Thomas Eckes

Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures

The authors argue that complementary hostile and benevolent components of sexism exist across cultures. Male dominance creates hostile sexism (HS), but mens dependence on women fosters benevolent sexism (BS)--subjectively positive attitudes that put women on a pedestal but reinforce their subordination. Research with 15,000 men and women in 19 nations showed that (a) HS and BS are coherent constructs that correlate positively across nations, but (b) HS predicts the ascription of negative and BS the ascription of positive traits to women, (c) relative to men, women are more likely to reject HS than BS, especially when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high, and (d) national averages on BS and HS predict gender inequality across nations. These results challenge prevailing notions of prejudice as an antipathy in that BS (an affectionate, patronizing ideology) reflects inequality and is a cross-culturally pervasive complement to HS.

Bad but Bold : Ambivalent Attitudes Toward Men Predict Gender Inequality in 16 Nations

A 16-nation study involving 8,360 participants revealed that hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men, assessed by the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (P. Click & S.T. Fiske, 1999), were (a) reliably measured across cultures, (b) positively correlated (for men and women, within samples and across nations) with each other and with hostile and benevolent sexism toward women (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, P. Click & S.T. Fiske, 1996), and (c) negatively correlated with gender equality in cross-national comparisons. Stereotype measures indicated that men were viewed as having less positively valenced but more powerful traits than women. The authors argue that hostile as well as benevolent attitudes toward men reflect and support gender inequality by characterizing men as being designed for dominance.

Paternalistic and Envious Gender Stereotypes: Testing Predictions from the Stereotype Content Model

In 2 studies, paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes were examined. Paternalistic stereotypes portray particular female or male subgroups as warm but not competent, whereas envious stereotypes depict some other female or male subgroups as competent but not warm. A total of 134 women and 82 men, primarily White and middle class, participated in this research. Building on the stereotype content model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), Study 1 tested the mixed-stereotypes hypothesis that many gender subgroups are viewed as high on either competence or warmth but low on the other. Study 2 additionally addressed the social-structural hypothesis that status predicts perceived competence and interdependence predicts perceived warmth. The results provided strong support for both hypotheses.

A Closer Look at the Complex Structure of Gender Stereotypes.

In the present paper an experimental design is introduced for the analysis of the conceptual categories used by subjects when stereotyping males and females. Subjects were asked to name as many familiar types of women and men as they could think of, and describe them in terms of various characteristic properties (e.g., traits, attitudes, interests, skills, and demographic features). The most frequently mentioned types were then sorted by a second sample according to their perceived similarity. Finally, a third group of subjects categorized the initial set of properties in terms of their relevance to either male or female types. Clustering and scaling analyses yielded a clear cut picture of the cognitive ordering principles underlying gender stereotypes. Distinct property clusters were found for the female and male types, underlining the important role of gender stereotypes in the knowledge base of the subjects.

Hostilität und Benevolenz: Eine Skala zur Erfassung des ambivalenten Sexismus

Zusammenfassung: Es wird eine deutsche Version des «Ambivalent Sexism Inventory» (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) vorgestellt. Diese Skala dient der Erfassung ambivalenter Einstellungen gegenuber Frauen. Anders als die Konzepte des traditionellen und des modernen Sexismus trennt das Konzept des ambivalenten Sexismus zwischen negativen, offen feindseligen Einstellungen (Hostilitat) und subjektiv positiven, wohlwollenden Einstellungen (Benevolenz). Untersuchungen an 2 studentischen und 3 nichtstudentischen Stichproben mit insgesamt 773 Vpn weisen die 22-Item-Skala als reliabel und valide aus. Insbesondere bestatigt sich die Hypothese, das Hostilitat und Benevolenz zwei separate Subsysteme sexistischer Einstellungen mit gegenlaufiger subjektiver Valenz bilden. In der Diskussion werden Perspektiven der Forschung zu sexistischen Einstellungen aufgezeigt.

Linking female and male subtypes to situations: A range-of-situation-fit effect

The perceived link of female and male subtypes to particular classes of common situations was examined. Building on gender-role theory [A. H. Eagly (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social Role Interpretation, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum] it was hypothesized that female and male subtypes would differ in the range of situations which they are seen to match. In two studies using different sets of gender subtypes and situations, Ss (total N = 124, 100% white) assigned female and male subtypes to situations in which they would be comfortable. Results consistently showed that female subtypes, as compared to male subtypes, were allowed a broader range of situations in which they would interact comfortably. Similarly, situations were seen to match a broader range of female than of male subtypes. A two-mode clustering analysis of the assignment frequencies served to elucidate the perceived interconnections between gender subtypes and situations. The evidence from both studies suggests that gender stereotypes include information about distinctive patterns of subtype × situation relations. Implications for gender stereotype research are discussed.

Ambivalenter Sexismus und die Polarisierung von Geschlechterstereotypen

Zusammenfassung: Es wurde die Hypothese untersucht, dass Geschlechterstereotype in Abhangigkeit vom Ausmas der Ambivalenz von Einstellungen gegenuber Frauen bzw. Mannern unterschiedlich starke Polarisierung aufweisen. Vpn hatten zunachst auf einer Reihe von femininen und maskulinen (jeweils positiv oder negativ bewerteten) Merkmalen zwei Subkategorien einzuschatzen, einen traditionellen Frauentyp (Hausfrau) bzw. einen traditionellen Mannertyp (Manager) und einen nichttraditionellen Frauentyp (Karrierefrau) bzw. einen nichttraditionellen Mannertyp (Softie). Anschliesend wurden ihre Einstellungen gegenuber Frauen bzw. Mannern gemessen. Mase der innerdimensionalen Ambivalenz (gegensatzliche Einschatzungen auf ein und derselben Merkmalsdimension) und der kreuzdimensionalen Ambivalenz (gegensatzliche Einschatzungen auf zwei verschiedenen Dimensionen) wurden berechnet. Wie erwartet zeigten ambivalente Sexisten (im Vergleich mit Nichtsexisten) einen hoheren Grad an Polarisierung in ihren Beurteilungen der weibli...

Multifacetten-Rasch-Analyse von Personenbeurteilungen

Zusammenfassung: Das Multifacetten-Rasch-Modell (Linacre, 1989; Linacre & Wright, 2002) wird auf die Untersuchung von Personenbeurteilungen angewendet. Dazu werden Daten aus einer Studie zur Beurteilung der physischen Attraktivitat (Eckes & Hassebrauck, 1993) reanalysiert. Facetten der Urteilssituation sind Stimuluspersonen, Merkmale und Beurteiler/-innen. Wichtige Funktionen des Modells lauten: (a) simultane Messung der Attraktivitat der Stimuluspersonen, der Evaluation der Merkmale und der Strenge bzw. Milde der Beurteiler/-innen, (b) Erfassung von Konsens und Dissens unter den Beurteilern/-innen und (c) Analyse von Interaktionen zwischen Stimuluspersonen, Merkmalen und Beurteilern/-innen. Die Ergebnisse werden im Kontext von Fragen der Genauigkeit, Dimensionalitat und Fairness von Personenbeurteilungen diskutiert.

Predicting Behavior in Natural Settings: Four Field Studies

Despite continuous challenges, highlighted in the work of two of the field’s most influential critics, LaPiere (1934) and Wicker (1969), attitude-behavior research has continued to be one of the most prolific areas in mainstream social psychology (cf. Canary & Seibold, 1984). To account for this persisting interest in relating attitudes to subsequent behavior, a straightforward and simple explanation has been presented by Kahle (1984, p. 105): “The basic rationale for understanding attitudes hinges on the notion that attitudes will reveal something about probable behavior. Since behaviors are difficult to predict and to measure, the assumption has been that attitudes would provide a shortcut to understanding behaviors.”