Sex Roles, Vol. 51, Nos. 9/10, November 2004 ( C 2004)
Reinforcing the Glass Ceiling: The Consequences of
Hostile Sexism for Female Managerial Candidates1
Barbara M. Masser2,4
and Dominic Abrams3
Previous research has established that benevolent sexism is related to the negative evaluation
of women who violate speciﬁc norms for behavior. Research has yet to document the
causal impact of hostile sexism on evaluations of individual targets. Correlational evidence
and ambivalent sexism theory led us to predict that hostile sexism would be associated with
negative evaluations of a female candidate for a masculine-typed occupational role. Participants
completed the ASI (P. Glick & S. T. Fiske, 1996) and evaluated a curriculum vitae
from either a male or female candidate. Higher hostile sexism was signiﬁcantly associated
with more negative evaluations of the female candidate and with lower recommendations
that she be employed as a manager. Conversely, higher hostile sexism was signiﬁcantly associated
with higher recommendations that a male candidate should be employed as a manager.
Benevolent sexism was unrelated to evaluations and recommendations in this context. The
ﬁndings support the hypothesis that hostile, but not benevolent, sexism results in negativity
toward individual women who pose a threat to men’s status in the workplace.
KEY WORDS: hostile sexism; glass ceiling; discrimination.
Sexism can take many forms (Glick & Fiske,
1996; Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995; Tougas,
Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995), and it is important
to understand more about how sexist attitudes may
affect reactions to women in different social and organizational
contexts. The aim of the current study
was to explore the role of two forms of sexism, hostile
and benevolent, in judgments and evaluations of
an individual female target who may be judged as
competitive or threatening to men. In line with Glick,
Diebold, Bailey-Werner, and Zhu (1997), we expected
that hostile, but not benevolent, sexism would
be related to the negative evaluation of, and discrim-
1The study reported in this paper was presented at the European
Association of Experimental Social Psychology, San Sebastian,
Spain, June 2002.
2School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia,
Australia.
3Department of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury,
Kent, United Kingdom.
4To whom correspondence should be addressed at the School
of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072,
Australia; e-mail: B.Masser@psy.uq.edu.au.
ination against, an individual female candidate for a
managerial role.
Ambivalent Sexism and Evaluations
of (Sub)Types of Women
In contrast to the view of sexism as a unitary antipathy
or hostility toward women (e.g., Swim et al.,
1995), Glick and Fiske (1996) proposed that hostile
sexism (HS) may coexist with subjectively positive
but stereotypical attitudes toward women, that is,
benevolent sexism (BS). In order to assess this, Glick
and Fiske (1996) developed and validated a 22-item
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), which is comprised
of the HS and BS subscales. Preliminary and
subsequent work (e.g., Glick et al., 2000; Masser &
Abrams, 1999) have found the HS and BS subscales
of the ASI to be positively correlated, which suggests
the coexistence of these affectively opposed attitudes
toward women in some people.
Noting that the simultaneous holding of opposing
attitudes toward women may be psychologically
609 0360-0025/04/1100-0609/0 C 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
610 Masser and Abrams
uncomfortable, Glick et al. (1997) suggested that the
positivity of BS and negativity of HS may be targeted
toward different (sub)types of women. Speciﬁcally,
Glick et al. (1997) suggested that BS would be related
to the idealization and positive evaluation of
women in traditional gender roles (e.g., homemakers),
whereas hostile sexism would be related to the
negative evaluation of women who violate traditional
gender roles (e.g., career women, feminists). On the
basis that a woman’s acceptance or rejection of traditional
power relationships and gender roles would
be key in determining an ambivalent sexist’s reaction,
Glick et al. (1997) conducted two studies to
explore the relationship between HS, BS, and reactions
to different subtypes of women. In their ﬁrst
study, Glick et al. (1997) found that HS was associated
with the generation of more negatively evaluated
subtypes and BS associated with the generation
of more positively evaluated subtypes. In their
second study, Glick et al. (1997) asked participants
to generate stereotypes about different subtypes of
women and to rate their positivity. Consistent with
their hypotheses, they found that on the majority of
dimensions HS was negatively associated with evaluations
of the nontraditional woman subtype of career
women. In their written free responses, sexist participants
stated that “they feared, envied, were intimidated
by, or felt competitive toward” (Glick et al.,
1997, p. 1330) these career women. In contrast, BS
was generally unrelated to evaluations of the nontraditional
woman subtype of career women, but was
positively associated with evaluations of the traditional
woman subtype of homemaker. These ﬁndings
were consistent with Fiske and Glick’s (1995) earlier
theoretical work on sexual harassment, which suggested
that HS might be associated with negative affect
toward those women who challenge the traditional
feminine gender role.
Subsequent correlational research has provided
further support for the link between BS and positive
evaluations of women engaged in traditional
behaviors and HS and the negative evaluation of
women engaged in nontraditional behaviors (e.g.,
Franzoi, 2001; Glick, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Ferreira, & de
Souza, 2002; Sakalli, 2001). Forbes, Adams-Curtis,
Hamm, and White (2003) considered HS and BS in
relation to the perception of breastfeeding women.
Consistent with viewing breastfeeding as a nurturing
behavior, Forbes et al. (2003) found a stronger
relationship between BS and favorable perceptions
of breastfeeding women than between HS and such
perceptions. With regard to HS, Sakalli-Ugurlu and
Beydogan (2002) considered the role of patriarchy,
HS, and BS in inﬂuencing college students’ attitudes
toward women managers in Turkey. In a questionnaire
study, they found that along with patriarchy,
HS, but not BS, was signiﬁcantly associated with their
Attitudes to Women as Managers scale, such that
those who were higher in HS had signiﬁcantly less
favorable attitudes toward women as managers than
did those lower in HS (see also Rudman & Kilianski,
2000).
Ambivalent Sexism and Evaluations
of Individual Women
Although the relationship of HS and BS to evaluations
of (sub)types of women has now been well
established, researchers have just begun to document
the effects of HS and BS on reactions to individual
female targets. As Glick et al. (1997) noted, individual
female targets may defy easy subtype categorization
and, in the view of the hostile or benevolent
sexist, may combine qualities of both liked and disliked
groups (e.g., a mother who works full-time in
a nurturing profession). In a series of recent quasiexperimental
studies we have begun to consider the
relationship of HS and BS to evaluations of individual
female targets (Abrams, Viki, Masser, & Bohner,
2003; Viki & Abrams, 2002; Viki, Massey, & Masser,
2003). Within these studies, participants have been
either been presented with a scenario in which a
woman engages in behavior that violates the traditional
gender role norm for appropriate sexual behavior
for women (e.g., inviting a man back to her
apartment and kissing him ﬁrst; Abrams et al., 2003)
or have been asked to rate a woman whose behavior
could be seen as being counter to the traditional
woman stereotype (e.g., non-nurturing, Viki et al.,
2003). In all of these studies focusing on (speciﬁc)
violations of the traditional role norm, BS, but not
HS, has been found to predict harsher evaluations of
the female target. For example, Abrams et al. (2003)
found that only BS was associated with increased
blame of a female acquaintance rape victim. Similarly,
Viki et al. (2003) found that BS, but not HS, was
associated with negative judgments of a female child
killer (Myra Hindley). In these instances, benevolent
sexists’ concern with preserving speciﬁc aspects of
traditional gender roles (Glick et al., 1997) appears
to have resulted in negative judgments of an individual
female target whose behavior was in violation of
that role.
The Consequences of Hostile Sexism 611
In all of the studies to date that have focused
on evaluations of individual female targets, HS has
been found to be unrelated to the judgments made.
Given Glick et al. (1997) and Sakalli-Ugurlu and
Beydogan’s (2002) ﬁndings of a negative association
between HS and (sub)types of women, it appears
that the null effect of HS in the existing individual
target research may potentially be due to
the nature of the targets used in the studies. Speciﬁcally,
in their correlational studies, Glick et al. (1997)
noted the importance of feelings of fear, envy, intimidation,
or competition in hostile sexists’ negative
evaluations of nontraditional (career) women. Given
this, for hostile sexists it may very well be a case
of Schein’s (1973) “think manager, think male” (see
also Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989; Heilman,
Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Powell, Butterﬁeld, &
Parent, 2002) in that the negative impact of HS will
only be apparent against individual female targets
who violate the traditional (feminine) gender role in
a way that threatens men or men’s status in positions
of economic power.
The Current Study
In this study we examined whether HS would
have a distinct role (relative to BS) in negative
evaluations of, and discrimination against, a female
candidate who violated the traditional (feminine)
gender role and threatened men’s status by applying
for a masculine-typed managerial role. Participants
were asked to consider the curriculum vitae of either
a male or female applicant for a management
position and to indicate the degree to which a series
of traits were descriptive of the candidate and
the perceived employability of the candidate in the
management position. Given previous correlational
research in this area (e.g., Glick et al., 1997; SakalliUgurlu
& Beydogan, 2002) and the threat that a
female manager may pose to men’s status, it was predicted
that HS would be related to participants’ negative
evaluation of the female candidate applying for a
masculine-typed managerial role. In this context, and
because the fulﬁlment of a managerial role does not
automatically preclude fulﬁlment of the speciﬁc aspects
of the traditional gender role norm established
to be of importance to benevolent sexists (e.g., sexual
conservatism; Abrams et al., 2003; nurturing behavior;
Viki et al., 2003), it was predicted that BS would
be unrelated to participants’ evaluations of the female
candidate. Given the focus of the ASI in assessing
sexist attitudes toward women, we did not predict
that evaluations of the male candidate would be related
to HS or BS scale scores.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Three hundred and seven participants (144 men,
137 women, and 26 unspeciﬁed) completed the measures.
The mean age of the sample was 24 years
(SD = 7.77), and all participants had English as a
ﬁrst language or were proﬁcient in English. The majority
of participants (72%) were employed; the remainder
were unemployed, students or people engaged
in full-time care of another. Participants in this
study were obtained through contacts in a number of
organizations in southeast England.5
Seven hundred
and ﬁfty-six questionnaire packs that included the
measures for the current study embedded in other
unrelated measures were distributed. Of those who
received questionnaires, 40.6% completed and returned
them.
Materials
The Curriculum Vitae
Participants were presented with a curriculum
vitae that they were told had been sent to a large retail
company that advertised a managerial position.6
5Speciﬁcally, a number of employees of organizations in southeast
England were approached and asked if they would be willing to
assist in the administration of a questionnaire. These employees
were acquaintances of the ﬁrst author, but were unaware as to
the purpose of the study. These assistants were given packs of
questionnaire booklets that contained the measures for the current
study (embedded in other measures), debrieﬁng sheets, and
stamped, addressed envelopes. The assistants were asked to recruit
as many participants as possible. Each participant was initially
given a booklet of measures and a stamped, addressed envelope.
Between 2 and 3 weeks later, each participant was given a
debrieﬁng sheet to explain the purpose of the study. In addition,
names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the University administrators
were provided to enable participants to contact us.
A small number of participants (approximately 8%) did, primarily
to obtain feedback information.
6Pilot testing conducted prior to the main study indicated that
a management position within a retail company was viewed
as a masculine-typed position. At the time the data for the
current study were collected (mid-late 1990s) this perception
is likely to have reﬂected the reality of women’s representation
in retail management positions. Despite the disproportional
612 Masser and Abrams
The curriculum vitae detailed the candidate’s educational
qualiﬁcations and his or her prior relevant
experience. The candidates were portrayed as
moderately qualiﬁed for the position with the necessary
educational qualiﬁcations and some relevant
workplace experience. The gender of the applicant
was varied by altering the name of the applicant
(“Christine” or “Christopher”). Participants were
told that the study concerned the presentation of information
within the curriculum vitae and were requested
to read the vitae and rate the candidate on
12 traits (e.g., friendly, helpful, conceited, arrogant7
)
using a 1 (not characteristic) to 7 (highly characteristic)
scale. The trait measure was based on those used
by Spence, Helmreich, and Holahan (1979), Bem
(1981), and Martin (1987) and was comprised of a
number of stereotypically feminine, masculine, and
neutral traits. In addition, participants were asked to
rate how suitable the candidate was for the position
and how likely they would be to employ the candidate
in the managerial position using a 1 (not at all)
to 7 (very likely) scale.8
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick
& Fiske, 1996) is a 22-item inventory comprised of
two 11-item scales (HS and BS). The ASI is made
up mainly of statements concerning relationships between
men and women, to which participants indicate
their level of agreement using a 7-point scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Higher
scores indicate more sexist attitudes. Examples of
items are “Women seek to gain power by getting control
over men” (HS) and “Women should be cherished
and protected by men” (BS).
representation of women in the junior levels of retail organizations,
women in the UK are still not equally represented at the
management level within these organizations. As of 2001, women
only made up 35% of retail managers in the UK (Equal Opportunities
Commission, 2002).
7The 12 traits used were arrogant, insensitive, moody, conceited,
careless, aggressive, dictatorial, sincere, superior, friendly, helpful,
and submissive.
8As noted in the procedure, participants were given questionnaire
packs that contained both the CV and associated measures and
the ASI. As noted by an anonymous reviewer it is possible that
completion of the ASI may have unduly inﬂuenced the assessment
of the CV (for those who chose to complete the ASI prior
to the CV measure). We believe that this is unlikely to have occurred,
as previous research (that has systematically varied the
order of administration of the ASI with the dependent measures)
has not documented any effect of order of administration (e.g.,
Abrams et al., 2003).
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Following recoding of the negative traits,
principal-component analysis with a varimax rotation
was used to assess the structure of the trait measure.
The 12 positive trait items loaded onto one factor
(loadings ranged from .41 to .81) and formed a reliable
scale (Cronbach’s α = .84).
Consistent with previous research (e.g., Glick
et al., 1997; Glick & Fiske, 1996; Masser & Abrams,
1999), the ASI subscales were reliable (HS Cronbach’s
α = .80, BS Cronbach’s α = .70) and positively
correlated (r = .50). A MANOVA was carried
out to test for gender differences in HS and
BS. The main effect for gender was not signiﬁcant,
F(1, 261) = 0.34, ns, nor was the interaction between
gender and scale, F(1, 261) = 0.04, ns. The mean
score on the HS scale was 3.42 (SD = 1.05), and the
mean score on the BS scale was 3.50 (SD = 0.90).
Preliminary analyses also showed that participant
gender did not have any signiﬁcant main or interaction
effects (with HS, BS, or candidate gender) on the
dependent variable (all p’s > .34). Therefore participants’
gender is not discussed in further analyses.
Main Analyses
To analyze the impact of candidate gender and
hostile sexism, we used hierarchical regression. As
recommended by Jaccard, Turrisi, and Wan (1990),
all variables were centered prior to analysis. On the
ﬁrst step, candidate gender, BS, and HS were entered.
On the second step the two-way interaction
terms between HS, BS, and candidate gender were
entered.
Judgments of the Candidate’s Traits
Analysis of the candidate’s traits revealed no signiﬁcant
effects for HS, BS, or candidate gender (all
β’s < .10; all p’s > .14), but there was a signiﬁcant
two-way interaction between candidate gender and
hostile sexism, β = −.23, t = −3.60, p < .001. Simple
slopes analysis revealed that for the female candidates
increases in hostile sexism were associated
will less positive trait evaluations, b = −.23, t(303) =
−3.61, p < .001, whereas for the male candidates
there was no such relationship, b = .08, t(303) = 1.35,
ns. None of the other two-way interaction terms were
signiﬁcant (all β’s < .07; all p’s > .34).
The Consequences of Hostile Sexism 613
Judgments of the Candidate’s Employability
Analysis of the employability of the candidates
revealed no signiﬁcant effects for HS, BS, or candidate
gender (all β’s < .12; all p’s > .11), but there
was a signiﬁcant two-way interaction between candidate
gender and hostile sexism, β = −.23, t = −3.40,
p < .001. Simple slopes analysis revealed that for the
female candidates increases in hostile sexism were associated
with lower employment recommendations,
b = −.25, t(254) = −2.62, p < .01, whereas for the
male candidates increases in hostile sexism were associated
with higher employment recommendations,
b = .20, t(254) = 2.18, p < .05. None of the other
two-way interaction terms were signiﬁcant (all β’s <
.05; all p’s > .57).
DISCUSSION
The results of the current study are consistent
with our main hypotheses. In line with Glick et al.
(1997) and Sakalli-Ugurlu and Beydogan (2002), HS
was found to be related to the negative evaluation
of, and lower employment recommendations of, a
female candidate for a masculine-typed position. In
contrast, for the male candidate, HS was associated
with the higher recommendation of employment. BS
was unrelated to evaluations and recommendations
in this context. The current study extends the results
of Glick et al. (1997), Sakalli-Ugurlu and Beydogan
(2002), and Abrams et al. (2003) by demonstrating
the circumstances under which HS will be related to
negative outcomes for an individual female target.
This study adds to a growing body of recent
literature that demonstrates the “problem” of HS
and BS at an individual target level. Whereas Glick
and Fiske (2001) suggested that BS and HS can be
viewed as complementary “carrot and stick” ideologies
that serve to maintain the paternalistic oppression
of women, the results of the current study,
in conjunction with the research of Abrams et al.
(2003), suggest that the negative consequences of
both HS and BS at the individual target level may
be determined by speciﬁc aspects of a woman’s character
(in terms of traits) or behavior and the (lack
of) threat that they pose to men’s status. Abrams
et al. (2003) and Viki et al. (2003) have demonstrated
that the negative consequences of BS are directed
toward women who violate (key) components
of the traditional stereotype of women’s behavior.
The results of the current study, in conjunction with
those of Glick et al. (1997) and Sakalli-Ugurlu and
Beydogan (2002), suggest that those who endorse
benevolent sexism are unconcerned with violations
of the traditional stereotype that potentially pose a
threat to men’s status in terms of (implicit) competition
for masculine-typed jobs. Rather, it seems
that the negative reactions of benevolent sexists are
limited to violations of speciﬁc prescriptive elements
of the traditional feminine stereotype (e.g., sexual
conservative, nurturing behavior). This suggestion is
consistent with the results of some preliminary research
that we have conducted to investigate this issue.
Speciﬁcally Masser, Brands, Viki, and Abrams
(2003) found that the negative reactions of a benevolent
sexist were limited to women who violated a
speciﬁc aspect of the gender norm for behavior (i.e.,
sexual conservatism) rather than those who violated
a more general gender norm for behavior (e.g., employment
in a masculine-typed occupation).
In relation to hostile sexism, the results of the
current study suggest that the conclusion of Glick
et al. (1997) that “HS (will be) directed at nontraditional
women” (p. 1331) is too simplistic. Rather,
congruent with the ﬁndings of Glick et al. (1997), the
results of the current study suggest that, for the negative
consequences of HS to be elicited, it may be critical
that the woman poses a threat to men’s status
or position in society. The threat of the female candidate
to men’s status or position in society was implicit
in the current study, therefore future researchers
should explore this suggestion explicitly to determine
precisely what characteristics of a woman and/or a
situation result in the “wrath” of hostile sexists being
unleashed. Future researchers could also use mediational
analyses to explore precisely why or when
the wrath of hostile sexists will be unleashed. Drawing
on the written responses of Glick et al.’s (1997)
participants, we suspect that the effect may not be
limited to “competitive” women. Rather women who
provoke envy and/or are intimidating (without being
competitive) may also be evaluated negatively by
hostile sexists.
An unexpected ﬁnding of the current study was
the positive relationship between hostile sexism and
employment recommendations for the male candidate.
This ﬁnding adds to a growing literature that
has documented the impact of HS and BS on judgments
or evaluations of men. For example, Abrams
et al. (2003) found that amongst male students hostile
sexism was positively associated with a selfconfessed
increased proclivity to engage in acquaintance
rape. In addition Glick et al. (2002) found a
614 Masser and Abrams
positive association between hostile sexism and attitude
statements about wife abuse, many of which involved
the evaluation of the male protagonist. These
relationships between ASI scores and evaluations of
men’s behavior are not inconsistent with the theoretical
underpinnings of the ASI as a measure of sexism
and most likely relate to the unique intergroup relationship
that exists between women and men. Specifically
(and arguably) by focusing on relationships between
men and women (as the ASI does), judgments
of one gender imply judgments of the other, especially
among those people who believe that men and
women are “opposites.”
Although the results of the current study have
demonstrated the relationship of HS to the negative
evaluation of female candidates for a masculinetyped
job, two possible limitations should be noted.
First, the current study used only a single (management)
position. Theoretically, HS should only be
related to negative evaluations of, and lower employment
recommendations for, a female candidate
who poses a threat to men’s status in position of
economic power (i.e., by applying for a masculinetyped
position). HS should be unrelated to evaluations
of, and employment recommendations for, a female
candidate for a (lower status) feminine-typed
position. A study that includes job-type as a further
independent variable would allow for a more complete
exploration of the link between HS and individual
female targets (see also Rudman & Glick,
1999, 2001). A second possible limitation concerns
the generalizability of our results. Following Glick
and Fiske (1996), future researchers should explore
the relationship of HS to evaluations of female candidates
for masculine-typed job with an older and/or
more managerially experienced sample. It is possible
that extensive workplace or managerial experience
may moderate the observed link between hostile sexism
and negative evaluations of female managerial
candidates.
CONCLUSION
The results of the current study have
demonstrated that hostile, but not benevolent,
sexism is associated with negative evaluation of an
individual female target competing for a masculinetyped
organizational role. Those who endorse hostile
sexism appear to be “gender vigilant,” that is, they
allow a seemingly irrelevant characteristic to play a
signiﬁcant role in their employment decision-making
processes. This study adds to a body of literature
that has begun to document the distinctive impacts
of hostile and benevolent sexism for individual
female targets. The results of the study suggest that,
to the extent that a woman poses a threat (in an
employment context), hostile sexism will serve to
reinforce the glass ceiling to keep women in their
(so-called) rightful place.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by an Economic
and Social Research Council grant (R00429534216)
to the ﬁrst author. The authors thank Peter Glick and
Nyla Branscombe for their comments on an earlier
draft of this paper.
REFERENCES
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions
of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent
and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of
sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship
between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 32,
662–669.
Equal Opportunities Commission. (2002). Women and men in
Britain: Management (ISBN number: 1 84206 018 X). Retrieved
November 11, 2003, from http://www.eoc.org.uk/
EOCeng/dynpages/research stats.asp
Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes
cause sexual harassment: A theory with implications for organizational
change. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 97–117.
Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., Hamm, N. R., & White, K. B.
(2003). Perceptions of the woman who breastfeeds: The role
of erotophobia, sexism, and attitudinal variables. Sex Roles,
49, 379–387.
Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent
sexism? Sex Roles, 44, 177–188.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Balley-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The
two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes
toward women. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33,
pp. 115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T,. Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser,
B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as a simple antipathy: Hostile
and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.
Glick, P., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & de Souza, M. A.
(2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes towards wife abuse
in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26,
292–297.
The Consequences of Hostile Sexism 615
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C.
(1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of
men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 935–942.
Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, C. K. (1990). Interaction effects in
multiple regression. London: Sage.
Martin, C. L. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 489–499.
Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism: The relationships
among hostility, benevolence, and neosexism. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 23, 503–517.
Masser, B., Brands, R., Viki, G. T. N., & Abrams, D. (2003,
September). Generalising beyond acquaintance rape: The role
of benevolent and hostile sexism in accounting for reactions
towards women who violate norms and the men who help
put them back in their place. Paper presented at the meeting
of the Social Section of the British Psychological Society,
London, UK.
Powell, G. N., Butterﬁeld, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender
and managerial stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal
of Management, 28, 177–193.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and
backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women
of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes
and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues,
57, 743–762.
Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit
attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328.
Sakalli, N. (2001). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college
students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences.
Sex Roles, 44, 599–610.
Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., & Beydogan, B. (2002). Turkish college students’
attitudes toward women managers: The effects of patriarchy,
sexism, and gender differences. Journal of Psychology,
136, 647–656.
Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes
and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 57, 95–100.
Schein, V. E., Ruediger, M., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think
manager—think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Holahan, C. K. (1979). Negative
and positive components of psychological masculinity
and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic
and acting out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 199–214.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism
and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neo sexism:
Plus ca change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849.
Viki, G. T. N., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful:
Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate
traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289–
293.
Viki, G. T. N., Massey, K., & Masser, B. (2003). When chivalry
backﬁres: Benevolent sexism and attitudes toward Myra
Hindley. Manuscript submitted for publication.