Search results

The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of binge drinking behaviour and ambivalent sexism on attitudes towards hypothetical victims and perpetrators of acquaintance rape.

The research sample comprised 189 students. All were provided with a fictional rape scenario, depicting varying levels of perpetrator intoxication or varying extents to which an intoxicated victim was able to recall providing consent. Participants were then asked to rate their opinions of victim and perpetrator responsibility. They also completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), the Attitudes towards Rape Victim Scale (ARVS), and a measure to assess respondent binge drinking behaviour.

Respondents attributed more responsibility to intoxicated victims of acquaintance rape than victims who were not intoxicated. Respondents classified as non‐sexist had more victim empathy than respondents classified as ambivalent sexists. Respondents' binge drinking behaviour did not impact on attributions of victim responsibility.

Fictional rape scenarios are utilised in the current research. The research literature highlights the difficulties posed by the presence of uncontrolled variables (such as the description of the victim) within hypothetical scenarios. The findings reported here should therefore be generalised with caution. Recommendations for future research are suggested.

The study has practical implications in developing an understanding of legal decision making and factors influencing the potential secondary victimisation of victims.

The paper adds to the current literature in attempting to explore the influence of respondents' binge drinking behaviour on attitudes towards intoxicated victims.

The primary purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between ambivalent sexism (hostile and benevolent sexism) and managerial choice, considering organizational culture as a moderating variable. Additionally, the study addresses employees’ preference for working with same-sex managers as opposed to opposite-sex managers.

Data were collected from 245 white-collar employees working in a large-sized holding company in Ankara, Türkiye, using the survey method. PROCESS Macro was used to test the hypotheses.

Neither hostile nor benevolent sexism directly affected managerial choice. However, perceived gender equality within an organization was found to significantly affect the preference for working with female managers. Gender equality in organizational culture did not have a significant moderating effect on the relationship between hostile and benevolent sexism and the inclination to work with women managers. Furthermore, the participants reported a tendency to work with same-sex managers independent of their sexist attitudes and perceived organizational culture.

This study sheds light on the literature by examining the joint effects of sexism and perceived gender inequality on the desire of working women managers. In doing so, this study differs from previous studies focusing solely on individual variables such as personality and sexism or situational variables as hindering factors for women’s attainment of managerial positions.

Previous research demonstrates the damaging effects of hostile sexism enacted towards women in the workplace. However, there is less research on the consequences of benevolent sexism: a subjectively positive form of discrimination. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Drawing from ambivalent sexism theory, the authors first utilized an experimental methodology in which benevolent and hostile sexism were interpersonally enacted toward both male and female participants.

Results suggested that benevolent sexism negatively impacted participants' self-efficacy in mixed-sex interactions. Extending these findings, the results of a second field study clarify self-efficacy as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between benevolent sexism and workplace performance.

Finally, benevolent sexism contributed incremental prediction of performance above and beyond incivility, further illustrating the detrimental consequences of benevolently sexist attitudes towards women in the workplace.

Current events such as the #metoo and #timesup movements have ushered in an era of heightened awareness of sexist organizational climate. Increasingly, supporters have called for top-down changes, demanding that organizations embrace a culture of accountability. Accordingly, the current study proposed and investigated the concept of benevolently sexist organizational climate and explored the impact on women's state self-esteem, while testing for the potential moderating effects of power and gender.

The current experimental study utilized a video video-based manipulation to introduce benevolently sexist organizational climate with a 2 (content of communication) x 2 (gender of communicator) x 2 (status of communicator) between-subjects design. The hypotheses were tested using an analysis of variance moderation model, based on a sample of 652 women.

Results indicated a significant two-way interaction between benevolently sexist organizational climate and power on self-esteem. Specifically, results suggested that benevolently sexist organizational climates have a greater negative impact on women's self-esteem when a supervisor communicates the information on the climate as opposed to a coworker.

Benevolently sexist climate had a deleterious impact on women's organizational outcomes especially when communicated by a supervisor. These findings can be used for guidance on the development of training and interventions targeted at mitigating the prevalence of benevolently sexist workplace climate.

This study was the first to propose the concept of a benevolently sexist organizational climate. Additionally, the study demonstrated the negative impact of a benevolently sexist organizational climate on women's state self-esteem providing important implications for organizations. Further theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Purpose – This study examines the relationship between endorsement of positive stereotypes of women and support for women's rights to shed light on the role that endorsement of positive stereotypes may play in maintaining social stratification.

Design/methodology/approach – The study uses data collected from a web-based survey of 181 male undergraduate students in six different universities and colleges to examine the relationship between the endorsement of positive stereotypes of women and support for women's rights. The paper examines four ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models to determine the relationship and utilizes the statistical software Stata 9.2.

Findings – Rather than a simple direct relationship, the findings suggest that the relationship between the endorsement of positive stereotypes and support for women's rights varies based on the level of hostile sexism. Increased endorsement of positive stereotypes of women was associated with decreased support for women's rights among males with the lowest level of hostile sexism, but the opposite relationship was found for males at the mean and the highest level of hostile sexism.

Research limitations/implications – The findings suggest that endorsement of positive stereotypes plays a unique role for males who do not endorse traditional sexist attitudes. Although data are not available to clarify what processes might be undergirding the relationship, the author suggests directions for future research.

Practical implications – Given the relationship found, prejudice reduction interventions that rely on the promotion of positive stereotypes of various social groups should be closely examined to determine if they actually foster attitudes that are detrimental for the eradication of social stratification.

Originality/value – This study is one of the first to examine the possible negative impacts of endorsement of positive stereotypes of women on gender stratification through a moderated relationship with levels of hostile sexism.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the consumer response to brands offering gendered product differentiation (i.e. products “for her” or “for him”).

Across three experiments, the effect of gendered (vs gender-unrelated) product differentiation on perceived brand sexism and word-of-mouth intention was tested. The moderating effects of feminist identity (Studies 1 and 2), endorsement of sexist beliefs (Study 2) and basis (stereotypical vs biological) for product differentiation (Study 3) were also tested.

Consumers perceive brands that offer gendered product differentiation as sexist, which in turn leads to negative word-of-mouth intention. Moreover, consumers with a strong feminist identity are more likely to perceive brands that offer gendered product differentiation as sexist, whereas consumers who endorse sexist beliefs are less likely to do so. Finally, consumers respond negatively when the gendered product differentiation is based on a gender stereotype, but much less so when it seems based on a biological difference between sexes.

Although multiple brands offering gendered products have been denounced by consumers as sexist, no research has examined this phenomenon. This paper pioneers in examining the consumer response to brands offering gendered product differentiation and in demonstrating that consumers perceive such brands as sexist.