THE EFFECTS OF HOSTILE AND BENEVOLENT SEXISM ON MEN’S AND

WOMEN’S PERFORMANCE

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

in

Psychology

(Industrial/Organizational)

by

Melanie Lauren Rothfuss

FALL
2017
 THE EFFECTS OF HOSTILE AND BENEVOLENT SEXISM ON MEN’S AND

WOMEN’S PERFORMANCE

A Thesis

by

Melanie Lauren Rothfuss

Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair

Rachel August, Ph.D.

__________________________________, Second Reader

Lisa Harrison, Ph.D.

__________________________________, Third Reader

Lisa M. Bohon, Ph.D.

____________________________
Date

ii
Student: Melanie Lauren Rothfuss

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the
University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and

credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________

Lisa M. Bohon, Ph.D. Date

Department of Psychology

iii
 Abstract

of

THE EFFECTS OF HOSTILE AND BENEVOLENT SEXISM ON MEN’S AND

WOMEN’S PERFORMANCE

by

Melanie Lauren Rothfuss

Statement of Problem

Although overt displays of sexism have decreased over the years, gender disparity

in the workplace still exists. Sexism research has traditionally focused on hostile

attitudes and behaviors towards women, but a more subtle and subjectively positive

form of sexism, called benevolent sexism, may help explain such gender disparity. The

present study examined the effects of both hostile and benevolent sexism on men and

women during a simulated job selection task, where participants imagined that they

were job applicants and an opposite-gender recruiter expressed either hostile,

benevolent, or neutral language. Specifically, the study assessed the effects of sexism

on working memory performance, self-efficacy, and performance self-esteem. It also

examined participants’ strength of gender identification and degree of sexist attitudes to

determine whether they would moderate the effect of sexism on task performance.

iv
Sources of Data

Participants included 67 male and 71 female undergraduate students at

Sacramento State. They were recruited through Sacramento State’s psychology subject

pool and received research participation credits towards satisfying the department’s

research participation requirement.

Conclusions Reached

Neither hostile nor benevolent sexism affected performance, self-efficacy, or

performance self-esteem for men or for women. Interestingly, the women in the study

perceived the benevolently sexist language as hostile, which may have helped protect

them against its negative effects. Further research is needed to understand the effects of

benevolent sexism and to determine which factors may protect women against its

harmful effects.

_______________________, Committee Chair

Rachel August, Ph.D.

_______________________
Date

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge some of the people who supported and encouraged

me during this thesis process. Thank you to my advisor, Dr. August, for guiding me

through my graduate studies, for always offering words of support, and for helping me

become a better researcher. Thank you also to my committee members: Dr. Harrison for

helping me find the inspiration for my thesis, and Dr. Bohon for your thoughtful

feedback. I also want to acknowledge my research assistants: Beth, Chloe, Francis,

Jaime, and Lyla, for your hard work running sessions and your willingness to play the

“sexist recruiter.” Thank you to my boyfriend, Ryan, for being there through all the ups

and downs of this process and for being my rock. Finally, I would like to thank my

parents for your endless love and support, and for paving the way for me to achieve my

educational goals.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ................................................................................................................ ix

List of Figures................................................................................................................ x

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

2. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 6

Effects on Performance .......................................................................................... 9

Self-Efficacy and Performance Self-Esteem ........................................................ 11

Gender Identification and Sexist Beliefs .............................................................. 13

3. METHOD ................................................................................................................ 15

Participants ........................................................................................................... 15

Materials ............................................................................................................... 15

Procedure .............................................................................................................. 20

4. RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 25

Manipulation Check ............................................................................................. 25

Descriptive Statistics and Inter-correlations of Study Variables ......................... 26

Tests of Hypotheses ............................................................................................. 28

5. DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................... 36

Limitations and Strengths..................................................................................... 40

vii
 Implications and Future Research ........................................................................ 45

Appendix A. Consent Form: Part 1 ............................................................................. 48

Appendix B. Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Online Questionnaire) ......................... 50

Appendix C. Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (Online Questionnaire) .............. 52

Appendix D. Gender Identification Questionnaire (Online Questionnaire) ................ 54

Appendix E. Demographics (Online Questionnaire)................................................... 56

Appendix F. Consent Form: Part 2 .............................................................................. 58

Appendix G. Vignette .................................................................................................. 61

Appendix H. Recruiter’s Script ................................................................................... 63

Appendix I. Working Memory Task Response Sheet ................................................. 65

Appendix J. Working Memory Task Word Bank ....................................................... 68

Appendix K. Performance Self-Esteem Scale ............................................................. 70

Appendix L. General Self-Efficacy Scale ................................................................... 72

Appendix M. Manipulation Check Forms ................................................................... 74

Appendix N. Debriefing Sheet .................................................................................... 81

Appendix O. Participant Reactions ............................................................................. 84

Appendix P. Pilot Study .............................................................................................. 87

References ................................................................................................................... 90

viii
 LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page

1. Results of manipulation check………………………………………….………25

2. Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations of study variables.………...……...27

3. Effect of sexism on performance………………….…………….……….……..28

4. Effect of sexism on performance self-esteem and self-efficacy………………..29

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page

1. Path model for women with gender identification as a moderator………....…. 31

2. Path model for women with sexist beliefs as a moderator.………………..….. 32

3. Path model for men with gender identification as a moderator …...….………. 34

4. Path model for men with sexist beliefs as a moderator………........….....……. 35

x
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Despite legislation promoting gender equality and prohibiting discriminatory

practices in employment settings against women, gender disparities still exist. The

passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on sex in

addition to race, color, religion, or national origin, marked a major victory for women’s

rights. The Civil Rights Act provided equality to women “with respect to compensation,

terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” (HR 7152). Since the act was passed,

however, many seem to believe that sexism is no longer an issue; one common belief is

that because legislation provides women with equal rights, women have achieved gender

equality. While it is true that overt displays of sexism have decreased over the years

(Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998), gender inequality, especially in the workplace, is still a

major issue today.

The gender pay gap is one manifestation of sexism in the workplace. According to

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women working full-time on average earn only 82% of

their male counterpart’s earnings. Compared to all men employed full-time, this number

is even lower for Black women (70%) and Hispanic women (64%). When controlling for

race, the largest earning differences exist between Asian men and Asian women (78%),

and White men and White women (81%). It is important to note that overall, Whites and

Asians’ salaries are around 45% higher than Latinos and Blacks. Thus, as income

increases so does the pay gap. Although salary inequities have improved since 1979,
 2

when women earned only 62% of men’s earnings, the earnings ratio has not increased

significantly since 2004 and has continued to stay around 80 to 83% (US Department of

Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Progress has therefore slowed and more work is

needed to achieve gender equality.

Another issue is that men tend to hold more powerful workplace positions than

women. While it is estimated that around 51% of all management jobs are held by

women (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017), women in management are disproportionately

found in lower levels of their organizations (Blau et al., 2001). For example, in the

United States, women make up only 20% of board of directors and only 6% of CEOs

(Catalyst, 2017). Women are also more likely to have lower starting salaries and have

fewer salary increases with age compared to men (Goldberg, Finkelstein, Perry, &

Konrad, 2004). These occurrences may be explained by obstacles such as the “glass

ceiling,” where it is difficult for women to receive promotions above a certain level, and

“sticky floors,” where women are restricted from moving out of entry-level positions.

Together, these phenomena result in women holding positions with less status and power

than men.

An argument against the existence of the gender gap is that the statistics often do

not control for variables such as occupation, education levels, flex time, or experience.

One might argue that women on average earn less because they are less qualified for

higher ranking positions, or choose to work in industries that traditionally offer lower

pay. As reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the three most common occupations

for women in 2016 were elementary and middle school teacher, registered nurse, and
 3

secretary or administrative assistant. Part of the problem is that occupations that are

predominantly female, such as teachers and nurses, tend to be paid less than comparable

jobs that are held primarily by men (Spector, 2008). Women often have jobs that are

valued less and have lower status, and are consequently compensated at a lower rate

(Blau et al., 2001; Xu & Leffler, 1996). For instance, a job analysis with a comparable

worth study, which assesses a job’s contribution to the organization, would likely find

that nurses are underpaid with respect to physicians (Spector, 2008). However, even in

occupations that are predominantly female there is a pay gap. The US Labor statistics

show that female RNs make around 91% of their male counterparts’ earnings, and female

administrative assistants make around 85%. Support against the gender wage gap may

also come from one study of Dutch women, which found that the women were less

ambitious, less concerned about salary, and cared more about work-family balance than

men (Van Vienen & Fischer, 2002). While this finding may explain why women tend to

hold lower positions, it does not explain why women who aim for higher ranks have a

more difficult time succeeding.

Gender stereotypes also restrict women’s advancement in the workplace. One

study found that when people are asked to describe characteristics of men, women, and

managers, their descriptions of men and managers overlap, but their descriptions of

women and managers do not (Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996). Women may

therefore have difficulty obtaining promotions if male candidates are perceived as

possessing stronger leadership qualities, and as a result appear better suited for the job.

Such gender stereotypes put women at a disadvantage for job advancement. Stereotypes
 4

of women as delicate or less competent are also damaging. Research has found that

women are often given fewer challenging developmental work experiences than men,

despite expressing equal interest in having challenging work (King et al., 2012). Women

may also be passed over for demanding jobs or overseas assignments due to the belief

that women have more responsibilities at home. Evidence of gender discrimination in the

workplace is reflected in the number of individual charge filings with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Since 1992 (when EEOC began

reporting charge filings), the percentage of claims based on sex discrimination have

remained consistently around 29% to 30%, indicating a lack of progress over the past

fifteen years.

Further, women in the workplace are at risk of experiencing interpersonal sexism.

Sexism on the job can take a number of forms, including inappropriate jokes, demeaning

comments, exclusion from informal work events, or blatant harassment (Gutek, 2001).

Such experiences are damaging as they are associated with negative workplace

relationships, lower levels of job satisfaction, and reduced organizational commitment

(Murrell, Olson, & Hanson-Frieze, 1995), as well as increased levels of physical and

psychological distress (Klonoff, Landrine, & Campbell, 2000). Unsurprisingly, sexual

harassment can also affect work performance. Women experiencing sexual harassment

have reported lower work motivation and higher levels of distraction, which can lead to

poor performance and lateness, absenteeism, and high turnover rates (Schneider, Swan, &

Fitzgerald, 1997). These outcomes in turn affect women’s ability for career advancement.

It is important to note that while women are typically viewed as the target of sexism, men
 5

are also at risk of experiencing sexual harassment. One study found that almost 20% of

men report being the target of sexual harassment in the workplace at least once during

their lifetime (Einarson et al., 2003).

In summary, it is clear that work is still needed to achieve gender parity in the

workplace. Equal opportunity and pay for women is important not only because equality

is a fundamental right, but because utilizing women’s full range of skills in the workforce

would benefit organizations and society as a whole. Making women fully valued

members of the workplace has the benefit of increasing diversity, as women bring new

experiences, talents, and perspectives. Research has shown that gender diversity has the

potential to increase team creativity (Pearsall et al., 2008) and performance

(Hoogendoorn, Oosterbeek, & Van Praag, 2013). According to the Global Gender Gap

Report published by the World Economic Forum, gender equality also improves national

productivity and economic growth. If half of the workforce is underdeveloped or

underutilized, then economic growth will be limited. It is therefore essential to study the

systems which enable gender discrimination so that we can determine ways in which it

can be combatted. One avenue worth examining is the effects of a more subtle form of

sexism, called benevolent sexism, in the workplace.

 6

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND

With blatant displays of sexism decreasing over the years (Dovidio & Gaertner,

1998), gender disparity in the workplace may be explained, in part, by a less obvious

form of sexism called benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism was first articulated by

Glick and Fiske (1996), who described a theory of sexism involving ambivalent attitudes

toward women. Their reconceptualization of sexism emphasized that sexist attitudes

consist of both positive and negative views of women. Ambivalent Sexism Theory

describes the complementary relation between hostile and benevolent sexism, arguing

that together they reinforce traditional gender roles and maintain women’s inferior status

to men (Glick & Fiske, 1996).

Sexism is traditionally thought of as overt hostility and disrespect towards

women, but this conception ignores the subjectively benevolent attitudes toward women

that support hostile sexism. Benevolent sexism is easily overlooked because it is more

subtle and therefore less likely to be recognized as sexism (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005;

Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007). Benevolent sexism is less socially condemned and

often seems positive or chivalrous in nature. It is sometimes even celebrated or praised,

as it includes chivalrous acts such as carrying a woman’s groceries or paying for her

dinner. These seemingly positive behaviors, however, suggest that women need to be

cherished and protected by men. While benevolent sexism is often associated with
 7

positive intentions, it stems from gender stereotypes and supports ideas of masculine

dominance, and is not always perceived as positive by the recipient.

Glick and Fiske define benevolent sexism as “a set of interrelated attitudes toward

women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles,

but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone and also tend to elicit behaviors typically

categorized as prosocial or intimacy-seeking” (p. 491). They argue that benevolent and

hostile sexism work in conjunction to justify gender inequality; while hostile sexism

punishes women for challenging traditional gender roles, benevolent sexism rewards

those who embrace them. Benevolent sexism allows men to justify hostile sexism by

depicting themselves as providers and protectors of women, instead of their oppressors.

Women who embrace benevolent sexism by surrendering power are in return rewarded

with protection and security. Research shows that women who support benevolent sexism

are also more likely to accept hostile sexism (Sibley, Overall, & Duckitt, 2007).

Supporting this is a moderate positive correlation (r = .45) between benevolent and

hostile sexist attitudes at the individual level, and a very strong correlation (r = .81) when

comparing averages across nations (Glick et al., 2000, 2004). People who are benevolent

sexists also tend to be hostile sexists, too.

Since benevolent sexism is less likely to be identified as sexism and often is

endorsed by women, it can be particularly damaging in the workplace where it subtly

reinforces gender stereotypes and contributes to gender inequality (Barreto & Ellemers,

2005). For example, benevolent sexism encourages women to accept traditional gender

roles and discourages them from displaying “masculine” traits such as dominance or
 8

assertiveness. This is particularly harmful in the workplace where these traits are desired

qualities for high status positions. As more policies and laws are enacted to protect

women against discrimination, it is possible that benevolent sexism may be the new

manifestation of sexism in the workplace (Hebl et al., 2007).

Both hostile and benevolent sexism have negative implications for women in the

workforce. As discussed earlier, extensive research has shown the harms of hostile

sexism, as it negatively affects job satisfaction and psychological well-being (Bond et.

al., 2004; Klonoff, Landrine, & Campbell, 2000; Murrell, Olson, & Hanson-Frieze,

1995), and is associated with fewer opportunities for promotion and professional growth

(Gutek, 2001). Less attention has been given to the effects of benevolent sexism,

however. Research has found that in the short term, exposure to benevolent sexism

lowers women’s performance on cognitive tasks (Dardenne et al., 2007; Dumont, Sarlet,

& Dardenne, 2010; Jones, Stewart, & King, 2014; Vescio et al., 2005). Benevolent

sexism also leads women to emphasize their relational rather than task-related qualities

(Barreto et al., 2010). Thus, benevolent sexism encourages women to perpetuate feminine

stereotypes of their gender-group.

Sexism research has traditionally focused on hostile attitudes and behaviors

towards women, and more research is needed to understand the harmful effects of

benevolent sexism. Additionally, little research has been done examining sexism towards

men and its subsequent effects on performance. With increasing numbers of women

entering the workforce, it will be important to understand how sexism affects their ability

to perform tasks during selection procedures and daily work life. If women’s
 9

performance is impacted by benevolent sexism, it could help explain why women’s

career advancement is limited. In addition, more men are entering female-dominated

fields and may be at an increased risk for experiencing sexism in the workplace (Roos &

Stevens, 2014).

The purpose of the present study was to determine how benevolent and hostile

sexism affect performance on a working memory job selection task. I examined the

effects of sexism from an opposite gender recruiter on male and female “job applicant”

performance, as well as the effects on their performance self-esteem and perceived self-

efficacy. Additionally, I determined whether the participants’ degree of gender

identification and amount of sexist attitudes moderate the effect of sexism on task

performance.

Effects on Performance

Several studies have demonstrated the harmful effects of benevolent sexism on

women’s work performance (Dardenne et al., 2007; Dumont et al., 2010; Jones et al.,

2014; Vescio et al., 2005). Dardenne et al. (2007) conducted a series of experiments in

which they exposed women to written or spoken benevolent and hostile language within

the context of a job selection scenario. They found that benevolent sexism harmed

performance on a subsequent spatial working memory task, but that hostile sexism did

not. Dumont et al. (2010) obtained similar results when they conducted a study on the

effects of hostile and benevolent comments during a job interview; again, women’s

performance suffered after hearing benevolent sexism but was unaffected by hostile

sexism. A third study found that women’s performance was negatively affected after men
 10

in high status positions treated them in a benevolently sexist manner (Vescio et al., 2005).

The results of the study also showed that the women reacted with anger to the situation,

but that anger was not responsible for the decline in performance. One explanation is that

benevolent sexism may inhibit task performance by causing women to experience

intrusive thoughts such as self-doubt, frustration, and preoccupation (Dardenne et al.,

2007, 2013). When women attempt to suppress these thoughts, it places demands on their

working memory capacity, reducing their mental resources for completing the task. In

contrast, since hostile sexism is easier to label as sexism, it is less likely to be

internalized.

It is less clear how sexism affects men, and little research has been done on the

effects of sexism on men’s performance. Vescio et al. (2005) found that benevolent

sexism actually improved men’s performance, as their resulting anger from the unfairness

of the situation drove them to become more competitive and perform better. In contrast, a

recent study examining hostile sexism found that men’s performance on subsequent math

and language tasks was not impaired (Koch, Konigorski, & Sieverding, 2014). This

disparity may be because hostile sexism is easily identified as sexism and as a result more

easily disregarded. Therefore, I proposed the following hypothesis:

H1: Benevolent sexism will be harmful to performance for women, but

benevolent sexism will improve performance for men. Hostile sexism, however,

will not affect performance for women or for men.

 11

Self-Efficacy and Performance Self-Esteem

In addition to the effects on performance, I examined the impact of sexism on

self-efficacy and performance self-esteem. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s ability to

accomplish a task in a specific situation and to reach personal goals (Bandura, 1982).

Self-efficacy can be influenced by a number of factors, including verbal feedback on

performance (Bandura, 1982). One’s self-efficacy can therefore suffer from receiving

negative feedback on personal skills or abilities. Research shows that even suggesting

that someone may be incompetent can negatively affect his or her self-efficacy (Gist and

Mitchell, 1992; Schunk, 1983). This can have serious consequences, as lower self-

efficacy is associated with poorer performance (Costa, Serrano, & Salvador, 2016;

Hewitt, 2015).

Similarly, performance self-esteem is a dimension of global self-esteem that

relates specifically to ability and performance (Stake, 1979). Performance self-esteem

suffers when people worry about their competency levels or feel frustrated about their

performance. For instance, hearing that an upcoming test will be difficult significantly

reduces performance self-esteem (Heatheron & Polivy, 1991). Poor performance on a test

also negatively affects performance self-esteem in the short term (Heatheron & Polivy,

1991). As a result, the performance dimension of self-esteem fluctuates more than global

self-esteem, which tends to be more stable across situations (Greenwald, 1980).

Interestingly, gender differences in performance self-esteem appear to exist. Performance

self-esteem is more closely associated with global self-esteem for men then it is for

women (Guertin & Jourard, 1962). Men gain more of their self-esteem from their skills
 12

and abilities, which is consistent with masculine gender role norms. Women’s

performance self-esteem also tends to be lower than men’s in general, even when their

performance is equal or better than men’s (Feather, 1968).

Since benevolent sexism implies that women are incompetent and that they need

men’s help to succeed, it is likely that benevolent sexism is damaging to women's self-

efficacy and performance self-esteem. Benevolently sexist ideas may lead women to

question their abilities and lower their feelings of competence. Women’s self-efficacy

and performance self-esteem are therefore expected to be affected by exposure to

benevolently sexist language. This is consistent with research by Jones et al. (2014), who

found that women’s self-efficacy was lower after benevolent sexism but was unaffected

by hostile sexism. Dardenne et al. (2007) found that women’s performance self-esteem

was also lower after experiencing benevolent sexism than after experiencing hostile

sexism. Since hostile sexism is easily recognized as sexism, it may be easier for women

to disregard it, keeping their feelings of self-efficacy and performance self-esteem intact.

Men, however, appear to react differently to benevolent sexism. Vescio et al.

(2005) found that patronizing behavior did not diminish men’s feelings of self-

competence. Additionally, a study by Jones et al. (2014) found that men reported lower

self-efficacy only after experiencing benevolent sexism in mixed-sex interactions. Based

on the above research, I proposed a second hypothesis:

H2: Women’s performance self-esteem and self-efficacy will be lower in the

benevolent sexism condition compared to the hostile and control conditions, but
 13

men’s self-esteem and self-efficacy will not be affected by either sexism

condition.

Gender Identification and Sexist Attitudes

Two factors that may influence the effect of sexism on performance are the

participant’s gender identification and degree of personal sexist attitudes. Because sexism

involves attitudes based on one’s gender, it is possible that strength of gender

identification could affect one’s attitudes about sexism. Individuals who strongly identify

with their gender may view their gender in-group more positively, and therefore be better

able to disregard negative ideas about their gender group. Research has shown that highly

identified women are more likely to recognize discrimination (Major, Quinton, &

Schmader, 2003), and have fewer mental intrusions after experiencing sexism (Dardenne

et al., 2007).

Additionally, individuals with less sexist attitudes may be more educated about

sexism and therefore be more likely to recognize subtle signs of sexism. As a result, they

could be expected to experience fewer mental intrusions and perform higher on tasks than

those with more sexist attitudes. I predicted that gender identification and sexist attitudes

would act as moderators, such that those who identify more strongly with their gender

and those who have less sexist attitudes would be less affected by exposure to benevolent

sexism. Building on Hypothesis 1 (which states that women’s performance will suffer

due to benevolent sexism but that men’s performance will improve), I proposed the

following hypotheses:
 14

H3a. Among women, gender identification will moderate the relation between

type of sexism exposure and performance, such that those with higher gender

identification will show less performance decline when exposed to benevolent

sexism.

H3b. Among women, sexist attitudes will moderate the relationship between type

of sexism exposure and performance, such that those with less sexist attitudes will

show less performance decline when exposed to benevolent sexism.

H4a. Among men, gender identification will moderate the relationship between

type of sexism exposure and performance, such that those with higher gender

identification will show more performance decline when exposed to benevolent

sexism.

H4b. Among men, sexist attitudes will moderate the relation between type of

sexism exposure and performance, such that those with less sexist attitudes will

show more performance decline when exposed to benevolent sexism.

 15

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Participants

Participants included 67 male and 71 female undergraduate students at

Sacramento State. There was no inclusion or exclusion criteria for the study. The median

age was 20 years (SD = 3.77) with ages ranging from 18 to 40 years old. The majority of

the students were in their first, second, or third year of school, with about 38% being first

years, 21% being sophomores, and 32% being juniors. Only 8% were seniors and 0.8%

were continuing education students. For the participants’ ethnicity, approximately 39%

self-reported as Hispanic, 35% identified as Asian or Pacific Islander, 26% identified as

White, 13% identified as Black, 0% identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native, and

14% identified as other or selected multiple races. The majority of the participants

identified as heterosexual (81%); 9% identified as lesbian, gay, or homosexual; and

around 6% identified as bisexual. Participants were recruited from Sacramento State’s

psychology subject pool and received research participation credits towards satisfying the

psychology department’s research participation requirement.

Materials

Vignette. Participants read a vignette describing the simulated job scenario. In the

vignette, participants were asked to imagine that they were currently unemployed and had

been applying to jobs for months without any luck. They then finally received a positive

email from a company, who asked them to come in to complete a work-related task as
 16

part of the hiring process. The position was vaguely described as a retail sales position.

This job was chosen for the study because of its relevance to undergraduate students, and

because approximately equal numbers of men and women hold the position (Bureau of

Labor Statistics, 2016). In addition to the vignette's brief backstory describing their

application process, it also explained in present terms that today is the day of the

interview and that they are currently in a room with the other job applicants nervously

awaiting instructions from the recruiter.

Modified Lag Task. Participants completed the Modified Lag Task (Shelton,

Metzger, & Elliott, 2007) as a measure of working memory. The MLT is a version of

Dobbs and Rule’s (1989) lag task which has been adapted and validated for group

administration. The task was presented using PowerPoint and included two practice

sections and one test section. During the task, participants were shown a list of

individually-presented words on PowerPoint slides and were then presented with a probe

to recall a word in a certain position of the list (either Lag 0, Lag 1, Lag 2, or Lag 3). Lag

0 referred to the last word in the list, Lag 1 referred to the second to last word, or “one-

back” from the end of the list, and so on. Participants were shown 40 lists of either four

or six randomly ordered words. The task consisted of five trials of each of the eight

factorial combinations of lag x list length. Participant responses were recorded on an

answer sheet and a total lag score was calculated using the following formula, as per

instructions included with the MLT: Lag score = (Lag 0 # correct *1) + (Lag 1 #

correct*2) + (Lag 2 # correct *3) + (Lag 3 # correct *4).

 17

Sexism Manipulation. Sexist language, which was derived from Salomon,

Burgess, and Bosson (2015), was used by the recruiter when speaking to the participants.

That manipulation was chosen because Salomon et al. (2015) had previously tested it

through a pilot study and found a significant difference in cardiovascular response

between the benevolent, hostile, and control conditions. The benevolent sexist language

used in the present study was slightly altered from their language to sound more

benevolent and less hostile. The revised benevolent statement was tested prior to

conducting the study and the results of the pilot study are discussed in Appendix P. A

manipulation check was also included in the present study to assess participant’s

perceptions of the sexism language.

Performance Self-Esteem Subscale. Participants completed Heatherton and

Polivy’s (1991) Performance Self-Esteem Subscale as a measure of self-esteem and an

indicator of mental intrusions. The subscale consists of seven items that measure self-

esteem in respect to task performance. Sample items include “I feel frustrated or rattled

about my performance” and “I feel confident that I understand things.” Each item is

rated on a nine-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 9 (totally). In this study,

Cronbach’s alpha for the Performance Self-Esteem Subscale was found to be .78.

General Self-Efficacy Scale. Participants completed the General Self-Efficacy

Scale developed by Jerusalem and Schwarzer (1992). The scale consists of 10 items

measuring one’s ability to cope with various challenges. Sample items include “I can

solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort” and “I am confident that I could deal

efficiently with unexpected events.” Each item is rated on a four-point scale ranging
 18

from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (very true). Cronbach’s alpha for the General Self-Efficacy

Scale as used in this study was determined to be .78.

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. To measure sexist attitudes toward women, a

measure of sexist attitudes towards women was obtained using the Ambivalent Sexism

Inventory (ASI). The inventory, developed by Glick and Fiske (1996), consists of two 11-

item subscales which measure attitudes related to power (dominative or protective

paternalism), gender differentiation (competitive or complementary), and heterosexuality

(hostile or intimate). Sample items include “Women are too easily offended” and

“Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of culture and good

taste.” Each item is rated on a scale from 0 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly).

Cronbach’s alpha for the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory as used in this study was

determined to be .85.

Ambivalence toward Men Inventory. Additionally, sexist attitudes toward men

were measured using the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI) developed by Glick

and Fiske (1999). This inventory provides a nice complement to the ASI, as it assesses

ambivalence towards men on the same dimensions of power, gender differentiation, and

heterosexuality. Like the ASI, each item is rated on a scale from 0 (disagree strongly) to 5

(agree strongly). Sample items include “Men are mainly useful to provide financial

security for women” and “Men would be lost in this world if women weren’t there to

guide them.” In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory

was found to be .84.

 19

Gender identification questionnaire. Participants also completed a gender

identification questionnaire based on three questions designed by Dardenne et al. (2007)

to assess gender identification among women. The gender identification questions were

altered for the present study to be inclusive to men as well as women. The three items of

the scale as used for this study were “I have many characteristics in common with my

gender,” “I identify with my gender,” and “Being a member of my gender is a very

important reflection of who I am.” Each item was rated on a scale of 1 (do not agree) to

9 (totally agree), with a minimum score of 3 and maximum score of 27. Cronbach’s alpha

for the gender identification questionnaire was determined to be .67.

Demographics questionnaire. Participants completed a demographics sheet asking

about their age, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and year in school.

Manipulation Check. A manipulation check was included to assess whether the

sexism manipulation was successful. The form included the sexist statement participants

heard from the recruiter, along with definitions of hostile and benevolent sexism. The

definitions and examples were derived from Glick and Fiske’s ASI and AMI, and were

different for male and female participants such that the two types of sexism were

described in terms referring to either men or women. Participants rated how benevolent

and hostile they found the statement on scales of 0 (not at all hostile/benevolent) to 4

(very hostile/benevolent). They also rated the extent to which they believed the recruiter

during the session on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much).

 20

Procedure

The study was a 2x3 between-subjects design, with two levels of gender (men and

women) and three levels of sexism (benevolent, hostile, or control). Men and women

were recruited separately so that subject groups were comprised of members of only one

gender. Participants were randomly assigned into one of the three sexism conditions. The

study was conducted in two parts: the first consisted of online questionnaires and the

second was an experimental session involving a simulated job scenario. All participants

were required to complete both parts of the study in order to receive research credit.

Part 1: Online Questionnaires

Participants enrolled in the study online and signed an online consent form. They

then completed the following online questionnaires which were administered in random

order: the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory

(AMI), and a gender group identification questionnaire. At the end of the questionnaires

they were also asked to answer a demographics survey. These surveys were completed

online prior to the experimental session to minimize potential priming effects of the

questionnaires. Participants were also asked to record their assigned five digit SONA ID

so that their questionnaire responses could be linked to their performance during the

experimental session. At the end of the session, participants were directed to sign up for a

time slot in Part 2 of the study.

Part 2: Experimental Session

When students entered the research room and were seated, the researcher

distributed consent forms to sign. The researcher recorded each participant’s SONA ID
 21

and assigned them a random subject ID, which was later used as a key to link each

participants’ performance during the session to their online questionnaire responses in

Part 1. Participants were handed their subject ID on a post-it note and were instructed to

write the ID on all forms for the study.

After consent, participants read a vignette explaining the simulated job scenario.

As described above, the vignette asked participants to imagine that they applied for a

retail sales position and that they were there to complete a job selection task as part of the

interview process. After allowing enough time to read through the vignette, the researcher

announced that the recruiter would be in in a few minutes, and left the room. A research

assistant wearing professional clothes then entered and introduced himself/herself as the

recruiter. The recruiter was male for female participants and female for male participants,

and was blind to the study condition until immediately before introducing the sexism

manipulation.

While introducing themselves, the recruiters followed a script which involved

thanking the participants for their interest in the position, describing the job briefly, and

introducing them to the job selection task. The recruiter vaguely described the job as a

retail sales position requiring many of the skills learned during the undergraduate years.

The job description was intentionally vague to avoid introducing stereotype threat and to

ensure that the position could be relevant to all participants.

After the recruiter’s introduction, the recruiter began the PowerPoint job selection

task (the Modified Lag Task). The task began with one example item and two sets of

practice items: one set of “easy” items (consisting of Lag 0, Lag 1, Lag 2, and Lag 3
 22

items) and one set of “hard” items (consisting of Lag 4, Lag 5, and Lag 6). The recruiter

presented the first set of “easy” practice items and checked that the participants

understood the task by quizzing the participants and demonstrating the correct answers on

the Power Point presentation. They also provided opportunities for the participants to ask

questions about the task.

Once the first set of practice items had been completed, the deception began. The

recruiter looked at his or her phone, acted surprised, and pretended that he or she had just

received a phone call from his or her boss. The recruiter excused him/herself from the

room supposedly to call back the boss, but before leaving the room, the recruiter started

the second set of practice items which ran automatically through PowerPoint. Once

outside the room, the recruiter met with the researcher to be informed of the study

condition. Meanwhile, the participants completed the second set of practice items

consisting of the “hard” items.

After a few minutes, the recruiter reentered the room and said, “I’m sorry, my

boss needs me to cover a coworker’s shift so I need to end the session a little early.” The

recruiter then said one of the following statements, depending on the study condition:

Hostile sexism (in a dismissive tone): “Girls/guys aren’t good at this task

anyway, so I’m going to get rid of the hard section to save some time. I’m willing

to sacrifice a little data so I don’t have to hear another girl/guy complain about

how hard the last section is.”

Benevolent sexism (in a pleasant-yet-patronizing tone): “Girls/guys don’t like the

last section, so I’m going to go ahead and get rid of it for you. To help you all out,
 23

I’m willing to sacrifice a little data so you don’t have to complete a really hard

section.”

Control (in an informative voice): “So I’m going to have the computer randomly

get rid of one of the sections. Looks like it got rid of the hard section.”

Immediately after, without allowing time for the participants to interject, the

recruiter began the PowerPoint presentation with the MLT test items. The recruiter

instructed participants to record their responses on their answer sheet under Section 1

(Lags 0, 1, 2, and 3), and mentioned that they could cross out the response area for

Section 2 (Lags 4, 5, and 6) if they wished. This instruction was included to ensure

participants understood that they would not be completing Section 2, or the “hard”

section.

At the end of the task, participants were given two questionnaires to complete: the

Performance Self-Esteem scale and the General Self-Efficacy scale. The questionnaires

were labeled with each participant’s subject ID. Participants were instructed not to put

their name or any other identifying mark on the questionnaires. The recruiter left the

room right after distributing the questionnaires, grabbing the laptop and their bags on the

way out for added credibility.

After participants completed the questionnaires, the researcher entered the room

and collected their packets. The participants were handed a Manipulation Check sheet

where they were asked to rate how benevolent/hostile they found the recruiter’s

statement, as well as the extent to which they believed the recruiter.

 24

Once the Manipulation Check sheet was completed and collected, the researcher

thoroughly debriefed the participants and apologized for the deception. The researcher

then handed out the debriefing page for participants to keep, answered any questions, and

invited the recruiter into the room to apologize for the deception as well. Participants

were thanked for their time and given research credits for their participation.
 25

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Manipulation Check

On the Manipulation Check form, participants were shown the sexist language

(either the hostile, benevolent, or control statement) that they heard from the recruiter

along with definitions of hostile and benevolent sexism. On two separate scales, they then

rated how hostile or benevolent the statement seemed to them. Finally, they rated the

extent to which they believed the recruiter during the session. The descriptive statistics

for these manipulation check items are displayed below.

Table 1
Results of manipulation check

Sexism Perceived Perceived Degree of

Gender
Condition Hostility Benevolence Belief
Women Hostile 3.04 (1.07) 2.04 (1.33) 1.78 (1.04)
Benevolent 2.30 (1.11) 3.00 (0.95) 2.26 (1.05)
Control 1.24 (1.45) 1.68 (1.35) 2.20 (1.23)
Men Hostile 1.80 (1.28) 2.10 (1.17) 2.10 (1.21)
Benevolent 1.35 (1.39) 1.60 (0.94) 2.20 (1.01)
Control 1.20 (1.24) 1.40 (1.19) 2.50 (1.10)
Note. Means are presented with standard deviations in parentheses.

Results of a two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed that

the manipulation check was partially successful. Female participants in the hostile

condition perceived the hostile statement to be significantly more hostile (M = 3.04) than

female participants in the control condition (M = 1.24, p < .001). Women in the hostile
 26

condition also perceived the statement to be less benevolent (M = 2.04) compared to

those in the benevolent condition (M =3.00, p = .02), but not compared to the control

condition (M = 1.68, p = .86). Women in the benevolent condition perceived their

statement as significantly more benevolent (M = 3.00) than women in the hostile (M =

2.04) and control conditions (M = 1.68, p = .02 and p < .001, respectively). However,

women in the benevolent condition also perceived their statement to be more hostile (M =

2.30) compared to the control condition (M = 1.24. p = .01). No significant differences

were detected for the male participants for any of the conditions. A Bonferroni corrected

alpha level of .02 was used for the analysis.

In summary, women perceived the hostile condition as more hostile and the

benevolent condition as more benevolent relative to the control condition. However, the

benevolent condition was also perceived as more hostile than the control condition. The

sexism manipulation did not appear to have an effect for men. Regardless of condition,

the men rated their statement as approximately equally hostile and benevolent. The

limitations of this manipulation check will be addressed in the discussion.

Across study conditions, participants indicated that they moderately believed the

recruiter during the session (M = 2.17, SD = 1.10). Only 6.8% of participants recorded

that they not at all believed the recruiter, compared to 15.5% who recorded that they very

much believed the recruiter.

Descriptive Statistics and Inter-correlations of Study Variables

Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations of the study variables are displayed in

Table 2. The ASI and AMI, both measures of sexism, were highly associated with a
 27

correlation coefficient of r (131) =.76, p < .001. Contrary to expectations, the ASI was

positively correlated with gender identification, r (131) = .25, p =.004, such that

individuals who identified more strongly with their gender were more likely to possess

sexist attitudes. Performance on the working memory task and performance self-esteem

were positively associated, r (131) = .24, p = .005; as would be expected, performance

self-esteem was more likely to be higher among those who performed better on the task.

Finally, performance self-esteem and self-efficacy were positively related, r (131) = .49,

p < .001, with individuals high in performance self-esteem being more likely to score

high in self-efficacy. Self-efficacy and performance on the task did not have a significant

correlation, however.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations of study variables

Variable M SD 2 3 4 5 6
1. ASI 2.28 0.72 .76* .25* -.06 .05 .12
2. AMI 2.03 0.74 .18_ -.09 -.06_ .03
3. Gender identification 7.52 1.36 -.09 .17 .14
4. Performance 27.01 4.29 _.24* .02
5. Performance self- 32.80 3.72 _.49*
esteem
6. Self-efficacy 50.71 18.05_
Note. N=131
*p < .01.
 28

Tests of Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis was that benevolent sexism would harm performance for

women, but benevolent sexism would improve performance for men. Hostile sexism, on

the other hand, would not affect performance for either women or men. To test the

hypothesis, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. The results of the

ANOVA revealed that there were no significant main effects of condition or gender on

task performance. The interaction between condition and gender of participant was also

non-significant, F (2, 131) = .089, p = .92, η2 = .001. Therefore, this hypothesis was

partially supported. As predicted, performance on the task was not affected by exposure

to hostile sexism for either men or women. In addition, it also was not affected by

exposure to benevolent sexism. Performance score means for each of the conditions are

displayed in Table 3.

Table 3
Effect of sexism on performance

Gender Sexism Condition Performance

Women Hostile 49.48 (21.75)
Benevolent 53.43 (18.13)
Control 48.52 (18.82)
Men Hostile 51.25 (16.90)
Benevolent 52.10 (15.20)
Control 49.80 (17.81)
Note. Means are presented with standard deviations in
parentheses.
 29

Hypothesis 2

The second hypothesis was that women’s performance self-esteem and self-

efficacy would be lower in the benevolent sexism condition, but men’s self-esteem and

self-efficacy would not be affected by either sexism condition. A two-way multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to test the hypothesis. The results of the

omnibus MANOVA revealed that there were no significant main effects of gender or

sexism condition on performance self-esteem or self-efficacy. Additionally, the

interactions were also not significant, F (2, 131) = .094, p = .91, η2 = .001, and F (2, 131)

= .27, p = .76, η2 = .004, respectively. Hypothesis 2 was therefore partially supported. As

predicted, hostile sexism did not affect performance self-esteem or self-efficacy for men

or for women. Benevolent sexism also did not have an impact on men’s scores. In those

respects, the hypothesis was supported. However, benevolent sexism was expected to

negatively affect women’s performance self-esteem and self-efficacy scores, which was

not supported. Performance self-esteem and self-efficacy score means for each condition

are presented below.

Table 4
Effect of sexism on performance self-esteem and self-efficacy

Performance
Gender Sexism Condition Self-Efficacy
Self-Esteem
Women Hostile 27.39 (.90) 33.52 (.77)
Benevolent 26.96 (.90) 33.65 (.77)
Control 25.88 (.87) 32.88 (.74)
Men Hostile 27.75 (.97) 32.95 (.83)
Benevolent 27.35 (.97) 32.40 (.83)
Control 26.95 (.97) 31.15 (.83)
Note. Means are presented with standard deviations in parentheses.
 30

Hypothesis 3

The third hypothesis was that gender identification and sexist attitudes would

have protective effects against sexism for women. I predicted that those who identify

more strongly with their gender and those who possess fewer sexist beliefs would be less

affected by exposure to benevolent sexism. To examine potentially moderating effects of

gender identification and sexist beliefs for women, I performed two path analyses.

Hostile and benevolent sexism were coded as -1 and 1, respectively. Since two measures

of sexist attitudes were used in the study (the ASI and the AMI), the two sets of scores

were initially averaged into one measure of sexist attitudes for this analysis. However, the

model was non-significant so the analysis was re-run a second time using only AMI

scores and a third time using only ASI scores. In all three cases the model was

overidentified, so the regression coefficient for the relationship between sexism condition

and either gender identification or sexist beliefs was constrained to 1.

The regression coefficients for Hypothesis 3a (with gender identification as the

moderator) are displayed below. The model’s Chi Square was 8.04 which was significant

at p = .004, indicating poor model fit. As reflected in the regression coefficients, neither

the sexism condition nor gender identification score significantly predicted performance.

Since strength of gender identification did not significantly affect the relation between

condition and performance, gender identification was not a moderator for women.

Therefore, Hypothesis 3a was not supported.

 31

Figure 1
Path model for women with gender identification as a moderator

The models for Hypothesis 3b (with sexist attitudes as the moderator) are

displayed below. The model with the combined ASI and AMI score had a significant Chi

Square of 59.97, p = .000. Additionally, the model with only the AMI had a Chi Square

value of 59.93, which again was significant at p = .000. The model with the ASI only also

had a significant Chi Square of 59.33, p = .000. Based on the Chi Square values and other

fit indices, the models did not have good fit. Additionally, the regression weights for all

models were non-significant, indicating that neither sexism condition nor sexist beliefs

predicted performance. Sexist attitudes also did not act as a moderator between condition

and performance. Hypothesis 3b was not supported.

 32

Figure 2
Path model for women with sexist attitudes as a moderator

a. AMI and ASI combined

b. AMI only

c. ASI only
 33

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 was that gender identification and sexist beliefs would minimize the

effects of exposure to sexism for men; specifically, those who identify more strongly with

their gender and those who possess fewer sexist beliefs would be less affected by

exposure to benevolent sexism. As there is no literature to indicate whether men react

differentially to benevolent or hostile sexism, the analyses were exploratory. The

approach for the analysis was the same as for Hypotheses 3a and 3b. As before, the path

analysis with sexist beliefs as a moderator was first performed with the combined ASI

and AMI score, and then with the ASI only and AMI only.

The model for Hypothesis 4a, which had gender identification as a moderator, is

displayed below. The model’s Chi Square was 13.40 and was significant at p = .000,

reflecting poor fit to the data. The regression weights were also non-significant,

demonstrating that performance was not predicted by sexism condition or strength of

gender identification. Since strength of gender identification did not significantly affect

the relation between sexism condition and performance, it was not shown to be a

moderating factor. Hypothesis 4a was not supported.

 34

Figure 3
Path model for men with gender identification as a moderator

The results of the path analyses for Hypothesis 4b are displayed below. For the

model with the combined ASI and AMI score, model fit was an issue with a significant

Chi Square of 53.07, p = .000. In the ASI only model, the Chi Square was also significant

at 49.23, p = .000. The AMI only model had a significant Chi Square as well at 51.07, p =

.000. Sexist beliefs was a significant predictor of performance in the ASI only model, r =

.57, p < .001; however, none of the other relations were significant in any of the other

models. Sexist beliefs did not function as a moderator in the model since it did not

significantly change the relation between sexism condition and performance. Hypothesis

4b was not supported.

 35

Figure 4
Path model for men with sexist atittudes as a moderator

a. AMI and ASI combined

b. ASI only

c. AMI only
 36

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of hostile and

benevolent sexism on men’s and women’s performance during a job selection task. The

analyses were based on 71 women and 60 men who were exposed to either benevolent

sexism, hostile sexism, or a neutral statement prior to completing a working memory test.

The results of the study indicated that Hypotheses 1 and 2 were partially supported, and

Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not supported.

In regards to Hypothesis 1, which predicted that benevolent sexism would harm

women’s performance but would improve men’s performance, and that hostile sexism

would not affect performance, no significant differences were found in performance

across the study conditions. Neither women’s nor men’s performance were affected by

the sexism conditions. Hypothesis 1 was therefore partially supported, because hostile

sexism did not affect performance for either men or women. Prior research also shows

that hostile sexism does not impact performance (Dardenne et al., 2007; Dumont et al.,

2010; Koch et al., 2014). The lack of effect on performance may be because hostile

sexism is more readily recognized as sexism and as a result is disregarded instead of

internalized.

However, the findings for benevolent sexism are in contrast to previous research,

which has consistently found that benevolent sexism is damaging to performance for

women (Dardenne et al., 2007; Dumont et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2014; Vescio et al.,
 37

2005). One explanation for the discrepancy in results may be related to task differences.

The present study used a verbal working memory task which was chosen to avoid

introducing stereotype threat. Dardenne et al. (2007), who found a significant decline in

performance after benevolent sexism, used a spatial working memory task that required

computing distances. Because spatial reasoning is traditionally seen as a masculine

domain, it could have been intimidating to some of the women and as a result amplified

the effect of sexism. In contrast, a study by Salomon et al. (2015) used a word association

task instead of a working memory task and did not find differences in performance

between benevolent and hostile sexism, although they did find differences in

cardiovascular response. Thus, further research is needed to determine whether certain

performance tests are more sensitive to exposure to benevolent sexism.

Another potential explanation for the lack of effect of sexism may be that the

women were able to identify benevolent sexism as actually sexist rather than tacitly

supporting them in some way. The results of the manipulation check support this, since

the women rated the benevolent statement as both benevolent and hostile. If they were

offended by the statement and interpreted it as hostile, according to prior research, their

performance likely would have been preserved. Male and female participants also scored

below the midpoints of the ASI and AMI scales, indicating low endorsement of sexist

attitudes. Being aware of the dangers of sexism may have protected the participants

against its harmful effects.

As mentioned, men’s performance was also not impacted by benevolent sexism.

This finding contrasts with Vescio et al. (2005), who found that benevolent sexism
 38

improved men’s performance on a masculine task. Differences in tasks between the two

studies may have played a role in the discrepancy. However, it is hard to draw

conclusions since few other studies have been done to assess men’s responses to

benevolent sexism. It is possible that men are less affected by benevolent sexism because

they are not traditionally stereotyped as incompetent, and as a result are better able to

disregard benevolent sexism. Men may simply not be affected by sexism in the same way

as women, because they are more likely than women to be the perpetrators rather than the

targets of sexism (Einarson et al., 2003). More research is clearly needed to understand

benevolent sexism’s effect on men’s performance.

Hypothesis 2, which proposed that women’s self-efficacy and performance self-

esteem would be lower after benevolent sexism, but that men’s would be unaffected, was

partially supported, in that men’s self-efficacy and performance self-esteem were

unaffected. There were no significant differences in self-efficacy or performance self-

esteem across the study’s six conditions. The results for women did not support the

hypothesis, and were in contrast to prior findings that benevolent sexism lowers women’s

self-efficacy (Jones et al., 2014), and performance self-esteem (Dardenne et al., 2007).

However, the hypothesis that men’s self-efficacy and performance self-esteem would not

be affected was supported. This finding is consistent with one study’s finding that

patronizing behavior does not affect men’s self-efficacy (Vescio et al., 2005).

Since benevolent sexism can subtly imply that women are incompetent, I

expected that it would negatively affect women’s self-efficacy. As previously discussed,

perhaps the female participants were able to recognize the language as sexist, and were
 39

therefore able to disregard it. This interpretation is consistent with research showing that

hostile sexism does not impact women’s performance self-esteem (Dardenne et al., 2007)

or self-efficacy (Jones et al., 2014), possibly because it is easily identified as sexist. The

present study also found that hostile sexism did not affect these domains. Another

possibility is that benevolent sexism simply does not affect performance self-esteem or

self-efficacy. Overall, performance self-esteem was correlated with performance,

indicating that individuals with poor performance self-esteem tended to have lower

scores on the test. Knowing that performance was not affected by either sexism

condition, it is not surprising that performance self-esteem was also not affected by

exposure to sexism.

Finally, Hypotheses 3 through 4 were not supported. These hypotheses proposed

that sexist beliefs and degree of gender identification would act as moderators in the

relation between sexism condition and performance. I expected that women with low

levels of sexist attitudes and high levels of gender identification would be less affected by

benevolent sexism and perform better than women with high levels of sexist attitudes and

low levels of gender identification. I predicted the same for men, except that they would

have lower performance. Since there was no relation between sexism and performance

for either men or women, the moderation model was also not significant. Sexist beliefs

and gender identification did not moderate the relation between sexism condition and

performance.

The finding that gender identification did not act as a moderator was in contrast to

research by Dardenne et al. (2007). One interesting difference was that in their study,
 40

strength of gender identification was associated with lower levels of sexist attitudes. In

the present study, the reverse was true; women who identified more strongly with their

gender group had higher levels of sexist attitudes. The same gender identification survey

was used for both studies, but it is possible that cultural differences played a role. The

majority of the present study’s participants identified as Hispanic, Asian or Pacific

Islander, or White, while Dardenne et al. (2007)’s study was conducted with French

women. The participant groups may have interpreted the questions in different light due

to differences in their cultures and environments.

Limitations and Strengths

Limitations

The study’s findings should be considered with regard to its limitations. Since this

study was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting, external validity and

generalizability are a concern. It is difficult to know how the results could generalize to

the job selection process in an actual workplace. For example, the Modified Lag Task,

although a well-validated test for measuring working memory in groups, is unlikely to be

used as a common job selection task, since selection tasks tend to target skill sets for

specific positions. Scores on the task may therefore not reflect performance on an actual

job selection task. Additionally, the job scenario created for the study cannot capture the

full range of complexities of the job selection process, since there are a number of

organizational factors that cannot be recreated in the laboratory.

Similarly, the participant pool is a limitation. Participants were undergraduate

psychology students at Sacramento State, with the majority of the students being in their
 41

first, second, and third years of school. Participants were required in their Psychology

courses to participate in research, and were motivated to earn research credits rather than

to get a job. As a result, it is possible that their motivation for performing may have been

low. Participants also self-selected into the study, so the study may have attracted

participants with certain characteristics, such as those who are more outgoing,

competitive, or looking for job experience. Additionally, the ASI and AMI surveys in

Part 1 may have turned away some participants who were offended by the questions or

were uninterested in participating in a study related to sexism. For all of these reasons,

the participant pool is not a representative sample of the typical job candidate population.

Limitations related to group dynamics also exist. Participant groups were divided

into only men or only women, which would rarely occur in the American workplace. As

a result, interactions between male and female participants were absent from the study,

and the effect of the homogenous gender pool is unknown. Participants may have felt

strength in numbers by being in groups of all women or all men. A woman would likely

have a different experience if she was the only woman in the candidate pool than she

would if she were with a group of women as in this study. Additionally, the size of the

participant groups varied across sessions. While the aim was to have five to six

participants per session, a few sessions had only one or two participants due to no shows

or late cancellations. This could have also impacted group dynamics.

The results of the manipulation check also point to some limitations. The analysis

of the manipulation check indicated that female participants perceived the benevolent

statement as both benevolent and hostile, and male participants did not perceive a
 42

difference between any of the conditions. These results for benevolent sexism were

surprising, since the sexism manipulation was previously validated for female

participants by Salomon et al. (2015). The present study even toned down Salomon et al.

(2015)’s benevolent language to make it seem less hostile.

Since the study was conducted shortly after the 2016 presidential election, when

tensions were high and sexism was on everyone’s minds, the female participants in this

study may have been more sensitive to sexist language. The election was plagued with

sexism, with sexism being demonstrated by President Donald Trump and his base, and

targeting not only presidential candidate Hillary Clinton but other public female figures

and women in general. For example, conservative pundits criticized Hillary Clinton for

being shrill (Khazan, 2016) and not smiling enough, and argued that she was only

successful because of her marriage to Bill Clinton (Bock, Byrd-Craven, & Burkley,

2017). Donald Trump, in addition to making a number of sexist and abusive remarks, was

accused of sexual assault by over a dozen women (Desjardins, 2017). As a result of this

heated political climate, the female participants could have reacted more strongly to the

benevolent sexism than anticipated and perceived it to be more hostile.

Another explanation may be related to flaws in the manipulation check form. It is

possible that participants were confused by the definitions of hostile and benevolent

sexism and failed to understand the difference between the two. Benevolent sexism is

more difficult to identify than hostile sexism and is a newer concept to many

undergraduate students. Additionally, the control condition statement was rated as

somewhat benevolent and somewhat hostile, suggesting that there may have been an issue
 43

with the manipulation check form. Reading the sexism definitions may have influenced

the participants’ decision to rate the control statement as somewhat sexist. Another

potential issue is that the manipulation check form did not capture the experience of

hearing the sexist language during the session. While the results of the manipulation

check indicate that participants perceived the written statements as hostile and

benevolent, the experience of hearing the language may have been different. The

language may have been too subtle to process during the session and as a result not strong

enough to have an effect on performance. Due to the results of the manipulation check, I

recommend that future studies further validate the sexism manipulation used in the study.

Finally, other limitations may exist due to slight variations between study

sessions. While the recruiters followed a script during the sessions and were trained not

to react to the participants, it is difficult to execute any scenario identically each time.

Differences in participant groups, such as visible or audible reactions to the sexist

language, may have also affected the results of some sessions, although sessions where

reactions interfered with the protocol were excluded from the analysis. The participants’

reactions and anecdotal remarks were recorded by the research assistants after the

conclusion of each session, and can be found in Appendix O.

Strengths

Despite its limitations, the study had a number of strengths due to its high degree

of experimental control. Participants were randomly assigned to the conditions and the

sessions were conducted in research rooms with similar layouts to standardize the setting.

The recruiter was also kept blind to the study condition for the period prior to delivering
 44

the sexist language. This ensured that the recruiter did not act differently toward

participants in the various conditions during the start of the experimental session. All

participants therefore had the same experience before the sexism manipulation was

introduced.

Another strength of the study was that online questionnaires were used to collect

data prior to the experimental session. The online questionnaires included questions about

sexist attitudes and beliefs, gender identification, and demographic information. Such

questions could potentially prime participants to think about sexism or other personal

characteristics if they were administered during the experimental session. Administering

them online several days prior to the session avoided the potential priming effects.

The study also attempted to create a gender neutral job scenario to avoid potential

stereotype threats. The job was described as a retail sales position requiring skills learned

during the undergraduate years. As mentioned earlier, the position was chosen since it is

relevant to undergraduate students, and approximately equal numbers of men and women

hold the position across the United States. The working memory task was also selected

because I believed it to be a task in which both men and women could feel competent.

Because male and female participants were recruited and assigned to conditions

separately, it was possible to recruit an approximately equal number of men and women

for the study. This would not have been possible to achieve had they been recruited

together, because women outnumber men significantly in the Sacramento State

psychology subject pool. Keeping the gender groups separate also made it possible to

control the gender make up of groups as this factor could affect perceptions of sexism.
 45

Finally, I included exploratory analyses for the effect of sexism on men’s

performance. To date, no previous studies have examined the separate effects of hostile

and benevolent sexism on men’s performance. The study therefore offered new insights

into the issue.

Implications and Future Research

The study’s unanticipated finding that benevolent sexism did not affect

performance adds a new perspective to the existing literature on sexism in the workplace.

Previous research has discovered that benevolent sexism is deleterious to performance,

yet in the present study, I found no effect. As discussed, a possible explanation for the

discrepancy may be due to today’s tense political climate, which has highlighted the issue

of sexism and brought it to national attention. The study’s finding offers an optimistic

outcome of an unfortunate situation; it is possible that due to exposure to frequent sexism

women may be more aware of it, and as a result more protected against its harmful

effects. Where benevolent sexism may have been perceived as subtle and harmless

before, it may now be viewed as outright offensive. While this is certainly not universally

true, it is possible that this study’s population of undergraduate women was more attuned

to benevolently sexist language. For instance, their sensitivity to the sexism was reflected

in their manipulation check ratings; women in the hostile condition perceived the

language to be hostile, but women in the benevolent condition perceived the language to

be both benevolent and hostile. Another possibility is that benevolent sexism simply does

not harm performance. Future research should further examine the effects of benevolent

sexism in undergraduate populations, especially in the aftermath of the 2016 election.

 46

Similarly, it would be beneficial to study the impact of sexism on different

populations in a range of regions. The present study was conducted with undergraduate

students at a university in Northern California, and it is possible that students at different

universities with different climates would react in other ways. It would be interesting to

assess political orientation and see if political beliefs moderate the relation between

sexism and performance. Research has shown that liberalism is associated with fewer

sexist attitudes (Cokley et al., 2010; Mosso, Briante, Aiello, & Russo, 2013; Ruthig,

Kehn, Gamblin, Vanderzanden, & Jones, 2017). There is also the need to study

employees at an organization to gain a greater understanding of sexism’s impact in the

workplace. One of the limitations of the present study, and many of the sexism studies

mentioned in this paper (Dardenne et al., 2007; Dumont et al., 2010; Salomon et al.,

2015; Vescio et al., 2005), was that they were conducted in a laboratory setting. Bringing

the research into the field would add significantly to the literature.

Since this study’s findings departed from previous research, it is important to

attempt to replicate the study under different conditions. The study looked at the impact

of sexism on groups of all men or all women. Future studies could examine the impact of

sexism in mixed gender groups or on single individuals. It would also be interesting to

see how a woman in a group of men, or a man in a group of women, would react to sexist

language.

An alternative explanation for the lack of significant findings in the study may be

that sexism does not affect performance on the Modified Lag Task. Other research could

see if benevolent sexism affects performance on other types of tasks. Research so far has
 47

shown that benevolent sexism harms working memory, and it is essential to see if it

affects other domains such as problem solving or creativity. This would have

implications in the workplace beyond selection procedures, and would be especially

relevant for day-to-day performance on the job. Additionally, there is a need to study the

long term effects of exposure to benevolent sexism.

While benevolent sexism is an issue that needs to be addressed in the workplace,

the conditions inherent to the present study suggest that sensitivity to sexism may

possibly help diminish its negative effects on performance. Increasing the discussion

about sexism and its harmful effects would be a positive step toward reducing sexism in

the workplace. It is especially important to warn women about the dangers of accepting

benevolent sexism, and to teach men about the effects of their chivalrous and often well-

intentioned actions. Since the study did not specifically measure awareness of or

sensitivity to sexism, it is difficult to know if those characteristics explain why

performance was preserved. Further research is needed to determine which factors may

protect individuals against the harmful effects of benevolent sexism.

 48

APPENDIX A

CONSENT FORM: PART 1

 49

INFORMED CONSENT
Pretend You’re A Job Applicant: Part 1

You are invited to participate in a research study which will involve completing several
online questionnaires. My name is Melanie Rothfuss, and I am a graduate student at
California State University, Sacramento, Psychology department. The purpose of this
research is to assess the usefulness of a new job selection task.

If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete several questionnaires about
attitudes toward people. Research designs often require that the full intent of the study not be
explained prior to participation. Although we have described the general nature of the tasks
that you will be asked to perform, the full intent of the study will not be explained to you
until after the completion of the study. Your participation in the online portion of this study
will last about 30 minutes.

There are some possible risks involved for participants. Some of the questions may make you
feel uncomfortable; however, you may decline to answer any question. There are some
benefits to this research, particularly that participating may help increase your knowledge of
survey design. While you may not personally benefit from participating in this research, it is
hoped that the research may lead to a better understanding of the benefits of using selection
tests during the hiring process.

Your participation in this project is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all or to
leave the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise
entitled. Since this is a two-part study, you will receive 1.5 hours of credit toward satisfying
the Psychology Department’s research participation requirement after participating in Part 1
and Part 2 of the study.

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with
you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. Your name or
any other personally identifiable information will not be attached to any records, and you will
be assigned a number ID instead. The data obtained will be maintained in a safe, locked
location and will be destroyed after a period of three years after the study is completed.

If you have any questions about the research at any time, please email me at
melanierothfuss@csus.edu, or Dr. Rachel August at raugust@csus.edu. If you have any
questions about your rights as a participant in a research project please call the Office of
Research Affairs, California State University, Sacramento, (916) 278-5674, or email
irb@csus.edu.

Your participation and completion of this survey indicates that you have read and understand
the information provided above, that you willingly agree to participate, that you may
withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation at any time without penalty
or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled, and that you are not waiving any legal
claims, rights or remedies.
 50

APPENDIX B

AMBIVALENT SEXISM INVENTORY

(ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE)
 51

Listed below are a group of statements. Please rate your agreement with each of the
statements using the following scale.

0 1 2 3 4 5
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
strongly somewhat slightly slightly somewhat strongly

_______ 1. No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a

person unless he has the love of a woman.
_______ 2. Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring
policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for
“equality.”
_______ 3. In a disaster, women ought not necessarily to be rescued before men.
_______ 4. Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
_______ 5. Women are too easily offended.
_______ 6. People are often truly happy in life without being romantically
involved with a member of the other sex.
_______ 7. Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power over men.
_______ 8. Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.
_______ 9. Women should be cherished and protected by men.
_______ 10. Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them.
_______ 11. Women seek to gain power by getting control over men.
_______ 12. Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores.
_______ 13. Men are complete without women.
_______ 14. Women exaggerate problems they have at work.
_______ 15. Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put
him on a tight leash.
_______ 16. When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically
complain about being discriminated against.
_______ 17. A good woman should be set on a pedestal by her man.
_______ 18. There are actually very few women who get a kick out of teasing
men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances.
_______ 19. Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility.
_______ 20. Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well-being in order to
provide financially for the women in their lives.
_______ 21. Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men.
_______ 22. Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of
culture and good taste.
 52

APPENDIX C

AMBIVALENCE TOWARD MEN INVENTORY

(ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE)
 53

Listed below are a group of statements. Please rate your agreement with each of the
statements using the following scale.

0 1 2 3 4 5
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
strongly somewhat slightly slightly somewhat strongly

_______ 1. Even if both members of a couple work, the woman ought to be

more attentive to taking care of her man at home.
_______ 2. A man who is sexually attracted to a woman typically has no morals
about doing whatever it takes to get her in bed.
_______ 3. Men are less likely to fall apart in emergencies than women are.
_______ 4. When men act to “help” women, they are often trying to prove they
are better than women.
_______ 5. Every woman needs a male partner who will cherish her.
_______ 6. Men would be lost in this world if women weren’t there to guide
them.
_______ 7. A woman will never be truly fulfilled in life if she doesn’t have a
committed, long-term relationship with a man.
_______ 8. Men act like babies when they are sick.
_______ 9. Men will always fight to have greater control in society than women.
_______ 10. Men are mainly useful to provide financial security for women.
_______ 11. Even men who claim to be sensitive to women’s rights really want a
traditional relationship at home, with the woman performing most of
the housekeeping and child care.
_______ 12. Every woman ought to have a man she adores.
_______ 13. Men are more willing to put themselves in danger to protect others.
_______ 14. Men usually try to dominate conversations when talking to women.
_______ 15. Most men pay lip service to equality for women, but can’t handle
having a woman as an equal.
_______ 16. Women are incomplete without men.
_______ 17. When it comes down to it, most men are really like children.
_______ 18. Men are more willing to take risks than women.
_______ 19. Most men sexually harass women, even if only in subtle ways, once
they are in a position of power over them.
_______ 20. Women ought to take care of their men at home, because men would
fall apart if they had to fend for themselves.
 54

APPENDIX D

GENDER IDENTIFICATION QUESTIONNAIRE

(ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE)
 55

Please answer the following questions about yourself by indicating the extent of your
agreement using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Do not Agree
agree totally

_______ 1. I have many characteristics in common with my gender.

_______ 2. I identify with my gender.
_______ 3. Being a member of my gender is a very important reflection of who I
am.
 56

APPENDIX E

DEMOGRAPHICS

(ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE)
 57

Demographics Questionnaire

Age:______

Gender:
____ Female
____ Male
____ Other Identity: __________________________

Year in College:
___ First year
___ Sophomore
___ Junior
___ Senior
___ Continuing Ed

Ethnic Identity:
___ American Indian or Alaskan Native
___ Asian or Pacific Islander
___ Black or African American
___ Hispanic
___ White or Caucasian
___ Other: __________________________

Sexual Orientation:
___ Straight or heterosexual
___ Lesbian, gay, or homosexual
___ Bisexual
___ Other: __________________________
 58

APPENDIX F

CONSENT FORM: PART 2

 59

INFORMED CONSENT
Pretend You’re A Job Applicant: Part 2

You are invited to participate in a research study which will involve a simulated job
selection scenario, where you will complete a work-related task and fill out several
questionnaires. My name is Melanie Rothfuss, and I am a graduate student at California
State University, Sacramento, Psychology department. The purpose of this research is to
assess the usefulness of a new job selection task.

If you decide to participate, you will be asked to read a short story describing a simulated
job scenario. In the scenario, you will imagine that you applied for a retail sales position
and that the company invited you to complete a job selection task as part of the interview
process. You will be asked to complete a job selection task, which will involve recalling
certain words from a list. You will also complete a few short questionnaires so that we
can gain feedback on your experience. Research designs often require that the full intent
of the study not be explained prior to participation. Although we have described the
general nature of the tasks that you will be asked to perform, the full intent of the study
will not be explained to you until after the completion of the study.Your participation in
this portion of the study will last approximately one hour.

There are some possible risks involved for participants. It is possible that you may
experience psychological stress from the job scenario or by completing the job selection
task. Additionally, some of the questions may make you feel uncomfortable; however,
you may decline to answer any question. There are some benefits to this research,
particularly that participating may help increase your knowledge of research design.
While you may not personally benefit from participating in this research, it is hoped that
the research may lead to a better understanding of using selection tests during the hiring
process.

Your participation in this project is voluntary. You have the right not to participate at all
or to leave the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you may
otherwise be entitled. You will receive 1.5 hours of credit toward satisfying the
Psychology Department’s research participation requirement by participating in this
second part of the study.

Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified
with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. Your
name or any other personally identifiable information will not be attached to any records,
and you will be assigned a number ID instead. The data obtained will be maintained in a
safe, locked location and will be destroyed after a period of three years after the study is
completed.

If you have any questions about the research at any time, please email me at
melanierothfuss@csus.edu, or Dr. Rachel August at raugust@csus.edu. If you have any
 60

questions about your rights as a participant in a research project please call the Office of
Research Affairs, California State University, Sacramento, (916) 278-5674, or email
irb@csus.edu.

Your signature below indicates that you have read and understand the information
provided above, that you willingly agree to participate, that you may withdraw your
consent at any time and discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled, and that you are not waiving any legal
claims, rights or remedies.

Signature Date

________________________ ___________________________
 61

APPENDIX G

VIGNETTE
 62

Back story
Imagine that you are currently unemployed and have been applying to jobs for months
without any luck. You are beginning to lose hope, but finally you receive an email about
a retail sales position at a company you applied to weeks ago. This is the first positive
email you’ve received back about a job position. The email says the company liked your
resume and would like you to come in for the next step of the hiring process. You learn
that they want you to complete a work-related task to see how well you might do at the
job. You’re a little nervous but you’re excited for the opportunity.

Skip ahead to today

It is the day of the interview. You have arrived at the building, checked in, and are now
sitting in a room with the other job applicants. You notice the other applicants around
you – some people are looking nervously at their laps, while others stare confidently
forward. You know that you will be completing a work-related task that will help the
company determine whether you will be a good fit for the job, but you’re not sure what
the task will be. It is really important to you that you get the job, so you know that you
need to do your best on the task. You sit and nervously wait for the recruiter to arrive.
 63

APPENDIX H

RECRUITER’S SCRIPT
 64

Recruiter’s script

Introduction:

“Hi everyone, my name is _____ and I’m a recruiter for the company. Thank you for
coming today and for your interest in the retail sales position. We have reviewed your
resumes and we have narrowed the candidate pool down to the strongest applicants. We
are very excited to have you here today. We believe that each of you has the potential to
be a great fit with our company. As you know, this position requires many of the skills
you’ve learned in your undergraduate career. The next step of the hiring process, and the
reason you are here today, is to complete a short job selection task which will help us
assess these abilities. Your scores on this task will provide us with valuable information
to determine how you would perform on the job. After the task, we will review your
scores and invite a few of you back to be interviewed. Let me explain what you will be
doing today...” (Recruiter then goes over the instructions for the Modified Lag Task).

Sexism manipulation (depending on study condition):

Hostile sexism (in a dismissive tone): “Girls/guys aren’t good at this task anyway, so
I’m going to get rid of the hard section to save some time. I’m willing to sacrifice
a little data so I don’t have to hear another girl/guy complain about how hard the
last section is.”

Benevolent sexism (in a pleasant-yet-patronizing tone): “Girls/guys don’t like the last
section, so I’m going to go ahead and get rid of it for you. To help you all out, I’m
willing to sacrifice a little data so you don’t have to complete a really hard section

Control (in an informative voice): “So I’m going to have the computer randomly get rid
of one of the sections. Looks like it got rid of the hard section.”
 65

APPENDIX I

WORKING MEMORY TASK RESPONSE SHEET

 66

Practice
Section 1 Section 2
A. D.
B. E.
C. F.

Test: Section 1
Lag 0, Lag 1, Lag 2, Lag 3

1. 21.
2. 22.
3. 23.
4. 24.
5. 25.
6. 26.
7. 27.
8. 28.
9. 29.
10. 30.
11. 31.
12. 32.
13. 33.
14. 34.
15. 35.
16. 36.
17. 37.
18. 38.
19. 39.
20. 40.
 67

Test: Section 2
Lag 4, Lag 5, Lag 6

1. 21.
2. 22.
3. 23.
4. 24.
5. 25.
6. 26.
7. 27.
8. 28.
9. 29.
10. 30.
11. 31.
12. 32.
13. 33.
14. 34.
15. 35.
16. 36.
17. 37.
18. 38.
19. 39.
20. 40.
 68

APPENDIX J

WORKING MEMORY TASK WORD BANK

 69

Word Bank

Ramp Pork Thorn Trunk

Lens Link Ounce Hunt
Sign Pine Ridge Latch
Kiss Pole Heel Tape
Youth Mink Seat Shore
Shrub Toast Pier Skate
Wave Birth Stalk Arch
Lake Trail Bone Wheel
Knee Soap Mare Nest
Saint Dust Shoe Aunt
 70

APPENDIX K

PERFORMANCE SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

 71

Please answer the following questions about yourself by indicating the extent of your
agreement using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all A little bit Somewhat Very much Extremely

_______ 1. I feel confident about my abilities.

_______ 2. I feel frustrated or rattled about my performance.

_______ 3. I feel that I am having trouble understanding things that I read.

_______ 4. I feel as smart as others.

_______ 5. I feel confident that I understand things.

_______ 6. I feel that I have less scholastic ability right now than others.

_______ 7. I feel like I'm not doing well.

 72

APPENDIX L

GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE

 73

Please answer the following questions about yourself by indicating the extent of your
agreement using the following scale:

1 = Not at all true 2 = Hardly true 3 = Moderately true 4 = Very true

1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard 1 2 3 4

enough.
2. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get 1 2 3 4
what I want.

3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my 1 2 3 4

goals.
4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected 1 2 3 4
events.
5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle 1 2 3 4
unforeseen situations.
6. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort. 1 2 3 4

7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely 1 2 3 4

on my coping abilities.
8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find 1 2 3 4
several solutions.

9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution. 1 2 3 4

10. I can usually handle whatever comes my way. 1 2 3 4

 74

APPENDIX M

MANIPULATION CHECK FORMS

WOMEN – HOSTILE, BENEVOLENT, CONTROL

MEN – HOSTILE, BENEVOLENT, CONTROL

 75

WOMEN – HOSTILE

Earlier, you heard the recruiter say the following statement:

Girls aren’t good at this task anyway, so I’m going to get rid of the hard section to save some time. I’m
willing to sacrifice a little data so I don’t have to hear another girl complain about how hard the last
section is.

Hostile sexism involves overt hostility and disrespect towards women. It reflects the idea that women are
incompetent and inferior to men. Some examples include beliefs that women are easily offended, that they
make unreasonable demands, and that men are smarter than women.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how hostile it seemed to
you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all hostile Somewhat hostile Moderately hostile Hostile Very hostile

Benevolent sexism involves ideas about women that sound positive but are actually harmful. Benevolent
sexism is more socially accepted and often is not recognized as sexism. However, it helps maintain gender
roles by reinforcing gender stereotypes, such as the belief that women are weak and need to be protected by
men. Some examples include beliefs that women need men for financial support, that women should be
cherished by men, and that women should be kind and nurturing.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how benevolent it
seemed to you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Somewhat Moderately Benevolent Very benevolent

benevolent benevolent benevolent

______________________________________________________________________

To what extent did you believe the recruiter during this study?

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Moderately Very Much

 76

WOMEN – BENEVOLENT

Earlier, you heard the recruiter say the following statement:

Girls don’t like the last section, so I’m going to go ahead and get rid of it for you. To help you all out,
I’m willing to sacrifice a little data so you don’t have to complete a really hard section.

Hostile sexism involves overt hostility and disrespect towards women. It reflects the idea that women are
incompetent and inferior to men. Some examples include beliefs that women are easily offended, that they
make unreasonable demands, and that men are smarter than women.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how hostile it seemed to
you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all hostile Somewhat hostile Moderately hostile Hostile Very hostile

Benevolent sexism involves ideas about women that sound positive but are actually harmful. Benevolent
sexism is more socially accepted and often is not recognized as sexism. However, it helps maintain gender
roles by reinforcing gender stereotypes, such as the belief that women are weak and need to be protected by
men. Some examples include beliefs that women need men for financial support, that women should be
cherished by men, and that women should be kind and nurturing.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how benevolent it
seemed to you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Somewhat Moderately Benevolent Very benevolent

benevolent benevolent benevolent

________________________________________________________________________

To what extent did you believe the recruiter during this study?

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Moderately Very Much

 77

WOMEN – CONTROL

Earlier, you heard the recruiter say the following statement:

I’m going to have the computer randomly get rid of one of the sections. Looks like it got rid of the hard
section.

Hostile sexism involves overt hostility and disrespect towards women. It reflects the idea that women are
incompetent and inferior to men. Some examples include beliefs that women are easily offended, that they
make unreasonable demands, and that men are smarter than women.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how hostile it seemed to
you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all hostile Somewhat hostile Moderately hostile Hostile Very hostile

Benevolent sexism involves ideas about women that sound positive but are actually harmful. Benevolent
sexism is more socially accepted and often is not recognized as sexism. However, it helps maintain gender
roles by reinforcing gender stereotypes, such as the belief that women are weak and need to be protected by
men. Some examples include beliefs that women need men for financial support, that women should be
cherished by men, and that women should be kind and nurturing.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how benevolent it
seemed to you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Somewhat Moderately Benevolent Very benevolent

benevolent benevolent benevolent

_______________________________________________________________________

To what extent did you believe the recruiter during this study?

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Moderately Very Much

 78

MEN – HOSTILE

Earlier, you heard the recruiter say the following statement:

Guys aren’t good at this task anyway, so I’m going to get rid of the hard section to save some time. I’m
willing to sacrifice a little data so I don’t have to hear another guy complain about how hard the last
section is.

Hostile sexism involves overt hostility and disrespect towards men. Some examples include beliefs that
men fight for control in society, that they harass women when they’re in positions of power, and that men
act like children and would be lost without women.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how hostile it seemed to
you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all hostile Somewhat hostile Moderately hostile Hostile Very hostile

Benevolent sexism involves ideas about men that sound positive but are actually harmful. Benevolent
sexism is more socially accepted and often is not recognized as sexism. However, it helps maintain gender
roles by reinforcing gender stereotypes, such as the belief that men are powerful and strong. Some
examples include the belief that men need to provide financially for women, that they are more willing to
take risks than women, and that men need women to take care of them.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how benevolent it
seemed to you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Somewhat Moderately Benevolent Very benevolent

benevolent benevolent benevolent

________________________________________________________________________

To what extent did you believe the recruiter during this study?

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Moderately Very Much

 79

MEN – BENEVOLENT SEXISM

Earlier, you heard the recruiter say the following statement:

Guys don’t like the last section, so I’m going to go ahead and get rid of it for you. To help you all out,
I’m willing to sacrifice a little data so you don’t have to complete a really hard section.

Hostile sexism involves overt hostility and disrespect towards men. Some examples include beliefs that
men fight for control in society, that they harass women when they’re in positions of power, and that men
act like children and would be lost without women.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how hostile it seemed to
you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all hostile Somewhat hostile Moderately hostile Hostile Very hostile

Benevolent sexism involves ideas about men that sound positive but are actually harmful. Benevolent
sexism is more socially accepted and often is not recognized as sexism. However, it helps maintain gender
roles by reinforcing gender stereotypes, such as the belief that men are powerful and strong. Some
examples include the belief that men need to provide financially for women, that they are more willing to
take risks than women, and that men need women to take care of them.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how benevolent it
seemed to you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Somewhat Moderately Benevolent Very benevolent

benevolent benevolent benevolent

_______________________________________________________________________

To what extent did you believe the recruiter during this study?

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Moderately Very Much

 80

MEN – CONTROL

Earlier, you heard the recruiter say the following statement:

I’m going to have the computer randomly get rid of one of the sections. Looks like it got rid of the hard
section.

Hostile sexism involves overt hostility and disrespect towards men. Some examples include beliefs that
men fight for control in society, that they harass women when they’re in positions of power, and that men
act like children and would be lost without women.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how hostile it seemed to
you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all hostile Somewhat hostile Moderately hostile Hostile Very hostile

Benevolent sexism involves ideas about men that sound positive but are actually harmful. Benevolent
sexism is more socially accepted and often is not recognized as sexism. However, it helps maintain gender
roles by reinforcing gender stereotypes, such as the belief that men are powerful and strong. Some
examples include the belief that men need to provide financially for women, that they are more willing to
take risks than women, and that men need women to take care of them.

With this definition in mind, please rate the above statement according to how benevolent it
seemed to you, on a scale of 0 to 4.

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Somewhat Moderately Benevolent Very benevolent

benevolent benevolent benevolent

________________________________________________________________________
To what extent did you believe the recruiter during this study?

0 1 2 3 4

Not at all Moderately Very Much

 81

APPENDIX N

DEBRIEFING SHEET
 82

Debriefing
Purpose
The main purpose of this study is to investigate how exposure to benevolent and hostile
sexism affects performance on a working memory job selection task. Hostile sexism is
what one traditionally thinks of with sexism, as it involves overt hostility and disrespect
towards the target. Benevolent sexism, on the other hand, is more subtle and less likely to
be recognized as sexism. When benevolent sexism is targeted toward women, it involves
the belief that women should be protected and cherished by men. When benevolent
sexism is targeted toward men, it involves the belief that men should be powerful and
strong. The study also examines how exposure to sexism affects performance self-esteem
and perceived self-efficacy (or confidence in one’s capabilities). Finally, the study looks
at the degree to which participants identify with their gender and their degree of sexist
beliefs to see if these variables influence the effect of sexism on task performance.

Hypotheses and Supporting Research

The study was inspired by research by Dardenne, Dumont, and Bollier (2007),
who found that benevolent sexism was more harmful to women’s cognitive performance
than hostile sexism. Little research has been done comparing the effects of benevolent
and hostile sexism on men’s performance, however. Vescio et al. (2005) found that
benevolent sexism improved performance for men, as their resulting anger from the
unfairness of the situation drove them to become more competitive and perform better.
Therefore, I hypothesized that benevolent sexism would harm women’s performance, but
benevolent sexism would enhance men’s performance.
Since benevolent sexism subtly implies that women need men’s help to succeed,
women’s self-efficacy and performance self-esteem is hypothesized to be lower after
benevolent sexism. For men, research by Vescio et al. (2005) found that self-efficacy was
not affected by benevolent sexism. My second hypothesis therefore is that performance
self-esteem and perceived self-efficacy will be lower after benevolent sexism for women,
but not for men.
Finally, some individuals may view their gender ingroup more positively and
therefore be better able to disregard negative ideas about their gender group. Research
has shown that women who identify more with their gender group are more likely to
recognize discrimination (Major, Quinton, & Schmader, 2003). Additionally, individuals
with fewer sexist ideals may be more educated about sexism and therefore be more likely
to recognize subtle signs of sexism. As a result, my third hypothesis is that people who
identify more strongly with their gender and have fewer sexist beliefs will be less
affected by exposure to sexism.
To test my hypotheses, I had three sexism conditions (benevolent sexism, hostile
sexism, and control) which were tested separately for men and women, giving a total of
six experimental conditions. In each condition, an opposite-gender recruiter gave
instructions that demonstrated either benevolent sexism, hostile sexism, or were neutral.
Participants then completed a job selection task (a working memory task). The data
analysis will involve pooling the data from all of the participants in each condition and
then performing statistical analyses to test the hypotheses. I will compare the
 83

experimental groups by looking at total scores on the working memory task and the
questionnaires.

Clarification of Deception Used in this Study

You were told during the instructions to this experiment that we were trying to assess the
usefulness of a new job selection task, when we were actually interested in how sexist
language from a recruiter would affect performance on the task. You were not expecting
to hear sexist language from the research assistant, and I apologize for this deception.
This deception was necessary in order to elicit a true reaction to exposure to sexism. Your
participation in this study will be kept confidential. Only group averages will be
reported, not individual performance.

Contact Information
The results of this study will be available by May 2017. If you would like further
information about the study or have questions regarding the experiment, please contact
Melanie Rothfuss at melanierothfuss@csus.edu at your convenience.

Psychological Services
If you have experienced any personal distress caused by the content or materials in this
research and want to talk to someone, counseling services are available through the
Student Health Center free of charge. Please contact Psychological Services at 278-6416
for assistance.

Closing
Do you have any questions? (Respond appropriately.)
Thank you for participating!
 84

APPENDIX O

PARTICIPANT REACTIONS
 85

Participant Reactions

The recruiters took notes and logged written observations after each session. A

summary of the notes, broken down by gender and condition, are included in the table

below. Also indicated is whether the reactions excluded the session from the analysis.

Only sessions with extreme reactions (defined as reactions that interrupted the session

and prevented the recruiter from following protocol) were removed. Unless otherwise

specified, the comments from participants occurred during the debriefing. Since the

manipulation referred to the participants as “guys” and “girls,” the recruiters used the

same language in their notes.

Participant Included in
Condition Reactions
Gender analyses?
After hearing that girls aren’t good at the
hard section, one participant said, "Maybe
Yes
we shouldn't be doing this section of the test
either."
A number of girls seemed to act colder and
Hostile more distant toward the male recruiter after
he said the sexist language. For example, Yes
they stopped saying “thank you,” or smiling
and making eye contact during the session.
Women Some girls “snorted” or laughed after
Yes
hearing the sexism.
Several girls said they didn’t notice the
sexism, and were more concerned about the Yes
test getting cut short.
One common response was smiling
Benevolent Yes
awkwardly after hearing the sexism.
Two girls were confused because they
thought the “hard” section of the test was Yes
actually easier than the “easy” section.
One participant thought that the female
recruiter acted hostile towards them because
Men Hostile Y
her boss, who called her in to work, might
be a man. He thought she was frustrated
 86

with her boss and took it out on the

participants.
Another participant mentioned not fully
believing her due to not normally hearing
Yes
negatively sexist statements directed
towards men.
One participant was highly offended. He
thought the statement was not only sexist
but also ageist. He interrupted the recruiter
after the sexist language to tell her that he
thought that the task was discriminatory
No
toward older applicants. Other participants
in the room did not react. After the session
he said that his confidence was immediately
shot down once he heard the sexist
statement.
Some guys claimed not to be offended, but
said they could imagine how someone might Yes
be.
After the sexist language, one participant
asked if they would still get credit for Yes
participating.
A common response was laughing after the
Yes
sexism.
One participant interrupted the recruiter
before she could deliver the sexist language No
to ask if they would still need to do the task.
Some participants laughed, but most did not
Yes
audibly react.
Benevolent
Several participants said they did not notice
Yes
the sexist language.
 87

APPENDIX P

PILOT STUDY
 88

Pilot Study

Prior to conducting the study, I carried out a pilot study to test the sexism

manipulation and determine whether changing Salomon et al.’s (2015) benevolent sexism

statement would be effective. Their original benevolent sexism statement was “Girls

don’t like the hard section, so I’m going to go ahead and get rid of it for you. I’m willing

to sacrifice a little data so I don’t make another girl upset about how hard the last section

is.” The last sentence was altered to “I’m willing to sacrifice a little data to help you girls

out so you don’t have to complete a really hard section” to sound more benevolent.

Thirteen female and 7 male undergraduate students participated in the study. The pilot

study began similarly to the full study; participants read the vignette and an opposite-sex

research assistant introduced themselves as the recruiter. Participants completed the first

half of the practice items, then the recruiter pretended to get a phone call. However, the

recruiter’s excuse for ending the session early during the pilot was that they forgot they

had a meeting across campus that they needed to get to. They then delivered the

benevolent language and left the room for a couple minutes to give the participants time

to process the sexist statement. When they returned, they passed out a manipulation

check sheet so participants could rate how benevolent or hostile they found the statement.

Participants were also asked to respond to the following questions: (1) “How did hearing

this statement make you feel?” and (2) “Were there any specific words or characteristics

of the recruiter that caused you to feel this way?” Sessions for the pilot study began the

morning after the 2016 Presidential Election, and due to the sensitive time for many

students we decided not to pilot the hostile statement.

 89

Results from the pilot study are displayed in the table below. The pilot study

found that participants reacted more strongly to the benevolent sexism than expected, so

the statement was further altered for the present study to sound more benevolent. The

manipulation check sheet was also revised to provide clearer definitions. Finally, the

recruiter’s excuse for ending the session early was changed, since male participants found

the recruiter disrespectful for prioritizing her meeting over their session and expressed

anger and annoyance toward her.

Table P
Results of manipulation check

Perceived Perceived
Gender Sexism Condition
Hostility Benevolence
Women Benevolent 2.46 (0.97) 2.69 (1.11)
Men Benevolent 1.14 (1.11) 2.00 (1.53)
Note. Means are presented with standard deviations in parentheses.
 90

References

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,

37, 122-147.

Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Piebinga, L. & Moya, M (2010). How nice of us and how

dumb of me: the effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women’s task and

relational self-descriptions. Sex Roles, 62, 532-544.

Barreto, N., and Ellemers, N (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: how it contributes

to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 35, 633-642.

Blau, F. D., Ferber, M. A., & Winkler, A. E. (2001). The economics of women, men, and

work (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bock, J., Byrd-Craven, J., & Burkley, M. (2017). The role of sexism in voting in the 2016

presidential election. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 189-193.

Bond, M. A., Punnett, L., Pyle, J. L., Cazeca, D., & Cooperman, M. (2004). Gendered

work conditions, health, and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 9(1), 28-45. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.28

Catalyst (2017). Women CEOS of the S&P 500.

Cokley, K. O., Tran, K., Hall-Clark, B., Chapman, C., Bessa, L., Finley, A., et al. (2010).

Predicting student attitudes about racial diversity and gender equity. Journal of

Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 187–199.

 91

Costa, R., Serrano, M. A., & Salvador, A. (2016). Importance of self-efficacy in

psychoendocrine responses to competition and performance in women.

Psicothema, 28(1), 66-70.

Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism:

consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 93, 764-779.

Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., Phillips, C., Balteau, E., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A.,

Salmon, E., Maquet, P., & Collette, F. (2013). Benevolent sexism alters executive

brain responses. Clinical Neuroscience, 24, 572-577.

Desjardins, L. (2017). All the assault charges against Donald Trump, recapped. PBS

News Hours. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: the

causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In Fiske, ST, and

Eberhardt, JL. Racism: The Problem and the Response, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,

3-32.

Dumont, M., Sarlet, M., & Dardenne, B. (2010). Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel

incompetent: benevolent sexism shifts self-construal and autobiographical

memories toward incompetence. Sex Roles, 62, 545-553.

Einarson, S., Hoel. H., Zapf, D. & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Bullying and emotional abuse in

the workplace: International perspectives in Research and Practice. London:

Taylor & Francis.

 92

Feather, N. T. (1968). Change in confidence following success or failure as a predictor of

subsequent performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 38-46.

Gist, M. E. & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its

determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211.

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. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: differentiating

hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23,

519-536.

Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., & López, W.

(2000) Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism

across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.

Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., & Wells, R.

(2004) Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality

in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.

Goldberg, C. B., Finkelstein, L. M., Perry, E. L., & Konrad, A. M. (2004). Job and

industry fit: The effects of age and gender matches on career progress outcomes.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 807-829.

Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal

history. American Psychologist, 35, 603-618.

 93

Guertin, W. H. & Jourard, S. M (1962). Characteristics of real-self-ideal-self discrepancy

scores revealed by factor analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 26, 241-245.

Gutek, B. A. (2001). Women and paid work. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25(4),

379.

Gutek, B.A., & Done, R. (2001). Sexual harassment. In R. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the

psychology of women and gender (pp. 367-387). New York: Wiley.

Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for

measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6),

895-910.

Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Kazama, S., & Singletary, S. (2007). Hostile and

benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: complementary interpersonal

punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92, 1499-1511.

Hewitt, M. P. (2015). Self-efficacy, self-evaluation, and music performance of

secondary-level band students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(3),

298-313.

Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H., & Van Praag, M. (2013). The impact of gender

diversity on the performance of business teams: Evidence from a field

experiment. Management Science, 59(7), 1514-1528.

Jones, K., Stewart, K., & King, E. (2014). Negative consequence of benevolent sexism on

efficacy and performance. Gender in Management, 29 (3), 171-189.

 94

Khazan, O. (2016). Would you really like Hillary more if she sounded different? The

Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com.

King, E. B., Botsford, W. E., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F., & Perkins, A.

(2012). Benevolent sexism at work: gender differences in the distribution of

challenging developmental work experiences. Journal of Management, 38, 1835-

1866.

Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., & Campbell, R. (2000). Sexist discrimination may account

for well-known gender differences in psychiatric symptoms. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 24, 93-99.

Koch, S. S., Konigorski, S., & Sieverding, M. (2014). Sexist Behavior Undermines

Women's Performance in a Job Application Situation. Sex Roles, 70, 79-87

Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & Schmader, T. (2003). Attributions to discrimination and

self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 220-231.

Mosso, C., Briante, G., Aiello, A., & Russo, S. (2013). The role of legitimizing

ideologies as predictors of ambivalent sexism in young people: Evidence from

Italy and the USA. Social Justice Research, 26(1), 1-17.

Murrell, A. J., Olson, J. E., & Hanson-Frieze, I. (1995). Sexual harassment and gender

discrimination: A longitudinal study of women managers. Journal of Social

Issues, 51, 139-149.

 95

Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender

faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93(1), 225-234.

Power, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and managerial

stereotypes: Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, 177-193.

Roos, P. A. and Stevens, L. M. (2014). Integrating Occupations: Changing Occupational

Sex Segregation from 2000 to 2010" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Hilton San Francisco Union

Square and Parc 55 Wyndham San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Ruthig, J. C., Kehn, A., Gamblin, B. W., Vanderzanden, K., & Jones, K. (2017). When

women’s gains equal men’s losses: Predicting a zero-sum perspective of gender

status. Sex Roles, 76(1-2), 17-26.

Salomon, K., Burgess, K. D., & Bosson, J. K. (2015). Flash fire and slow burn: women’s

cardiovascular reactivity recovery following hostile and benevolent sexism.

Journal of Experimental Psychology, 144(2), 467-479.

Schneider, K.T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1997). Job-related and psychological

effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two

organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 223-233.

Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: differential effects on

self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 848-856.

 96

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman,

S. Wright, & M. Johnston, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio.

Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.

Shelton, J. T., Metzger, R. L., & Elliott, E. M. (2007). A group-administered lag task as a

measure of working memory. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 482-493.

Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007). When women become more hostilely

sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism.

Sex Roles, 57, 743-754.

Spector, P. E. (2008). Industrial and organizational behavior. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley

& Sons, Inc.

Van Vianen, A. E. M., & Fischer. A. H. (2002). Illuminating the glass ceiling: The role of

organizational culture preferences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 75, 315-337.

Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. (2005). Power and the creation of

patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and

their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 88, 658-672.

Xu, W., & Leffler, A. (1996). Gender and race effects on occupational prestige,

segregation, and earnings. In E. Ngan-Ling Chow, D. Wilkinson, & M. Baca Zinn

(Eds.), Race, class, and gender: Common bonds, different voices (pp. 107-124).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.