Why did the woman cross the road?:The effect of sexist humor on men’s rape proclivity

Previous research has shown that exposure to sexist (vs. non-sexist) humor results in more tolerance of sexist discrimination (Ford & Fergusson, 2004). In the current research, three studies investigated the effects of exposure to sexist humor on men’s rape proclivity. In Study 1, male students were exposed to either sexist or non-sexist jokes. Males exposed to sexist jokes reported higher levels of rape proclivity in comparison to males exposed to non-sexist jokes. Study 2 was an online study in which we replicated Study 1, but also measured male participants’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. Study 3 was a replication of Study 2, in which we controlled for the sexual content of the jokes. Overall, the results of Study 2 and Study 3 indicated that men who scored high (vs. low) on hostile sexism reported higher levels of rape proclivity after exposure to sexist versus non-sexist jokes. No such effects were obtained for benevolent sexism

Playing games and asking questions in a non-WEIRD sample:Adapting and testing the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory in Western Burkina Faso

A recent debate across the social sciences questions the generalizability of research findings obtained from Western Educated Industrialised Rich and Democratic (WEIRD) samples to the rest of humanity at large. In this paper, we aim to adapt and test the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI, Glick & Fiske, 1996), on a small, non-WEIRD sample of men in Burkina Faso. Using a within-participants experimental design we further attempt to cross-validate this adapted ASI with a behavioural measure, namely the dictator game. Generally, the adapted version of the ASI does not perform well in terms of validity and reliability. In the dictator game, women generally receive a larger proportion of the stake than men. While the allocations to male recipients are not related to participants’ levels of hostile or benevolent sexism, there is a significant negative correlation between benevolent sexism and allocations to female recipients

Ambivalent sexism as a boundary condition for the contact hypothesis: The case of romantic relationships

This thesis examines whether cross-gender contact can reduce ambivalent sexism in men. According to intergroup contact theory (e.g. Allport, 1954, Amir, 1969, Pettigrew, 1997), positive contact reduces prejudice. Sexism has been defined as gender-based prejudice (Glick & Fiske, 1996); hence contact may reduce sexism in men. However, a literature review suggests that men distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ women (e.g. Tavris & Wade, 1984) and respond to them differentially (e.g. Glick et al., 1997). Thus, cross-gender contact might not be effective in reducing sexism and the reverse causal sequence may be operating. It is the aim of this thesis to test these opposing predictions. This thesis presents nine empirical studies. Study 1 links ambivalent sexism and the contact hypothesis. Studies 2 and 3 attempt to establish the causal sequence of the link between sexism and contact. Study 4 is a simplification of Study 1, focussing on the context of romantic relationships. Study 5 is a pilot study, testing materials by Siebler et al. (2008) and linking them to the stereotype content model (Fiske et ah, 2002). These materials are used in Studies 6 to 8, which assess whether ambivalent sexism predicts partner (i.e. contact) preferences in men. Study 9 presents longitudinal data to address the question regarding the causal sequence of the sexism - contact link. Taken together, the results indicate that sexism leads to selective contact preferences in men. While hostile sexism is linked to contact quality, Study 8 indicates that this is due to the rejection of non-traditional romantic partners by men high in hostile sexism. With reference to benevolent sexism, the results indicate that higher levels of benevolent sexism predict preferences for a traditional romantic partner. The thesis concludes with a summary of the findings, a discussion of limitations and suggestions for future research

What’s so funny ‘bout peace, love and understanding? Further reflections on the limits of prejudice reduction as a model of social change for psychologists.

This paper aims to encourage greater reflexivity about the limits of prejudice reduction as a model of social change, particularly when applied to societies characterised by historically entrenched patterns of inequality. We begin by outlining some underlying values and assumptions of this model. We then elaborate how our research on political attitudes in post-apartheid South Africa has led us to question, qualify and sometimes reject those assumptions and move towards a ‘contextualist’ perspective on the efficacy of different models of social change. We agree that the project of getting us to like one another may be crucial for producing change in some contexts. In other contexts, however, it is an epiphenomenon that distracts psychologists from the main causes of, and solutions to, problems such as race, class, or gender discrimination. In still others, with an irony that is evidenced increasingly by research, prejudice reduction may actually contribute to the very problem it is designed to resolve. That is, it may diminish the extent to which social injustice is acknowledged, rejected and challenged

The impact of gender ideologies on men's and women's desire for a traditional or non-traditional partner

Two studies examine preferences for a long-term partner who conforms to traditional or non- traditional gender roles. The studies both demonstrate a link between benevolent sexism and preference for a traditional partner. However, Study 1 also demonstrates a strong preference among women for a non-traditional partner. We measured ambivalent sexist ideologies before introducing participants to either a stereotypically traditional or stereotypically non-traditional character of the opposite sex. In Study 1, women high in benevolence toward men reported a preference for a traditional man when compared to women low in benevolence toward men. We found no such link for hostility toward men. Study 2 showed that men high in benevolent sexism preferred a traditional woman more than men low in benevolent sexism. Again, this was not the case for hostile sexism. The studies provide evidence using both the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and demonstrate a relationship between benevolent ideology and partner choice that adds to a literature on partner preference which has to date been focused on preference dimensions of attractiveness and resources

Sexist humour and social identity: The role of sexist humour in men’s ingroup cohesion, sexual harassment, rape proclivity and victim blame

Jokes have been recognised as ways in which negative attitudes and prejudice can be communicated and enacted in hidden ways (e.g., Allport 1954; Freud 2004 [1905]). In this paper, we review the existing literature on the functions and effects of sexist humour, using Martineau’s (1972) model on the social functions of humour as well as Tajfel and Turner’s (2004 [1986]) Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Turner et al.’s (1987) Self Categorisation Theory. Within these frameworks, we particularly focus on sex as an intergroup context and on the way sexist humour functions to a) enhance male ingroup cohesion (sexist humour as a predictor) b) serves as a form of sexual harassment (sexist humour as an outcome) and c) amplifies self-reported rape proclivity and victim blame (sexist humour as a moderator). The paper concludes by highlighting gaps in the existing literature and providing directions for future research

Many Labs 5:Testing pre-data collection peer review as an intervention to increase replicability

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3?9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276?3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (?r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00?.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19?.50)

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely highpowered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIP