The Experiences with Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (EASI)

A Modified Menstrual Attitudes Scale: Heteronormative Attitudes, Sexism, and Attitudes Toward Menstruation in Male and Female Adults

Social shame and stigma surround menstruation, which may compromise women's health and rights in various contexts. Men's attitudes are particularly important because men often hold positions of power that influence women's experience. This study examined factors associated with menstrual attitudes, including heteronormative attitudes, sexism, and family influences. A cross-sectional Qualtrics panel survey (n = 802; aged 18-44; 50.8% female) was performed. We tested a revised menstrual attitudes scale based on items drawn from previously validated measures. Data were analyzed using a structural equation modeling framework. Factor analysis identified and confirmed a 5-factor model for menstrual attitudes. Men endorsed more negative attitudes toward menstruation than women; however, this difference was largely explained by factors other than gender in the structural equation model. After controlling for family and demographic characteristics, attitudes toward openness and secrecy surrounding menstruation were most strongly associated with gender role expectations and hostile sexism. Benevolent sexism was associated with finding menstruation debilitating, denying menstrual symptoms, and endorsing avoidance of activities during menstruation. Heteronormative and sexist attitudes were associated with more negative menstrual attitudes, while increased menstrual knowledge was associated with more positive menstrual attitudes. The difference in menstrual attitudes between males and females was explained largely by heteronormative attitudes and sexism. This suggests that attitudes toward menstruation are closely linked to social ideals about men and women.

Perceptions of women who confront hostile and benevolent sexism

Little 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.

Benevolent and hostile sexism in a shifting global context

The theory of and research on ambivalent sexism - which encompasses both attitudes that are overtly negative (hostile sexism) and those that seem subjectively positive but are actually harmful (benevolent sexism) - have made substantial contributions to understanding how sexism operates and the consequences it has for women. It is now clear that sexism takes different forms, some of which can be disguised as protection and flattery. However, all forms of sexism have negative effects on how women are perceived and treated by others as well as on women themselves. Some of these findings have implications for understanding other social inequalities, such as ableism, ageism, racism and classism. In this Review, we summarize what is known about the predictors of ambivalent sexism and its effects. Although we focus on women, we also consider some effects on men, in particular those that indirectly influence women. Throughout the Review we point to societal shifts that are likely to influence how sexism is manifested, experienced and understood. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of these changes and specifying areas of enquiry that need to be addressed to continue making progress in understanding the mechanisms that underlie social inequalities.

What Matters When Examining Attitudes of Economic Abuse? Gender and Student Status as Predictors of Blaming, Minimizing, and Excusing Economic Abuse

Extensive research has been conducted regarding attitudes toward various types and patterns of violence against intimate partners, but there is a lack of research on attitudes toward economic abuse in general. In the current study, we examined attitudes toward economic abuse by examining how participants blamed the victim, minimized the economic abuse, and excused the perpetrator in hypothetical scenarios. We also examined two characteristics of participants: binary gender differences (i.e., woman, man) and differences between students and non-students. Participants (N = 239) were recruited via the SONA system of a private university (n = 120) and via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (n = 119). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of two hypothetical scenarios to evaluate how scenario condition (i.e., victim employed, victim unemployed), participant gender, and participant student status predicted attitudes toward economic abuse involving blaming, minimizing, and excusing. Moreover, we also examined ambivalent sexism and gender role ideology as predictors. A 2 (scenario condition: job, no job) × 2 (participant gender: woman, man) × 2 (student status: college student, non-college student) MANOVA indicated main effects of both participant gender and participant student status. Follow-up ANOVAs revealed that men were more likely to blame victims, minimize the economic abuse, and excuse perpetrators compared to women. Additionally, students were less likely to minimize the economic abuse compared to non-students. Moreover, both hostile sexism and traditional gender role ideology were significant predictors. Implications of the findings and future directions for researchers are discussed.