The “True” Romantic: Benevolent Sexism and Paternalistic Chivalry

Previous research has shown that individuals high in benevolent sexism positively evaluate women who conform to traditional gender roles (e.g., Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Warner, & Zhu, 1997). In the current study, male and female participants completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) and a new measure of paternalistic chivalry, that is, attitudes that are both courteous and considerate to women but place restrictions on behavior considered appropriate for women during courtship. Consistent with our hypotheses, benevolent sexism was significantly positively related to paternalistic chivalry. Hostile sexism and participant sex were unrelated to paternalistic chivalry

Why did the woman cross the road? Sexist humor and male self-reported 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

Public perceptions of Crime and Punishment.

Findings concerning people’s attitudes toward crime and punishment are often at odds, perhaps influenced by various factors that are not captured in the original research. The authors focus on some of the factors that have a bearing on the attitudes people express in order to gauge a more accurate assessment of public opinion. Historically, attitudes and policy approaches toward criminal justice have fluctuated based on the economic conditions of society. At times of high unemployment, public opinion on criminal justice tends to swing toward the more punitive so that conditions within prison are more austere than the living conditions of the poorest members of society. The influence of gender in attitudes toward crime and punishment is questioned as some studies have found gender differences while others have not. Racial differences in attitudes toward crime and punishment are similarly ambiguous. As such, categorizing the public’s attitudes toward crime and punishment according to demographic categories remains problematic as the influence of some demographics appear to be indirect. Similarly contrasting research is reviewed concerning the role that fear of crime plays in shaping public attitudes toward criminal justice practices. Some inconsistencies in research findings may be the result of differing methodologies. The role of victimization on public attitudes is reviewed; findings have failed to find a link between victimization and attitudes of increased punitiveness toward offenders. The link between individual ideological beliefs and attitudes toward crime and punishment has been probed by researchers who have identified some personal beliefs that influence attitudes, such as degree of religiosity and the belief in a just world. The influence of the type of offense on attitudes of punitiveness have been examined and has illustrated the more offenses an offender has committed, the more punitive the attitude toward the offender. Finally, the authors show that the attitudes of the public toward punitive punishments may be based on inaccurate knowledge of punitive sanctions. This review has established that the public’s attitudes toward crime and punishment are contextual and thus difficult to assess. Sweeping statements about the public’s desire for more punitive punishment are based on inaccurate measurements. Notes, reference

Using social norms to reduce men's rape proclivity: Perceived rape myth acceptance of out-groups may be more influential than that of in-groups.

Feedback about a reference group's rape myth acceptance (RMA) has been shown to affect men's rape proclivity (Bohner, Siebler, & Schmelcher, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 286–297, 2006). In two experiments with male university students (total N=294), this research was extended by varying the in-group vs out-group status of the reference group. Results showed that feedback about other men's RMA influenced self-reported RMA (Experiment 1) and rape proclivity (Experiments 1 and 2). Overall, participants' rape proclivity was affected by feedback about both in-groups' RMA and out-groups' RMA. The strongest reduction of rape proclivity was produced by low-RMA feedback about an out-group that participants expected to be high in RMA (Experiment 2). Implications for theory and intervention are discussed