![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Expressions of prejudice are considered more severe when consistent with prototypical features. Two studies examine how speaker gender interacts with the type of sexism expressed (hostile vs. benevolent) to influence participants’ agreement with sexism. Participants (N = 806) evaluated a male or female target whose opinions reflected hostile or benevolent sexism toward women (Study 1) or men (Study 2). Participants were more likely to agree with benevolent sexist statements expressed by speakers praising their out-groups and were more likely to agree with hostile sexist statements expressed by speakers denigrating their in-groups. Mediation analyses suggested that participants’ agreement increased as their perceptions of the speaker as prejudiced decreased. These findings are discussed in the context of the justification of sexism.
Notes
1. The interaction between participant gender and type of sexism was statistically significant at the multivariate level (F(3,237) = 4.50, p = .004, ηp2 = .05) and at the univariate level for agreement with speaker (F(1,239) = 12.07, p = .001, ηp2 = .05). Means for benevolent sexist speaker were higher (i.e., more agreement) than for the hostile sexist speaker, and this difference was more pronounced among female participants than male participants.
2. The interaction between participant gender and type of sexism was statistically significant at the multivariate level (F(4,504) = 16.67, p < .001, ηp2 = .12) and at the univariate level for prejudice (F(1,507) = 16.21, p < .001, ηp2 = .03), speaker likability (F(1,507) = 29.40, p < .001, ηp2 = .06), and agreement with speaker (F(1,507) = 61.68, p < .001, ηp2 = .11). Male participants felt that speakers endorsing benevolent sexism less prejudiced and agreed with them more, than speakers endorsing hostile sexism, and female participants showed the opposite pattern. The interaction between participant gender and speaker gender was statistically significant at the multivariate level (F(4,504) = 5.16, p < .001, ηp2 = .22) and at the univariate level for against group violation (F(1,507) = 10.37, p = .001, ηp2 = .02). Female participants rated the female speakers as higher in group interest violation than the male speakers, while male participants rated both male speakers equally.