'This study tested whether men's and women's hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS) were associated with resistance to influence in couples' conflict interactions. Ninety-one heterosexual couples were recorded while trying to produce desired changes in each other. Participants reviewed their discussions and rated how open they were to their partner's perspective. Objective coders also rated the extent to which each partner exhibited hostile communication. We tested key principles arising from ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). First, BS is necessary because mutual interdependence reduces the power of HS to influence women within intimate relationships. We found that the more men endorsed HS, the less open and more hostile both partners were, and the less successful their discussions were in producing desired change. Second, BS reduces the threat of women's dyadic power by revering and respecting women's interpersonal roles while restricting women's influence outside the relationship domain. We found that men who expressed higher agreement with BS were more open to their partners' influence and behaved with less hostility, and their discussions were more successful. These relationship benefits illustrate why BS is effective at disarming women's resistance to wider inequalities. These benefits, however, were contingent on men adopting BS attitudes. When women strongly endorsed BS but their male partner did not, women were less open, behaved with greater hostility, and perceived their discussions as less successful. These results indicate that, because BS increases the stakes within the relationship domain, women who endorse BS will react more negatively when their expectations are not realized. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Links
Full text
Purchase PDF
Journal TOC
©2014 American Psychological Association | PDF documents require Adobe Acrobat Reader | Terms and Conditions