Female targets of discrimination are nonetheless liked more than men

Evidence

Research on gender attitudes and discrimination has also challenged Allportian assumptions. It has increasingly been shown that while women experience persistent occupational and income discrimination, women in general are liked as much as or more than men (Eagly & Diekman, ch. 2 this volume; Jackman, 1994; Rudman, ch. 7 this volume). In a more generic vein, experiments by Ridgeway (2001) found that, while the resource-rich are more likely to be seen as competent and agentic, the resource-poor are more likely to been seen positively as likeable, considerate, and cooperative (see also Fiske, ch. 3 this volume). Glick and Fiske’s (2001) research on “ambivalent sexism” has shown that attitudes toward women bifurcate into “benevolent” and “hostile” types of sexism, depending on whether the female target follows the traditional, deferential (communal) model or the career-oriented, feminist (agentic) model. Hostility is thus reserved only for those women who defy traditional, discriminatory injunctions (Rudman, ch. 7 this volume). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 661

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces benevolent vs. hostile sexism — attitudes that bifurcate based on whether a woman conforms to traditional roles.
• CANDY: The finding that the most discriminated-against group is also the best-liked is a striking, tweetable paradox.
• XREF: Connects to the resource-rich vs. resource-poor competence/likeability tradeoff, echoing Fiske’s stereotype content model and the broader warmth-competence tradeoff. — connects to: Greater explicit positivity toward women rules out the attitude interpretation of male-name favoritism. — Anthony G. Greenwald and Mahzarin R. Banaji, Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes,…, 206