H., Sorokina, O., & Williams, E. (2006). The best and worst state economies for

women. Briefing Paper. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Briefing Paper, IWPR

No. R334. Retrieved from http://www.iwpr.org.

Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (Dec. 1995). The Schedule of Sexist Events: A measure of

lifetime and recent sexist discrimination in women’s lives. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 19, 439-472.

Kloos, B., Gross, S. M., Meese, K. J., Meade, C. S., Doughty, J. D.., Hawkins, D. D., et al.

(2005). Negotiating Risk: Knowledge and Use of HIV Prevention by Persons with

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 36

Serious Mental Illness Living in Supportive Housing. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 36, 357-372.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook,

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pek, J. C. X., & Leong, F. T. L. (2003). Sex-related self-concepts, cognitive styles and cultural

values of traditionality-modernity as predictors of general and domain-specific sexism.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6(1), 31-49.

Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are

allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269-281.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic

women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743-762.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A

cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931-1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

81(1), 133-145.

Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Masser, B. (2004). Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape: The

role of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence length. Law

and Human Behavior, 28(3), 295-303.

Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A

psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 75-85.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 37

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for coding categories for essay themes relevant to ambivalent sexism Percent (and #) of Name of code M (SD) Range essays using code Code 1.0 Overall Ambivalent Sexism 11.95 (7.53) 0 - 42 98.7 (77) Code 1.1 Benevolent Sexism 6.55 (5.40) 0 - 31 94.9 (74) Code 1.1.1 Protective Paternalism 1.82 (2.30) 0 - 9 60.3 (47) Code 1.1.2 Complementary Gender Differentiation 4.32 (4.12) 0 - 20 84.6 (66) Code 1.1.3 Heterosexual Intimacy 0.67 (1.42) 0 - 7 30.8 (24) Code 1.2 Hostile Sexism 5.91 (4.84) 0 - 23 96.2 (75) Code 1.2.1 Dominative Paternalism 2.62 (2.95) 0 - 14 73.1 (57) Code 1.2.2 Competitive Gender Differentiation 2.97 (2.75) 0 - 13 84.6 (66) Code 1.2.3 Heterosexual Hostility 0.45 (.73) 0 - 3 32.1 (25) N = 78.

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 38

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for Self(+) and Role Model(++) codes by Agree/Disagree codes for codes relevant to ambivalent sexism Self-statements Role Model statements

Agree statements % (#) essays % (#) essays

Narrative Code M (SD) Range with code M (SD) Range with code Overall Ambivalent Sexism 1.44 (1.87) 0-10 63 (52) 1.71 (1.63) 0-7 70 (57) Benevolent Sexism 1.35 (1.81) 0-9 61 (50) 1.55 (1.52) 0-6 66 (54) Protective Paternalism* 0.07 (0.26) 0-1 7 (6) 0.44 (0.94) 0-5 24 (20) Complementary GD 1.20 (1.70) 0-9 56 (46) 1.48 (1.75) 0-9 57 (47) Heterosexual Intimacy 0.10 (0.49) 0-3 5 (4) 0.07 (0.41) 0-3 4 (3) Hostile Sexism 0.10 (0.40) 0-3 7 (6) 0.22 (0.55) 0-3 17 (14) Dominative Paternalism* 0.05 (0.45) 0-3 2 (2) 0.24 (0.64) 0-4 17 (14) Competitive GD 0.02 (0.16) 0-1 2 (2) 0.01 (0.11) 0-1 1 (1) Heterosexual Hostility 0.02 (0.16) 0-1 2 (2) na na 0

Ambivalent Sexism and what it means … 39

Disagree statements

Overall Ambivalent Sexism 3.71 (3.27) 0-16 90 (74) 1.46 (1.79) 0-9 59 (48) Benevolent Sexism 1.54 (2.01) 0-10 61 (50) 0.49 (0.86) 0-4 33 (27) Protective Paternalism* 0.83 (1.31) 0-6 41 (34) 0.34 (0.84) 0-4 20 (16) Complementary GD* 0.57 (1.03) 0-5 30 (25) 0.13 (0.34) 0-1 13 (11) Heterosexual Intimacy* 0.17 (0.47) 0-2 13 (11) 0.02 (0.22) 0-2 1 (1) Hostile Sexism 2.39 (2.43) 0-16 84 (69) 1.01 (1.40) 0-5 46 (38) Dominative Paternalism* 1.22 (1.76) 0-11 57 (47) 0.41 (0.87) 0-4 24 (20) Competitive GD* 1.16 (1.28) 0-6 62 (51) 0.70 (1.02) 0-4 41 (34) Heterosexual Hostility* 0.05 (0.22) 0-1 5 (4) na na 0 N = 78 essays. GD = Gender Differentiation; na = not applicable. * p <= .05. (+)Self-statements describe participants’ own views. (++)Role Model statements describe participants’ perceptions of their mothers, aunts, and grandmothers.