The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality.
Abstract
The equation of prejudice with antipathy is challenged by recent research on sexism. Benevolent sexism (a subjectively favorable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrace conventional roles) coexists with hostile sexism (antipathy toward women who are viewed as usurping men's power). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, first validated in U.S. samples, has been administered to over 15,000 men and women in 19 nations. Hostile and benevolent sexism are complementary, cross-culturally prevalent ideologies, both of which predict gender inequality. Women, as compared with men, consistently reject hostile sexism but often endorse benevolent sexism (especially in the most sexist cultures). By rewarding women for conforming to a patriarchal status quo, benevolent sexism inhibits gender equality. More generally, affect toward minority groups is often ambivalent, but subjectively positive stereotypes are not necessarily benign.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491 · Cited by 5,202
Self-citationRudman, L. A. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629 · Cited by 1,511
Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Women and Men
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167289154008 · Cited by 785
Cited by
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x · Cited by 2,883
A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82 · Cited by 2,163
8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211628 · Cited by 2,385
Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., Kwan, V. S. Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J., Bond, M. H., Croizet, J., Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E., et al. (2009) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466608x314935 · Cited by 1,078
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T.
- Venue
- American Psychologist
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 109-118
- ISSN
- 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-990X
- OpenAlex
- W1983912405
- Cited by
- 1,896
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 74.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0003-066x.56.2.109
- The paper
- Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.2.109
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
