Sexism

Abstract

Sexism is a type of prejudice: prejudice and discrimination directed at people on the basis of their sex, most often against women. Cognitive psychology's central contribution is ambivalent sexism theory, which shows that sexism is not a single hostile attitude but two linked orientations — hostile sexism, which punishes women who challenge men's status, and benevolent sexism, a subjectively positive but patronizing reverence for women who accept traditional roles. This article defines sexism, sets out its two-dimensional ambivalent structure and roots in the stereotype content model, traces how it operates through prescriptive stereotypes and backlash, reviews its measured consequences, and surveys current research. A worked example and three interactive demonstrations make the double bind, the warmth–competence trade-off, and the system-justifying pull of benevolent sexism concrete.

Keywords: sexism, ambivalent sexism, hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, gender stereotypes

What Sexism Is

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex, together with the beliefs and institutional arrangements that foster stereotyped social roles for women and men. As a form of prejudice, it shares the general structure of a group-directed attitude — a cognitive component of beliefs and stereotypes, an affective component of feeling, and a behavioral component of discrimination. What distinguishes sexism from prejudice in general is the peculiar relationship between its target groups. Unlike the racial or ethnic groups that classic prejudice research studied, women and men are not strangers living apart; they are intimate, interdependent, and continually in contact. This intimacy is the key to why sexism has a structure found in few other prejudices.

The folk understanding treats a sexist as someone who dislikes or demeans women — who believes them less capable, who resents their advancement, who holds them in contempt. This picture captures something real, but by itself it mispredicts the data. Overtly hostile beliefs about women's inferiority have declined across many societies over decades, much as old-fashioned racial prejudice has, yet gender disparities in pay, leadership, and domestic labor persist. Janet Swim and colleagues drew the parallel explicitly, distinguishing old-fashioned sexism — endorsement of unequal roles and of women's lesser competence — from modern sexism, a subtler denial that discrimination remains a problem, resentment of demands for equal treatment, and lack of support for policies to address it (Swim et al., 1995). On this account the hostility did not vanish; it went underground and changed register.

The deeper limitation of the hostility-only picture is that it misses an entire second dimension of sexism — one that does not feel like prejudice at all to the person who holds it, and often not to its target. A man who would never say women are inferior may still believe they are purer, warmer, more deserving of protection, and properly suited to the home; he may place women on a pedestal while opposing their equality. That subjectively positive orientation is as much a part of sexism as contempt is, and accounting for it is the achievement of the theory in the next section.

Ambivalent Sexism: Two Faces of One System

Peter Glick and Susan Fiske resolved the puzzle by proposing that sexism is fundamentally ambivalent: it comprises two distinct but correlated sets of attitudes, hostile and benevolent, which they measured with the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Hostile sexism is the familiar antagonism — the view that women seek to control men, exaggerate their grievances, and use sexuality or feminist demands to gain unfair advantage. Benevolent sexism is a subjectively favorable orientation that nonetheless casts women as weak, pure, and in need of men's protection and provision, deserving cherishing so long as they occupy conventional roles. The two are empirically positively correlated: the same cultures and often the same individuals that score high on one tend to score high on the other.

The content of these attitudes is not arbitrary. It follows the structure of the stereotype content model, which holds that groups are appraised along two near-universal dimensions — warmth (are they friendly, well-intentioned?) and competence (are they capable, effective?) — and that many groups receive ambivalent, off-diagonal appraisals that are high on one dimension and low on the other (Fiske et al., 2002). Traditional women — homemakers, mothers — are stereotyped as warm but not competent, the profile that elicits benevolent, paternalistic affection. Nontraditional women — career women, feminists — are stereotyped as competent but cold, the profile that elicits hostile, envious resentment. Benevolent and hostile sexism are the two ends of this warmth–competence trade-off applied to subtypes of women.

Why would prejudice take this split form? Glick and Fiske's answer is that it reflects the structure of relations between the sexes (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Men hold most structural power, which supports hostile, dominance-protecting attitudes. But men also depend on women — for intimacy, child-rearing, and dyadic relationships — which no other dominant group does of its subordinate, and that dependence generates genuine, if paternalistic, affection. Sexism therefore stabilizes as a carrot and a stick: benevolence rewards women who accept traditional, subordinate roles, hostility punishes those who challenge them. Across more than fifteen nations, Glick and Fiske found that hostile and benevolent sexism rise together and that both independently predict national indices of gender inequality — benevolent sexism, despite its warm tone, forecasts worse outcomes for women, not better. Table 1 contrasts the two faces across the dimensions that distinguish them.

The AmbivalentSexismMap demonstration below places subtypes of women on the warmth–competence plane and shows which form of sexism each off-diagonal position elicits.

How Sexism Operates: Prescriptive Stereotypes and Backlash

Gender stereotypes are not merely descriptive beliefs about how women and men are; they are prescriptive beliefs about how women and men should be (Ellemers, 2018). Women are expected to be communal — warm, kind, deferential, oriented to others; men are expected to be agentic — assertive, independent, competitive, oriented to achievement. The prescriptive force of these expectations is what gives sexism much of its behavioral bite, because violating a prescription provokes not just surprise but punishment.

Laurie Rudman and Peter Glick showed this directly in work on the backlash effect: women who display the agentic qualities that leadership demands — ambition, assertiveness, self-promotion — are judged as more competent but less likable and socially skilled, and this warmth penalty translates into worse hiring and promotion decisions (Rudman & Glick, 2001). Men pay no comparable penalty for agency, because agency is prescribed for them. The result is a classic double bind: a woman seeking a leadership role must be agentic to be seen as competent, but being agentic makes her be seen as cold, and she is penalized either way.

Alice Eagly and Steven Karau formalized the logic as role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Prejudice toward female leaders arises from a perceived incongruity between the female gender role and the leader role: because the two sets of expectations conflict, women are evaluated less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership positions, and behavior that fulfills the leader role is evaluated less favorably when a woman performs it. Two forms of prejudice follow — women find it harder to attain leadership roles, and their actual leadership is judged more harshly — both springing from the same incongruity rather than from any deficit in the women themselves. The Worked Example below makes the double bind quantitative.

The DoubleBindEvaluator demonstration below varies a candidate's agency to show how the same behavior yields a competence gain but, for a woman, a backlash penalty on warmth that a man does not incur.

The System-Justifying Function of Benevolent Sexism

If benevolent sexism feels like a compliment, why treat it as prejudice at all? The answer is that its warmth is precisely what makes it effective at maintaining inequality. John Jost and Aaron Kay demonstrated that exposure to benevolent sexism — but not hostile sexism — increases system justification, the tendency to see the existing social order as fair and legitimate (Jost & Kay, 2005). Complementary gender stereotypes of the form women are warm, men are competent spread perceived advantages across both groups, creating an illusion of balance that makes the overall arrangement feel equitable even though it allocates power asymmetrically. Benevolent sexism is the ideological lubricant of the gender hierarchy: it offers women a valued, protected identity in exchange for not contesting men's structural dominance.

This is why benevolent sexism depresses resistance. Julia Becker and Stephen Wright found that exposing women to benevolent sexism reduced their willingness to engage in collective action for gender equality, because it heightened the perceived advantages of the current system, whereas exposure to hostile sexism increased collective-action intentions by making the disadvantage salient (Becker & Wright, 2011). The two faces of sexism thus have opposite motivational effects, and the pleasant one is the demobilizing one. Manuela Barreto and Naomi Ellemers showed a further cost: benevolent sexism imposes a burden on its targets — it is harder to confront than hostile sexism because it does not look like discrimination, so women exposed to it often cannot name what is wrong, yet it still undermines their performance and sense of competence (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005).

The BenevolentSexismTradeoff demonstration below shifts the framing of a sexist message from hostile toward benevolent, showing its effect on perceived system fairness and on the motivation to challenge inequality move in opposite directions.

Measured Consequences

The behavioral consequences of these mechanisms have been documented in controlled experiments. In a widely cited audit, Corinne Moss-Racusin and colleagues sent science faculty an identical application for a laboratory-manager position, randomly labeled with a male or a female name. Faculty rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable, offered him a higher starting salary, and expressed more willingness to mentor him — and the gender of the evaluating faculty member made no difference, with women faculty showing the bias as much as men (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). The identical résumé makes the result unambiguous: the gap was produced by the name, which is to say by the evaluators' gender stereotypes, not by any difference in qualifications.

That such effects are real does not mean they are uniform, and recent meta-analytic work has sharpened the picture. David Galos and Alexander Coppock reanalyzed a large set of hiring audit experiments and found that the direction and size of gender bias depends systematically on the gender composition of the occupation: discrimination favors men in male-dominated fields and women in female-dominated ones, consistent with role-congruity logic rather than a blanket penalty against women everywhere (Galos & Coppock, 2023). The finding refines the account without overturning it — gender bias in evaluation is pervasive, but it is organized by the match between applicant gender and the gendered expectations of the role, exactly as role congruity theory predicts.

Worked Example: The Double Bind Quantified

The backlash mechanism is easiest to see in arithmetic. Suppose candidates for a leadership role are evaluated on two requirements, perceived competence and perceived warmth, each scored from 0 to 10 with a neutral baseline of 5, and that the hiring score is their sum. Candidates can present themselves in one of two ways:

- Agentic self-presentation (assertive, self-promoting) adds +3 competence. For a man this carries no warmth cost. For a woman it violates the communal prescription and triggers a backlash of −3 warmth (Rudman & Glick, 2001). - Communal self-presentation (modest, relational) adds +3 warmth but, read as less leader-like, subtracts −2 competence for everyone.

Trace the scores:

- Man, agentic: competence 5 + 3 = 8, warmth 5 → 13 - Woman, agentic: competence 5 + 3 = 8, warmth 5 − 3 = 2 → 10 - Woman, communal: competence 5 − 2 = 3, warmth 5 + 3 = 8 → 11

The man maximizes his score by being agentic (13). The woman's agentic strategy, which displays the same competence (8), yields her lowest score (10), because the backlash strips her warmth. Her best available score is the communal one (11), and the ratio of her best to his best is:

11 / 13 = 0.85

The structural point is not the 15% shortfall itself but its source: the woman cannot reach the man's score by any strategy. The very behavior that demonstrates the competence leadership requires is the behavior that is punished, and only for her. This is why the bind is called double — both roads are penalized — and why it cannot be escaped by the individual simply leaning in. The penalty is attached to the prescription, not to any deficit in performance.

Discussion

The cognitive psychology of sexism turns on a single reframing: sexism is not one attitude but two, and the subjectively positive one does most of the quiet work. Ambivalent sexism theory explains a set of facts that a hostility-only account cannot — why benevolent and hostile attitudes coexist and correlate, why prejudice toward women is so often experienced as reverence, why women themselves frequently endorse benevolent sexism, and why gender inequality persists through an era of declining overt hostility. The warmth–competence structure borrowed from the stereotype content model grounds the two faces in a general law of social perception, so sexism is not a special case but an instance of how ambivalent stereotypes form for any group that is simultaneously disliked and depended upon.

This has a sharp practical consequence. Interventions and norms built to catch hostility — anti-harassment rules, sanctions on demeaning speech, measures of explicit prejudice — are largely blind to benevolent sexism, which presents as courtesy and care. A workplace can eliminate overt hostility and still run on benevolent assumptions that steer women away from challenging assignments for their own good, and the people doing the steering will experience themselves as kind. Because benevolent sexism demobilizes its targets and justifies the system to observers, it can be more durable than the hostile form precisely because it does not trip the alarms that prejudice usually trips.

The account also clarifies the double bind's resistance to individual solutions. If the warmth penalty is attached to the prescription that women be communal, then advice to women to behave more agentically cannot by itself work — it moves them along the very dimension that triggers backlash. As with other structurally maintained prejudices, the effective levers act on the evaluation system rather than on the evaluated: structuring criteria so that competence is judged on evidence rather than impression, and making prescriptive expectations explicit so they can be set aside.

Current Directions

Several active lines are extending the theory. One asks how sexism is internalized and transmitted within close relationships rather than merely between strangers. Matthew Hammond, Nickola Overall, and Emily Cross found that women's own endorsement of benevolent sexism grows when they perceive it in their intimate partners, tracing a mechanism by which the ideology is maintained through the very relationships that give it its affectionate cover (Hammond, Overall, & Cross, 2016). This relational focus connects the social-cognitive account to the interpersonal processes through which attitudes are actually acquired.

A second line addresses measurement and the changing face of sexism. Miriam Zehnter and colleagues identified and validated a scale for belief in sexism shift — the increasingly common belief that sexism has reversed and now disadvantages men — arguing that contemporary gender prejudice includes this denial-and-reversal component alongside the hostile and benevolent dimensions (Zehnter et al., 2021). The work mirrors Swim's earlier move from old-fashioned to modern sexism: as overt forms become less acceptable, the prejudice migrates into new, harder-to-measure propositions.

A third effort is consolidation. Orly Bareket and Susan Fiske's systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature synthesizes more than two decades of findings, concluding that hostile sexism primarily protects men's dominance while benevolent sexism primarily guards the gender hierarchy by securing women's cooperation — and mapping where the evidence is strong and where it remains thin (Bareket & Fiske, 2023). Broader reviews of gender stereotypes continue to document how descriptive and prescriptive beliefs shape behavior across domains from hiring to the division of domestic labor (Ellemers, 2018), and meta-analytic reanalyses are refining exactly when and where evaluative gender bias appears (Galos & Coppock, 2023).

Common Misconceptions

Sexism just means hating or disrespecting women.

Hostility is only half of it. Ambivalent sexism theory shows that a subjectively positive orientation — benevolent sexism, which idealizes and protects women who keep to traditional roles — is an equally real component of sexism, and across nations it predicts gender inequality just as hostile sexism does (Glick & Fiske, 1996).

Benevolent sexism is harmless, even flattering.

Its warm tone is exactly what makes it effective at maintaining inequality. Benevolent sexism increases system justification, reduces women's support for collective action, and imposes a burden that is hard to confront because it does not look like discrimination (Jost & Kay, 2005; Becker & Wright, 2011).

A woman can escape bias simply by acting more confident and assertive.

Prescriptive stereotypes create a double bind: agentic women are seen as more competent but less likable, and the warmth penalty lowers hiring and promotion outcomes. Because the penalty is attached to the prescription that women be communal, behaving more agentically moves a woman straight into the backlash (Rudman & Glick, 2001).

Only men hold sexist attitudes, so bias disappears when women do the evaluating.

Benevolent sexism is frequently endorsed by women, and experimental evidence shows gender bias in evaluation is unaffected by the evaluator's gender — in the faculty audit, women scientists favored the male applicant as much as men did (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).

Glossary

Agentic.

The cluster of qualities — assertiveness, ambition, independence, competitiveness — prescribed for men and expected of leaders; when displayed by women it can trigger backlash.

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI).

The questionnaire developed by Glick and Fiske that measures hostile and benevolent sexism as separate subscales, enabling the two components to be studied independently.

Ambivalent sexism.

The theory, and the condition, in which sexism comprises two correlated orientations — hostile and benevolent — that jointly sustain gender inequality by punishing challenge and rewarding conformity.

Backlash effect.

The social and economic penalty imposed on people who violate prescriptive stereotypes; agentic women are rated less likable and face worse hiring and promotion outcomes despite being seen as competent.

Benevolent sexism.

A subjectively positive but patronizing orientation that casts women as pure, warm, and in need of protection, rewarding those who accept traditional roles; it predicts gender inequality despite its favorable tone.

Communal.

The cluster of qualities — warmth, kindness, deference, concern for others — prescribed for women; valued socially but read as less leader-like, producing a competence discount in leadership contexts.

Double bind.

The no-win situation prescriptive stereotypes create for women seeking leadership: agentic behavior earns a warmth penalty while communal behavior earns a competence discount, so both routes are penalized.

Hostile sexism.

The antagonistic component of sexism: resentment and contempt toward women perceived as seeking to control men or gain unfair advantage, directed especially at nontraditional women.

Modern sexism.

A subtle, contemporary form marked by denial that discrimination against women persists, resentment of demands for equal treatment, and opposition to remedial policies; the counterpart of modern racism.

Prescriptive stereotype.

A belief about how a group should behave, as opposed to a descriptive belief about how it does; prescriptive gender stereotypes carry a penalty for violation, which gives sexism much of its behavioral force.

Role congruity theory.

Eagly and Karau's account of prejudice toward female leaders as arising from perceived incongruity between the female gender role and the leader role, producing both reduced access to leadership and harsher evaluation of women's leadership.

Stereotype content model.

The model holding that groups are judged on two dimensions, warmth and competence; off-diagonal (high on one, low on the other) appraisals produce the ambivalent stereotypes underlying benevolent and hostile sexism.

System justification.

The motivated tendency to perceive the existing social order as fair and legitimate; benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes increase it, which is how a warm prejudice stabilizes an unequal arrangement.

Warmth–competence trade-off.

The tendency for groups rated high on one of the two core social-perception dimensions to be rated low on the other; applied to subtypes of women it yields the warm-but-incompetent and competent-but-cold profiles of benevolent and hostile sexism.

Key Researchers

Alice H. Eagly

(Northwestern University). Author, with Steven Karau, of role congruity theory, the account of prejudice toward female leaders as incongruity between the female gender role and the leader role. ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata

Naomi Ellemers

(Utrecht University). Social and organizational psychologist whose work on the burden of benevolent sexism and on descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes connects social-identity processes to the maintenance and resistance of gender inequality. ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata

Susan T. Fiske

(Princeton University). Co-developer of ambivalent sexism theory and originator of the stereotype content model, which grounds the two faces of sexism in the general warmth–competence structure of social perception. ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata

Peter Glick

(Lawrence University). Co-developer, with Susan Fiske, of ambivalent sexism theory and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, and of the account of sexism as two linked orientations — hostile and benevolent — that jointly police the gender hierarchy. Wikipedia - Wikidata

John T. Jost

(New York University). Originator of system justification theory, which explains how benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes legitimize the existing social order and so stabilize inequality. ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata

Laurie A. Rudman

(Rutgers University). Researcher of prescriptive gender stereotypes and the backlash effect, documenting the warmth penalty that agentic women incur and its consequences for hiring and advancement. ORCID - Wikipedia - Wikidata

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between hostile and benevolent sexism?

Hostile sexism is open antagonism toward women seen as seeking power or unfair advantage, directed especially at nontraditional women such as career women and feminists. Benevolent sexism is a subjectively positive orientation that idealizes and protects women who accept traditional roles, casting them as pure and warm but weak and in need of men's care. The two are positively correlated and work together, but only the hostile form feels like prejudice to most people.

Is benevolent sexism really a problem if it is meant kindly?

Yes. Its favorable tone is what makes it effective at maintaining inequality. Benevolent sexism increases system justification, reduces women's support for collective action, and is hard to confront because it does not look like discrimination. Across nations it predicts worse outcomes for women, not better, so good intentions do not make it benign.

What is the double bind for women in leadership?

Leadership calls for agentic qualities (assertiveness, ambition) that are prescribed for men but proscribed for women. A woman who is agentic is seen as competent but is penalized on warmth and likability; a woman who stays communal is liked but seen as less leader-like. Because both roads are penalized, she cannot win on evaluation by changing her own behavior alone.

How is sexism measured?

The most widely used instrument is the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, which scores hostile and benevolent sexism as separate subscales. Other measures capture modern sexism, the denial that discrimination persists, and newer scales assess the belief that sexism has reversed to disadvantage men. Separating the components matters because a person can be low on hostility yet high on benevolence.

Does sexism still exist if overt hostility has declined?

Yes. Overtly hostile beliefs about women's inferiority have declined in many societies, but sexism has largely migrated into subtler forms: modern sexism's denial of ongoing discrimination and the warm, system-justifying assumptions of benevolent sexism. Gender disparities in pay, leadership, and domestic labor persist even where explicit hostility is rare.

Do women hold sexist attitudes too?

Benevolent sexism is frequently endorsed by women, in part because it offers a valued and protected identity. Experimental evidence also shows that bias in evaluation does not depend on the evaluator's gender: in a controlled faculty audit, women scientists favored an identical male applicant as much as men did.

What is ambivalent sexism theory based on?

It rests on the stereotype content model, which holds that groups are judged on warmth and competence and that many receive ambivalent, off-diagonal appraisals. Applied to subtypes of women, this yields the warm-but-incompetent profile behind benevolent sexism and the competent-but-cold profile behind hostile sexism. The theory also roots the split in the intimate interdependence between the sexes, which generates both dependence-driven affection and power-driven hostility.

What reduces sexism in evaluation?

Because the penalties are attached to prescriptive stereotypes rather than to any deficit in women's performance, advice to individual women to change their behavior does not work, because being more agentic moves them into backlash. The effective levers act on the evaluation system: judging competence on evidence rather than impression, structuring criteria in advance, and making prescriptive expectations explicit so evaluators can set them aside.

References

Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(5), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.270

Bareket, O., & Fiske, S. T. (2023). A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men's power; benevolent sexism guards the gender hierarchy. Psychological Bulletin, 149(11–12), 637–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000400

Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Galos, D. R., & Coppock, A. (2023). Gender composition predicts gender bias: A meta-reanalysis of hiring discrimination audit experiments. Science Advances, 9(18), eade7979. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade7979

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109

Hammond, M. D., Overall, N. C., & Cross, E. J. (2016). Internalizing sexism within close relationships: Perceptions of intimate partners' benevolent sexism promote women's endorsement of benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 214–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000043

Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199

Zehnter, M. K., Manzi, F., Shrout, P. E., & Heilman, M. E. (2021). Belief in sexism shift: Defining a new form of contemporary sexism and introducing the belief in sexism shift scale (BSS scale). PLOS ONE, 16(3), e0248374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248374