1. Introduction
Results and Discussion
This research examined the effects of sexual objectification in the workplace on women
who hold benevolently sexist beliefs.
Benevolent sexism is the tendency to reward women for conforming to gender
stereotypical roles. Glick and Fiske (1996) re-conceptualized sexism as an ambivalence
(hostility and benevolence) towards women and created a benevolent sexism scale.
Sexual harassment, which is uninvited sexual conduct—including sexual objectification—
in the workplace is common. Title VII defines a hostile work environment as one in which
the gender-based conduct is unwelcome and pervasive or severe. When sexual conduct is
unwelcome and is sufficiently severe and/or pervasive, it may reach legally actionable
levels of sexual harassment. However, it is crucial that women identify and object to this
behavior. We suggest that women high (vs. low) in benevolent sexism may be less likely to
have negative psychological reactions (e.g., negative emotions, sexual harassment
perceptions) to sexual objectification at work because they do not see it as problematic.
Yet, sexual objectification may still have a negative impact on women’s work performance.
Sexual Objectification is the act of reducing people to their sexual body parts or functions.
Women who are objectified experience cognitive decrements in work contexts (Gervais et
al., 2011). However, experiencers’ benevolent sexism may alter these effects. For
instance, benevolently sexist beliefs are positively correlated with the enjoyment of
sexualization, which may contribute to less negative affect following an objectifying
experience (Liss, et. al., 2011). Considering work performance, women who endorse
benevolently sexist beliefs tend to adhere to gender stereotypes, such as the prevalent
stereotype that women are more likely to perform poorly in math related areas. These
beliefs can cause anxiety in situations where individuals may reinforce these stereotypes
and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Finally, for perceptions of sexual harassment, those
high in benevolent sexism are more likely to engage in victim blaming and less likely to find
“evidence” of harassment even in aggressive cases (Wiener et al., 2010).
When Benevolence is Hostile:
The Role of Ambivalent Sexism in Sexual Harassment Assessments
Jamie Porter, Tran Le, Claire Ruhlman, Rachel O’Hanlon, Autumn Kramer, Sarah J. Gervais, Ph.D., & Richard Wiener, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Methods
ANALYSES
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine if benevolent
sexism (which was centered) moderated the relation between objectification
and negative affect, performance, and sexual harassment. The interaction
between benevolent sexism and objectification was
• marginally significant for negative affect scores (R = .48, p = .058),
• significant for Wonderlic performance (R = .52. p = .028),
• significant for complainant legal scores (R = .69, p < .0001),
• significant for complainant impact scores (R = .59, p = .004).
1) The first hypothesis was partially supported (Figure 1). Participants in the
severe objectification condition who scored higher (vs. lower) on benevolent
sexism experienced less negative affect. Participants who experienced mild
objectification showed a similar pattern, but it was not significant.
2) The second hypothesis was partially supported (Figure 2). Participants
who experienced severe objectification who scored higher (vs. lower) on
benevolent sexism performed more poorly. Contrary to the hypothesis,
participants who experienced mild objectification showed the same
significant pattern of effects on work performance.
3) The third hypothesis was partially supported (Figure 3 and 4).
Participants in the severe objectification condition who scored higher (vs.
lower) on benevolent sexism rated the objectification as both less legally
actionable and as having less aversive psychological impact. Participants
who experienced mild objectification showed a similar pattern, but it was not
significant.
As hypothesized, there were no significant effects in the control conditions.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Due to the limitations of this study, future directions may include conducting
a similar study with a larger, more representative sample frame, including
participants from a variety of regions and varying in age. Additionally,
another study could be conducted to examine differences in the effects of
benevolent sexism and objectification among different racial groups. Lastly,
it would be beneficial to examine the relationship between hostile sexist
beliefs and these outcomes as well as the relationship between men’s
benevolent sexism and their ratings of sexual harassment based on
observations of instances of objectification.
We predicted there would be a significant interaction between benevolent sexism and
objectification. As a result, endorsement of benevolently sexist beliefs will be correlated with:
1) Less Negative Emotion (compared to those who do not endorse benevolently sexist
beliefs) following experiencing severe objectification.
2) Poorer Work Performance (compared to those who do not endorse benevolently sexist
beliefs) following experiencing severe objectification
3) Lower Legal and Personal Impact Sexual Harassment Ratings (compared to those who
do not endorse benevolently sexist beliefs) following experiencing severe objectification.
Participants who experience mild objectification will show a similarly significant pattern in all
areas but to a lesser degree. Those in the control condition will show no significant effects.
Fig 1. Negative Affect as a Function of
Objectification and Benevolent Sexism
Fig 2. Wonderlic Performance as a Function
of Objectification and Benevolent Sexism
Fig.3. Complainant Legal as a Function
of Objectification and Benevolent Sexism
Fig 4. Complainant Impact as a Function
of Objectification and Benevolent Sexism
PARTICIPANTS
• 45 undergraduate women; 18 to 25 years old (M = 19.62, SD = 1.61)
MATERIALS
• Experienced Emotion: PANAS-X (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) includes
negative emotion items (e.g., distressed) to assess the level of experienced
emotion on a scale from 1-5.
• Work Performance: Wonderlic Personnel Test-Contemporary Version
(Wonderlic & Wonderlic, 1992) assesses cognitive performance (number of
items correct) on a scale from 0-50.
• Sexual Harassment: The Sexual Harassment Questionnaire (Wiener et al.,
2012) includes legal elements (e.g., severe, pervasiveness) and personal
impact (negative effect on psychological well-being) to assess sexual
harassment on a scale from 1-9.
• Benevolent Sexism: The Benevolent Sexism Sub-Scale (Glick & Fiske, 1996)
includes items to assess benevolent sexism (e.g., “Many women have a
quality of purity that few men possess and a man is not complete without a
woman”) on a scale from 1-6.
PROCEDURES
Participants engaged in an interview consisting of 10 open-ended questions that
asked about previous experiences in secretarial or creative tasks, skills, and
interests with a male research assistant. Objectification was manipulated during
the interview:
• High severity: Several long (5-6 second) glances at the participant’s chest
and an appearance criticism directed at the participant (“That’s a really
unexpected answer for a woman who looks like you”).
• Low severity: Several short (3-4 second) glances at the participant’s chest
and an appearance compliment (“That’s a really unexpected answer for a
woman as good-looking as you”).
• No objectification control: Eye contact after all questions and neutral
commentary (“That’s a really unexpected answer”).
Upon completing the interview, the male interviewer gave the participant the
PANAS-X and Wonderlic. After the participant completed the surveys, a female
research assistant asked the participant to complete the sexual harassment
questionnaire, manipulation checks, measures of individual differences (including
the Benevolent Sexism Sub-Scale), and demographics.
High Severity Low Severity Control
Hypotheses