When sexism is persuasive: agreement with hostile and benevolent sexism as a function of source gender

Figures & data

Table 1. Study 1: F values and probabilities.

	Likability			Prejudice			Agreement
	F(1,239)	p	ηp^2	F(1,239)	p	ηp^2	F(1,239)	p	ηp^2
Type of sexism	40.49	<.001	.15	14.26	<.001	.06	25.37	<.001	.10
Speaker gender	.912	.341	.004	1.26	.262	.005	.586	.445	.002
Sexism by gender	31.88	<.001	.12	71.86	<.001	.23	51.07	<.001	.18

Table 2. Study 1: Means (and standard deviations) for speaker ratings by speaker gender and type of sexism.

	Hostile sexism			Benevolent sexism
	Female	Male	F(1,239)	Female	Male	F(1,239)
Likability	4.70 (1.16)a	3.87 (1.11)b	21.22^***	4.94 (.95)a	5.51 (.83)c	11.43^**
Prejudice	3.49 (1.25)a	4.46 (1.17)b	26.07^***	4.07 (1.06)c	2.64 (1.03)d	47.86^***
Agreement	6.31 (2.71)b	4.08 (2.69)a	30.17^***	6.17 (2.20)b	7.90 (1.87)c	21.15^***

Note: Means in the same row with different subscripts differ at p < .05;

^** p <.01;

^*** p < .001.

Figure 1. Unstandardized path weights of the moderated mediation model (Study 1).

*p < .05; ***p < .001.

Table 3. Study 2: F values and probabilities.

	Likability			Prejudice			Group interest violation			Agreement
	F(1,514)	p	ηp^2	F(1,514)	p	ηp^2	F(1,514)	p	ηp^2	F(1,514)	p	ηp^2
Type of sexism	22.94	<.001	.04	8.77	.003	.02	5.28	.022	.01	5.73	.017	.01
Speaker gender	40.31	<.001	.07	1.52	.218	.003	6.33	.012	.012	.007	.933	.000
Sexism by gender	50.79	<.001	.09	83.87	<.001	.14	382.61	<.001	.43	48.12	<.001	.09

Table 4. Study 2: Means (and standard deviations) for speaker ratings by speaker gender and type of sexism.

	Hostile sexism			Benevolent sexism
	Female	Male	F(1,507)	Female	Male	F(1,507)
Likability	5.00 (1.90)a	5.12 (1.70)b	3.26	6.82 (1.64)c	4.76 (1.69)b	82.63^***
Prejudice	6.33 (1.80)a	4.95 (1.75)b	31.21^***	5.47 (2.02)b	7.18 (1.72)c	54.33^***
Group interest violation	3.37 (1.74)a	6.35 (1.87)b	144.37^***	6.56 (2.32)c	2.33 (1.78)d	245.19^***
Agreement	−.07 (2.84)a	1.33 (2.37)b	23.34^***	−.14 (3.12)a	−1.92 (2.73)c	24.79^***

Note: Means in the same row with different subscripts differ at p < .05;

^*** p < .001.

Figure 2. Standardized path weights of the structural equation model (Study 2).

***p < .001.

Table 5. Study 2: Correlations of items for SEM analysis, split by type of sexism.

	Speaker gender	Defend	Against group	Prejudiced	Biased	Sexist	Fair minded	Do you agree
Speaker gender	−	−.74^***	−.51^***	.42^***	.26^***	.39^***	.21^***	−.29^***
Defend	.55^***	−	.53^***	−.25^***	−.13^*	−.28^***	−.04	.13^*
Against group	.45^***	.23^***	−	.006	.004	−.002	.008	−.07
Prejudiced	−.24^***	−.21^***	−.09	−	.51^***	.73^***	.51^***	−.64^***
Biased	−.23^***	−.23^***	−.10	.59^***	−	.47^***	.25^***	−.34^***
Sexist	−.40^***	−.32^***	−.07	.44^***	.46^***	–	.49^***	−.59^***
Fair minded	−.22^***	−.06	.005	.37^***	.39^***	.38^***	−	−.55^***
Do you agree	.26^***	.20^***	.08	−.39^***	−.35^***	−.46^***	−.39^***	−

Note: Correlations for hostile sexism are below the diagonal.

^* p < .05;

^*** p < .001.