Perceptions of women who confront hostile and benevolent sexism

ABSTRACTLittle is known about the differences between confronting explicitly negative (hostile) vs. subjectively positive (benevolent) forms of sexism. Across three studies (N = 1315), we test a) whether confronting benevolent sexism is more costly for women than confronting hostile sexism and b) whether confronting some subtypes of benevolent sexism are more costly than others. We compared confrontations and non-confrontations of hostile sexism, benevolent sexism involving complementary gender differentiation (CGD), and benevolent sexism involving protective paternalism (PP). Surprisingly, confronting benevolent sexism was not more costly than confronting hostile sexism; a finding that replicated across studies and in two different contexts. Confronters of PP were evaluated more positively than confronters of CGD, but only when CGD embodied themes of gender essentialism (i.e., beliefs that men and women are naturally different). Confronters were mostly evaluated favorably relative to non-confronters and especially among women. Results imply that confronting benevolent sexism may have fewer consequences than anticipated.KEYWORDS: Confrontationhostile sexismbenevolent sexismprotective paternalismcomplementary gender differentiation Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementThe data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/wk5x3.Open ScholarshipThis article has earned the Center for Open Science badges for Open Data, Open Materials and Preregistered. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/wk5x3.Authors’ contributionsThe first and second author contributed to study design and manuscript writing. The first author created study stimuli and led data collection and analysis.Compliance with ethical standardsAll participants in this work were treated in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the APA and the University of Toronto’s Research Ethics Board (protocol #34774).Supplementary materialSupplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2023.2173554Correction StatementThis article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by a Canada Graduate Scholarship (Doctoral) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to Jordana Schiralli. This research was also supported by a SSHRC Insight Grant (435-2017-0509) to Alison Chasteen.Notes on contributorsJordana E. SchiralliJordana Schiralli is a PhD Candidate in psychology at the University of Toronto. Her research interests include sexism, confrontation, and intersectionality.Alison L. ChasteenDr. Alison Chasteen is a Professor of psychology and principal investigator of the Intergroup Relations Lab at the University of Toronto. She investigates stereotyping, prejudice, and stigma from both the perceiver’s and target’s perspective.