Women & Health, 55:245–262, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0363-0242 print/1541-0331 online DOI: 10.1080/03630242.2014.996721

Everyday Exposure to Benevolent Sexism and Condom Use Among College Women CAROLINE C. FITZ, PhD Department of Psychology, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

ALYSSA N. ZUCKER, PhD Department of Psychology and Program in Women’s Studies, The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

Understanding factors related to condom use is critical in reducing the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), especially for women, who are disproportionately affected by many STIs. Extant work has shown that perceived sexism is one such factor associated with lower levels of condom use among women, but has yet to explore whether benevolent sexism in particular—a subtle form of sexism that often goes unnoticed and increases cognitions and behaviors consistent with traditional female gender roles (e.g., sexual submissiveness)—relates negatively to this safer-sex practice. The present research tested this possibility and, in addition, examined whether relational sex motives, which reflect a desire to engage in sex as a means to foster partners’ sexual satisfaction, mediated the relation between benevolent sexism and condom use. During the spring of 2011, female college students ( N = 158) reported how often they experienced benevolent sexism in their daily lives and, 2 weeks later, their relational sex motives and condom use. Supporting hypotheses results indicated that greater exposure to benevolent sexism was associated significantly with lower condom use, and that relational sex motives mediated this relationship. We discuss implications for women’s well-being, including ways to promote safer sex in the face of sexism. KEYWORDS health

benevolent sexism, condom use, women’s sexual

Received October 23, 2013; revised April 22, 2014; accepted May 11, 2014. Address correspondence to Caroline C. Fitz, PhD, Department of Psychology, The George Washington University, 2125 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20052. E-mail: [email protected] 245

246

C. C. Fitz and A. N. Zucker

INTRODUCTION Contracting a sexually transmitted infection (STI) can be a psychologically, socially, and physically costly experience (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2010; East et al. 2012). Notably, the prevalence of many STIs is higher among women than men. For example, women 15 to 24 years old are approximately 3.5 times as likely as their male counterparts to contract chlamydia (CDC 2010). Thus, ensuring women engage in safer sex practices is crucial in reducing the spread of STIs (UNAIDS 2009). Consistent and correct use of male condoms is the most effective way to combat the spread of STIs (UNAIDS 2009). Despite this, research has shown that, on average, women 18 to 24 years old report using condoms fewer than four out of every ten times they have sexual intercourse (Reece et al. 2010). Contending with everyday experiences of sexism may be an important barrier to condom use among women (e.g., Teti, Bowleg, and Lloyd 2010). Indeed, even in its most subtle forms, sexism functions to reinforce gendered power imbalances that are related to lower levels of reported condom use among women (Bowleg, Lucas, and Tschann, 2004; Sanchez, Crocker, and Boike 2005), and recent work has linked self-reported experiences of overt, hostile sexism and sexual health outcomes (e.g., Choi, Bowleg, and Neilands 2011). However, to our knowledge, research has yet to explore whether other, more subtle and benevolent manifestations of sexism—which are increasingly prevalent in Western nations (e.g., Glick et al. 2000)—are associated with risky sexual behavior. The present study addressed this gap by examining the link between exposure to benevolent sexism and unprotected sex among college women.

SEXISM AND WOMEN’S HEALTH Recently, social scientists have begun to explore the nexus between discrimination and physical health and health-risk behaviors (Pascoe and Smart Richman 2009). Much of this work has examined these links within a stressand-coping framework (e.g., Williams and Mohammed 2009); discrimination is viewed as a stressor that increases the likelihood that the demands of an individual’s environment will exceed his or her coping resources, and in turn, lead to negative health behaviors for emotion management. Within this literature, perceived sexism has been associated with many negative health-related outcomes, such as binge drinking, cigarette smoking, and premenstrual symptoms (Landrine et al. 1995; Zucker and Landry 2007). Experimental studies have corroborated these cross-sectional findings, showing that women who have experienced sexism exhibit heightened cardiovascular reactivity and cortisol levels—risk factors for hypertension and

Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Condom Use

247

cardiovascular disease—compared to those who have not (Eliezer, Major, and Mendes 2010; Townsend et al. 2011). With the exception of research by Bowleg and colleagues (e.g., Bowleg, Neilands, & Choi, 2008; Teti, Bowleg, and Lloyd 2010), few studies have explored the implications of perceived sexism in the sexual health arena, which is surprising, considering many feminist scholars have maintained that gender inequality may have an impact on women’s sexual functioning (e.g., Gavey 2005; Tolman 2006). Choi, Bowleg, and Neilands (2011) found that self-reported experiences of sexism were associated with risky sexual health behaviors (e.g., unprotected and physically-forced sex) among low income and racial minority women, and furthermore, that psychological distress and involvement in difficult sexual situations (i.e., having sex under the influence of alcohol or drugs, trading sex for money or gifts, and having been sexually coerced) mediated these relationships. Additionally, Fitz and Zucker (2014) found that, for women with weaker feminist beliefs, perceived and experimentally manipulated sexism were associated with lower sexual self-efficacy and condom use intentions. Albeit limited, this research is consistent with the larger literature linking perceived sexism to poorer health-relevant outcomes and suggests that sexism, specifically explicit or blatant sexism, is related to women’s engagement in unprotected sex.

DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN HOSTILE AND BENEVOLENT SEXISM Experiences of sexism typically have been defined as women’s experiences with overtly antagonistic instances of sex-based harassment and unfair treatment (e.g., Bowleg et al. 2008). However, sexism takes many forms and need not always be unambiguously hostile and aversive (Glick and Fiske 1996). Indeed, less explicit types of sexism have become increasingly common in the United States (Glick et al. 2000), and some research has suggested that exposure to these more subtle expressions of sexism can be detrimental to women (e.g., Dardenne, Dumont, and Bollier 2007). Benevolent sexism is one such instance of these more discreet instances of sexism, and refers to attitudes or behaviors towards women that can appear favorable, but are sexist because they are driven by restrictive, stereotypical beliefs about women (e.g., chivalry; Glick and Fiske 1996). The expression “don’t worry your pretty little head over this” is one example of benevolent sexism, because despite its outwardly positive feel, it implicitly suggests that women—however wonderful they may be (Eagly and Mladinic 1993)—lack agency and need men’s help. Studies have shown that women’s reactions to benevolent sexism differ markedly from their reactions to hostile sexism. Typically, women perceive hostile sexism negatively, and as a result of being the target of such unfair

248

C. C. Fitz and A. N. Zucker

treatment, experience anger, distress, and physiological arousal and are more likely to engage in collective action on behalf of women (e.g., Becker and Wright 2011; Brinkman, Garcia, and Rickard 2011; Townsend et al. 2011). Contrary to these responses, exposure to benevolent sexism instead often leads women to react relatively more positively and engage in stereotypically feminine behaviors unwittingly. For example, women report being more attracted to men with stronger benevolent sexist attitudes (Montañes et al. 2013), and in response to exposure to benevolent sexism (versus hostile or no sexism), women describe themselves as more relational and less work-focused (Barreto et al. 2010), perform more poorly on demanding cognitive tasks (Dardenne, Dumont, and Bollier 2007), and are more appearance-focused (Calogero and Jost 2011). Particularly germane to the present study, research has also shown that women are less likely to have an active response to sexual violence (i.e., get angry, end the relationship, and report the sexual assault to authorities) when the perpetrator is a benevolently sexist man (Durán, Moya, and Megías 2013). Thus, as opposed to an unequivocally negative response, women tend to react to benevolent sexism more favorably and by fulfilling traditional female gender roles that depict women not only as inferior and dependent in general, but also passive in relation to (dangerous) sexual behavior. In this way, benevolent sexism is insidious, especially when the gender role-conforming behavior has negative health implications.

BENEVOLENT SEXISM, GENDER ROLES, AND CONDOM USE Female gender roles have long stifled the sexual development and lives of women by denying and subordinating their sexual desires (Tolman 2006). In particular, these norms tell women to be deferential to men, interpersonally sensitive, and relationship- or partner-focused (Denmark and Paludi 2008). Specifically in relation to sexual roles, women are deterred from being sexually assertive, and instead, are expected to strive to please men, acquiesce to their sexual desires, and be submissive (e.g., Gavey 2005). To this point, women implicitly associate sexual activity with submissiveness, and these implicit associations have been related to higher levels of reported submissive behavior during sex (Sanchez, Kiefer, and Ybarra 2006). Because condom use is active, assertive, and linked to less sexual pleasure for men (Randolph et al. 2007), it falls in direct contrast with these female gender and sexual roles. In fact, the more women are aware of, value, and feel pressure to conform to such norms, the less sexually autonomous and assertive they are and the less likely they are to use condoms (Bowleg, Lucas, and Tschann 2004; Jones and Gulick 2009; Sanchez, Crocker, and Boike 2005). Hence, because benevolent sexism leads to traditional gender role conformity and less active responses to men’s sexual behavior (e.g.,

Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Condom Use

249

Barreto et al. 2010; Durán, Moya, and Megías 2013), and traditional gender roles would have women be sexually passive and pleasing to men, exposure to this form of sexism may be associated with higher rates of unprotected sex for women. Additionally, traditional female gender roles may translate into a desire to use intercourse as a means to foster and maintain relational bonds with male partners as opposed to sex being strictly pleasurable in its own right (Jenkins 2003). However inherently pleasurable sexual activity may be, for the relationally-motivated woman, this pleasure is derived, at least in part, from perceiving sex as a relationship-building activity that her partner enjoys. Although relational sex motives are positive both for women and their sexual partners, such motives may curtail condom use if women believe the prevailing assumption that condoms will jeopardize and interfere with their partners’ positive sexual experience (Gavey and McPhillips 1999). Thus, to the extent that relational sex motives are one manifestation of traditional female gender roles, they may be the tie that connects benevolent sexism to lower condom use. The current study examined the relationships among self-reported exposure to benevolent sexism, relational sex motives, and condom use among a sample of undergraduate women—a population for whom condom rates are particularly low and STI rates are high (CDC 2010; Walsh et al. in press). Specifically, this research tested the hypothesis that self-reported exposure to benevolent sexism would be related to condom use negatively, and that increases in relational sex motives would mediate this relation.

METHOD Participants Participants from a private, U.S. Mid-Atlantic university were recruited via the Psychology Department’s online research sign-up system during the spring of 2011 and received course credit in exchange for their time. The Psychology Department allowed us to recruit up to 200 female students for this study. Women were eligible to participate if they identified as being heterosexual and sexually active and were over 18 years of age. In total, 199 women signed up for the study; 161 completed the survey (response rate = 81 percent). Three participants were excluded from analyses because the number of times they reported using condoms was far greater than the number of times they reported having sexual activity, leaving a final sample size of 158.

Procedure The university institutional review board approved all study materials and procedures. Participants completed a two-part online survey in which

250

C. C. Fitz and A. N. Zucker

Parts 1 and 2 were separated by a 2-week interval to reduce participant fatigue and hypothesis guessing. At the start of each part of the study, participants provided informed consent by reading through a consent form and selecting “I agree to participate in this study.” During Part 1, we assessed everyday exposure to benevolent sexism. In Part 2, participants reported their reasons for having sex, condom use, and background information.

Measures PERCEIVED EXPERIENCES

OF

BENEVOLENT SEXISM (PART 1)

To measure participants’ everyday experiences of benevolent sexism, we modified the benevolent sexism (BS) subscale of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), a valid and reliable measure of individuals’ sexist attitudes (Glick and Fiske 1996). In its original form, the ASI measures individuals’ personal sexist attitudes towards women, and is composed of benevolent (e.g., “Women should be placed on a pedestal”) and hostile (e.g., “Women exaggerate problems they have at work”) sexism subscales each consisting of eleven items that are endorsed using Likert-type scale responses ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For the present study, we adapted the BS subscale of the ASI to assess how often participants experienced benevolent sexism over the past year. In total, we used ten out of the original eleven items from the original BS subscale. We excluded one item (i.e., “People are often happy without heterosexual romance”) from the modified BS subscale because it could not be readily translated into treatment that women encounter in their daily lives. To capture exposure to BS, participants answered ten items each for three groups of men—their male romantic partners, friends and peers, and family, respectively. Participants responded to each item using a 1 (never) to 6 (almost all of the time) scale to indicate how often each group of men behaved in a benevolently sexist manner towards them over the past year (e.g., “My romantic partners place me on a pedestal”; “My male friends and peers cherish and protect me”). This 6-point continuum and 1-year timeframe for assessing exposure to BS was modeled after other measures of reported experiences of unfair treatment (e.g., The Schedule of Sexist Events; Landrine and Klonoff 1997; see below). We averaged responses across all items to compute overall BS scores, with higher scores indicating more experiences of benevolent sexism (total possible range of average overall BS scores = 1 to 6). Initial analyses of this measure revealed consistent, significant positive relationships between reported experiences of BS from each group of men (i.e., romantic partners, friends, and family; see Table 1). Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha was high (α = 0.89), indicating responses were internally consistent.

Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Condom Use

251

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Among Reported Experiences of Benevolent Sexism (BS) by Each Group of Men Measure

1

2

3

Mean (SD)

Range

1. BS–Partners 2. BS–Friends 3. BS–Family

—

0.31∗∗ —

0.25∗ 0.48∗∗ —

3.83 (1.04) 3.05 (.84) 4.16 (.97)

1.50–5.90 1.30–5.40 1.20–6.00

Note: BS = Benevolent sexism subscale of the modified Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (range: 1 = never, 6 = almost all of the time). ∗ p < .01; ∗∗ p < .001.

RELATIONAL SEX MOTIVES (PART 2) We measured participants’ relational sex motives using the relational intrinsic subscale of the Perceived Locus of Causality for Sex (PLOC-S; Jenkins 2003). In general, the PLOC-S measures individuals’ reasons for having sexual intercourse, which can be intrinsic (e.g., for their own pleasure) or extrinsic (e.g., because of peer pressure), and has been used in previous studies to assess participants’ motivations for having sex (e.g., Schick, Zucker, and Bay-Cheng 2008). The relational motivation subscale, in particular, assesses how much individuals have sex to foster and maintain interpersonal bonds, where “pleasure is derived from gratifying the needs of an intimate partner” (Jenkins 2003, 26). Thus, it is directly related to the gender norm that women should be relationship-focused and strive to please their male partner (e.g., Gavey 2005). Participants used a 1 (not at all for this reason) to 5 (very much for this reason) scale to rate the extent to which each of eight items influenced their decision to engage in their most recent sexual activity (e.g., “. . . because I wanted to share a mutually pleasurable activity with my partner”). We computed mean responses, and higher scores indicated stronger relational sex motives. Jenkins found this subscale to be internally consistent (α = 0.94). We found high internal consistency in the current sample as well (α = 0.95). CONDOM USE (PART 2) Participants estimated the number of times they engaged in sexual intercourse and used condoms during sex in the past year. We then computed condom use rates by dividing the latter by the former (cf. Jaccard et al. 2002). BACKGROUND INFORMATION (PART 2) We assessed contraceptive use other than condoms (e.g., “the pill”) with a dichotomous question (dummy coded 0 = no; 1 = yes) and participants’ number of sexual partners in the past year because both factors have been related to condom use (Bobrova et al. 2005; Kelley et al. 2003). Participants also reported their age, year in college, and race/ethnicity.

252

C. C. Fitz and A. N. Zucker

Statistical Analyses We performed all analyses using IBM SPSS 20.0 (IBM Corporation 2011). For preliminary analyses testing for potential covariates, we ran Pearson correlations between continuous variables and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) when the independent variable was categorical and the dependent variable was continuous. Factors associated significantly (p < .05) with condom use at the bivariate and multivariate level were included as covariates. Next, we used hierarchical multiple regression to examine our main hypothesis, that is, that everyday exposure to benevolent sexism would be associated with less condom use. We regressed condom use onto covariates in the first step and BS scores in the second step; we did not compute any interaction terms. We determined model fit by examining the significance of the regression model when all factors—including covariates and benevolent sexism—were included at step 2. We also examined whether the individual beta for BS scores was significant at step 2 and contributed significantly to this model (beyond covariates) by looking at the R 2 value. Finally, we employed bootstrapping to test whether relational sex motives mediated the relation between benevolent sexism and condom use, again controlling for covariates. Reported bootstrap estimates were based on 5,000 bootstrap samples using Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) indirect macro.

RESULTS Participants Participants’ mean age was 19.51 years (SD = 1.14), and the majority (69.9 percent) were in their first or second year of college. White women made up 79.1 percent of the sample, followed by Asian (7.0 percent), Hispanic (5.1 percent), African American (3.2 percent), and Middle Eastern and Multiracial (1.9 percent each) women; 1.9 percent of the sample did not indicate their race. Additionally, the majority of women (74.1 percent) indicated using contraceptives other than condoms.

Covariates As expected, participants who used any contraceptives other than condoms (e.g., oral contraceptives, IUD) were less likely to use condoms during sex, F (1, 157) = 7.43, p = .01, and contraceptive use remained significantly negatively associated with condom use when BS scores were included in the multivariate model, β = −0.21, p = .01; thus, use of contraceptives other than condoms was retained as a covariate. Number of sexual partners was significantly positively related to condom use during intercourse, r (156) = 0.16, p = .05; however, this factor was no longer significantly related to condom

253

Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Condom Use

use when included in regression analyses with all other variables (i.e., benevolent sexism, any other contraceptive use) in the model, β = 0.13, p = .13. Thus, number of sexual partners was not included in the final set of analyses (to retain statistical power, however, the addition of this variable in regression analyses did not change the significance of results regarding the relation between benevolent sexism and condom use). We found no racial differences in condom use, F (5, 149) = 0.58, p = .72. Age and college year were significantly negatively related to condom use, r (128) =−0.18, p = .04, r (151) = −0.19, p = .02, respectively, but only college year continued to be significantly negatively related to condom use in multivariate analyses, β = −0.19, p = .02. Because of this, and the facts that age and college year were highly correlated, r (128) = 0.85, p < .001, and nearly 18 percent of the sample did not indicate their age, only college year was used as a second covariate (along with any contraceptive use other than condoms) in tests of our main hypotheses.

Benevolent Sexism, Relational Sex Motives, and Condom Use Participants reported experiencing a relatively high amount of benevolent sexism in their daily lives (Mean = 3.68, SD = 0.71), and also reported high levels of condom use: on average, they reported using a condom during 64 percent of all instances of sexual activity (Table 2). Results from hierarchical multiple regression that included any contraceptive use other than condoms and college year as covariates revealed that exposure to benevolent sexism added significantly to the model with condom use as the outcome variable at step 2, F (3, 145) = 6.01, R2 = 0.11, R 2 = 0.03, F (1, 145) = 4.13, p = .04. As hypothesized, controlling for any contraceptive use other than condoms and college year, the more benevolent sexism women reported experiencing, the less likely they were to use condoms, β = −0.16 (Table 3). Bootstrapping results were also consistent with hypotheses and revealed that the total indirect relation of benevolent TABLE 2 Means, Standard Deviations (SD), and Intercorrelations of Test Variables Variable

1

2

3

4

5

Mean

SD

Range

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

—

0.12 —

−0.08 −0.04 —

0.12 0.09 0.23∗∗ —

−0.21∗∗ −0.19∗ −0.12 0.22∗∗ —

0.74 2.12 3.68 3.47 0.64

0.44 1.01 0.71 1.20 0.38

0.00–1.00 1.00–4.00 2.00–5.27 1.00–5.00 0.00–1.00

Contraceptive use College year Benevolent sexism Relational sex motives Condom use

Note: Although benevolent sexism and condom use were not significantly associated at the bivariate level, this relationship was significant in multivariate analyses that partialed out contraceptive use and college year, r (145) = -.17, p = .04. Benevolent sexism scores could range from 1 (never) to 6 (almost all of the time). Relational sex motive scores could range from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01.

254

C. C. Fitz and A. N. Zucker

TABLE 3 Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis Linking Self-Reported Experiences of Benevolent Sexism to Condom Use Step and variables Step 1: Covariates Contraceptive use College year Step 2: Benevolent sexism Contraceptive use College year Benevolent sexism ∗

p < .05;

∗∗

B

SEB

β

t

−0.18 −0.07

0.07 0.03

−0.20 −0.19

−2.54∗∗ −2.35∗

−0.19 −0.07 −0.09

0.07 0.03 0.04

−0.21 −0.19 −0.16

−2.71∗∗ −2.43∗ −2.03∗

R2

R 2

0.08∗∗ 0.11∗∗

0.03∗

p < .01.

sexism to condom use through relational sex motives was statistically significant, point estimate = −0.02, and the 95 percent confidence interval did not include zero (−0.06 to −0.002). Benevolent sexism was associated with stronger relational sex motives, which in turn, were related to lower condom use (Figure 1).

DISCUSSION In the present study, everyday experiences of benevolent sexism, a relatively subtle, ambiguous form of sexism, were associated with less condom use among college women. This finding parallels other work highlighting the negative implications of this type of sexism overall and its relation to passivity in the sexual arena specifically (e.g., Durán, Moya, and Megías 2013). Our results suggest that being on the receiving end of benevolent sexism—no

β = 0.24** Benevolent sexism

Relational sex motives

β = –0.12 (β = –0.16*)

β = –0.16* Reported condom use

Contraceptive use College year

β = –0.19* β = –0.18*

FIGURE 1 Relational sex motives mediate the relation between benevolent sexism and condom use. Note: Parameter estimates are regression based. The number in parentheses represents the relation between benevolent sexism and condom use controlling for contraceptive use and college year when the mediator is not included in the model. ∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.

Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Condom Use

255

matter how well-intentioned the perpetrator may be—is far from positive for women, particularly in potentially health-threatening contexts. The current work also showed that relational sex motives mediated this relationship. Thus, although engaging in intercourse out of a desire to promote a relationship may very well lead to positive inter- and intra-personal outcomes; the current findings suggest that these benefits may come with a cost (i.e., less condom use). Coupled with Albarracin and Plambeck’s (2010) work showing that men with benevolent sexist attitudes are less likely to report condom use with their primary partner (Albarracin and Plambeck speculate this is because benevolently sexist men are more trusting of women and perceive them to be “pure” and STI-free), the present results are particularly noteworthy—and troubling—for women in relationships with such men: they (and their partners) may be doubly at risk of engaging in unprotected sex because the sexist attitudes and behaviors their partners bring to the bedside may curtail both parties’ safer sex practices. The current study indicated that personal, sexual behaviors may be shaped by larger social forces (such as perceived sexism), and hence, underscores the importance of contextualizing condom use within the broader social landscape and not taking an overly individualistic approach to understanding risky sexual behavior. In so doing, the current findings suggest routes to improving women’s sexual health. Considering college is increasingly a time in students’ lives in which they enjoy the freedom of “hooking up” at the expense of investing time in committed relationships (Regnerus and Uecker, 2011), finding ways to promote safer sex practices among undergraduate women is especially important. Apart from reducing sexism, a fruitful avenue for intervention may involve reconciling relational sex motives with condom use. In the present study, such motives were related to less condom use. We speculate that this may, in part, be due to the disjunction between relationally-motivated women’s desire to please their male partners and the perception that condom use decreases sexual pleasure (Randolph et al. 2007). If this is in fact the case, then dispelling this belief (but leaving women’s relational sex motives, which can be positive, intact) may enable women to advocate for condom use during sex and override the influence benevolent sexism has on their behavior. Benevolent sexism may still be associated with greater relational sex motives, but if condom use no longer disrupts women’s (perceived) ability to please their partner, then any increases in relational motives need not translate into lower condom use. Simultaneously bolstering women’s sexual assertiveness and confidence may also improve condom use: interventions designed to improve women’s condom negotiation skills have been demonstrated to increase condom use effectively (Wingood et al. 2006). Another way to foster women’s condom use may be to increase their feminist consciousness. Feminist beliefs help women combat sexism and its aftermath, and specifically in the sexual arena, are related to greater

256

C. C. Fitz and A. N. Zucker

sexual assertiveness and condom use self-efficacy (e.g., Schick, Zucker, and Bay-Cheng 2008). Other work has shown that feminist beliefs moderate (i.e., weaken) the association between perceived sexism and risky health behaviors (e.g., Sabik and Tylka 2006). Hence, such attitudes may enable women to challenge and overcome benevolent sexism. However, recent work by Fitz and Zucker (2014) demonstrated that liberal feminist beliefs (regarding gender equity) weakened the impact of lab-based exposure to hostile (overt), but not benevolent, sexism on women’s condom use intentions. In light of this, women’s feminist attitudes may need to be particularly strong—and incorporate a recognition and understanding of benevolent sexism and its negative correlates—to effectively combat this subtle manifestation of sexism that too often flies under women’s radar.

Limitations and Future Directions Although the current study was the first to our knowledge to demonstrate a relation between everyday experiences of benevolent sexism and condom use, it nonetheless had limitations that should be noted. First, women in the present study reported their experiences of benevolent sexism with three specific groups of men: romantic partners, friends, and family. Although results provided preliminary evidence for the validity of our measure of exposure to benevolent sexism, future research using more diverse samples is needed to examine the effectiveness of categorizing men into these three groups a priori and provide overall greater support for the validity of our measure. Additionally, women may experience benevolent sexism from other women. With additional future systematic research, other categories of men—and perhaps the addition of groups of women—may emerge as more representative of the sexist experiences women face. Another caveat of our benevolent sexism measure was that it relied on self-reports. Although the perception of unfair treatment is enough to elicit negative health outcomes (for a review, see Pascoe and Smart Richman 2009), efforts to minimize invalid responses—including daily diary methods or collecting data on the sexist attitudes of relevant people in participants’ lives (to corroborate participants’ self-reports)—should nevertheless be made in future research. An additional limitation was that women can and do harbor their own benevolent sexist attitudes (Glick and Fiske 2001), but we did not measure such beliefs in the present study. Future work should examine whether women’s personally held benevolent sexist attitudes are associated with sexual risk behaviors. Because benevolent sexism attempts to reinforce traditional gender roles (Glick and Fiske 1996), women with such attitudes may be more likely to internalize and conform to gendered sexual scripts (e.g., that suggest women should be passive) relative to women who lack these sexist beliefs. As a result, benevolent sexist attitudes may function

Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Condom Use

257

analogously to everyday exposure to this form of sexism and be related to less condom use (cf. Albarracin and Plambeck 2010). Women’s benevolent sexist attitudes may also set the stage for everyday experiences of benevolent sexism and leave women particularly vulnerable or predisposed to experiencing negative correlates and consequences of day-to-day exposure to benevolent sexism. As a result, the relation between exposure to benevolent sexism and less condom use may be especially strong for women who personally endorse benevolent sexism. Future research should explore whether women’s own sexist beliefs are related to condom use, both independently and in conjunction with everyday experiences of benevolent sexism. Additionally, the present research relied on self-reported sexual and condom use behaviors. Participants estimated the absolute number of times they had intercourse and used condoms over the past year. This methodology, and in particular, the formatting of response options, is consistent with previous research (Jaccard et al. 2002), and has been touted empirically as a valid and reliable approach to assessing condom use, at least compared to measures that use categorical rating scales (Hoppe et al. 2008; Jaccard et al. 2002). However, the time period in which participants were asked to remember their sexual and condom use behaviors (i.e., 1 year) was arguably the most major limitation of this measure. Researchers generally ask participants to recount these behaviors as they took place over a recent, shorter amount of time (e.g., the past ten intercourse events; Dodge et al. 2010; Gallo et al., 2007). Hence, although some research has demonstrated that reporting sexual behaviors over the past year can be reliable (although somewhat less consistent than reports over the short term; Jaccard et al. 2002), the questions used to assess sexual activity and condom use were nonetheless a weakness of the present study. Furthermore, given the particularly sensitive nature of reporting private and potentially risky sexual behaviors, participants may have been inclined to give socially desirable responses (i.e., by over-reporting condom use). However, participants reported using a condom during 64 percent of all instances of sexual intercourse, which is somewhat higher than—although still consistent with—rates reported in other studies that examine condom use among young adult women (which have been shown to range from nearly 39 percent to 63 percent; e.g., Reece et al. 2010; Scott-Sheldon, Carey, and Carey 2010). To limit biased responding, all surveys were selfadministered online, a mode of administration that has been shown to lead to greater reporting of sensitive behavior (e.g., Schroder, Carey, and Vanable 2003). Nevertheless, future research should assess and control for participants’ proclivity to provide socially desirable responses. Finally, the sample size of the present study was relatively small, which potentially limited statistical power to detect some meaningful differences as statistically significant, and participants were relatively privileged women (e.g., primarily white, heterosexual), which may limit the generalizability

258

C. C. Fitz and A. N. Zucker

of the current findings. Future research should explore the relation of benevolent sexism to the sexual risk behaviors of women with other social and racial/ethnic identities who face distinct gender, race, and sexual stereotypes. For example, considering the disproportionate rate of STI infection among African American women (CDC 2010) and the unique, pernicious stereotypes they combat (e.g., the “Jezebel” stereotype; Thomas, Witherspoon, and Speight 2004), benevolent sexism may have particularly insidious consequences among this population.

CONCLUSION The present work established a clear connection between benevolent sexism, relational sex motives, and women’s engagement in unprotected sex. In so doing, the current findings add to the mounting evidence pointing to the deleterious correlates and consequences of exposure to this form of sexism (e.g., Becker and Wright 2011; Calogero and Jost 2011) and suggest that, regardless of how positive women’s subjective appraisals of chivalry may be (Bohner, Ahlborn, and Steiner 2010), this form of sexism is anything but benevolent. Future research should continue to examine how everyday experiences of sexism, in all of its forms, impact women’s safer sex behaviors, ultimately to improve women’s overall health and well-being.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors appreciate comments from Laina Y. Bay-Cheng, Sarah E. Johnson, and Philip J. Moore on earlier drafts of this article.

REFERENCES Albarracin, J., and C. R. Plambeck. 2010. Demographic factors and sexist beliefs as predictors of condom use among Latinos in the USA. AIDS Care 22:1021–28. doi:10.1080/09540121.2010.487089 Barreto, M., N. Ellemers, L. Piebinga, and M. Moya. 2010. How nice of us and how dumb of me: The effect of exposure to benevolent sexism on women’s task and relational self-descriptions. Sex Roles 62:532–44. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9699-0 Becker, J. C., and S. C. Wright. 2011. Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(1):62–77. doi:10.1037/a0022615 Bobrova, N., O. Sergeev, T. Grechukhina, and S. Kapiga. 2005. Social cognitive predictors of consistent condom use among young people in Moscow. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 37(4):174–78. doi:10.1363/3717405

Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Condom Use

259

Bohner, G., K. Ahlborn, and R. Steiner. 2010. How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response profiles in the ambivalent sexism inventory. Sex Roles 62(7–8):568–82. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x Bowleg, L., K. J. Lucas, and J. M. Tschann. 2004. “The ball was always in his court”: An exploratory analysis of relationship scripts, sexual scripts, and condom use among African American women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 28:70–82. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00124.x Bowleg, L., T. B. Neilands, and K-H. Choi. 2008. Evaluating the validity and reliability of a modified schedule of sexist events: Implications for public health research on women’s HIV risk behaviors. Women and Health 47:19–40. Brinkman, B. G., K. Garcia, and K. M. Rickard. 2011. “What I wanted to do was . . .” Discrepancies between college women’s desired and reported responses to gender prejudice. Sex Roles 65:344–55. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0020-7 Calogero, R. M., and J. T. Jost. 2011. Self-subjugation among women: Exposure to sexist ideology, self-objectification, and the protective function of the need to avoid closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(2):211–28. doi:10.1037/a0021864 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2010. Sexually transmitted infection surveillance 2009. Accessed September 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/std/ stats09/default.htm Choi, K.-H., L. Bowleg, and T. B. Neilands. 2011. The effects of sexism, psychological distress, and difficult sexual situations on U.S. women’s sexual risk behaviors. AIDS Education and Prevention 23:397–411. doi:10.1521/aeap.2011.23.5.397 Dardenne, B., M. Dumont, and T. Bollier. 2007. Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(5):764–79. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764 Denmark, F. L., and M. A. Paludi. 2008. Psychology of women: Handbook of issues and theories. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Dodge, B., M. Reece, D. Herbenick, V. Schick, S. A. Sanders, and J. D. Fortenberry. 2010. Sexual health among US Black and Hispanic men and women: A nationally representative study. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 7(5):330–45. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02019.x Durán, M., M. Moya, and J. L. Megías. 2013. Benevolent sexist ideology attributed to an abusive partner decreases women’s active coping responses to acts of sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260513507134 Eagly, A. H., and A. Mladinic. 1993. Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes and judgments of competence. In European review of social psychology, eds. W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone, Vol. 5, 1–35. New York: Wiley. East, L., D. Jackson, L. O’Brien, and K. Peters. 2012. Stigma and stereotypes: Women and sexually transmitted infections. Collegian 19:15–21. doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2011.10.001 Eliezer, D., B. Major, and W. B. Mendes. 2010. The costs of caring: Gender identification increases threat following exposure to sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46:159–65. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.015

260

C. C. Fitz and A. N. Zucker

Fitz, C. C., and A. N. Zucker. 2014. Feminist with benefits: College women’s feminist beliefs buffer sexual well-being amid hostile (not benevolent) sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly 38:7–19. doi:10.1177/0361684313504736 Gallo, M. F., M. J. Steiner, L. Warner, T. Hylton-Kong, J. P. Figueroa, M. M. Hobbs, and F. M. Behets. 2007. Self-reported condom use is associated with reduced risk of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 34(10):829–33. Gavey, N. 2005. Just sex? The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York: Routledge. Gavey, N., and K. McPhillips. 1999. Subject to romance: Heterosexual passivity as an obstacle to women initiating condom use. Psychology of Women Quarterly 23:349–67. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00366.x Glick, P., and S. T. Fiske. 1996. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(3):491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 Glick, P., and S. T. Fiske. 2001. An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist 56:109–18. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109 Glick, P., S. T. Fiske, A. Mladinic, J. L. Saiz, D. Abrams, B. Masser, and B. Adetoun. 2000. Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(5):763–75. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763 Hoppe, M. J., D. M. Morrison, M. R. Gillmore, B. Beadnell, D. H. Higa, and B. C. Leigh. 2008. Agreement of daily diary and retrospective measures of condom use. AIDS and Behavior 12:113–17. doi:10.1007/s10461-007-9240-9 IBM Corporation. 2011. IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 20.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Jaccard, J., R. McDonald, C. K. Wan, P. J. Dittus, and S. Quinlan. 2002. The accuracy of self-reports of condom use and sexual behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32(9):1863–905. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00263.x Jenkins, S. S. 2003. Gender and self-determination in sexual motivation. Dissertation Abstracts International 64(12):6330. (UMI No. 3114928). Jones, R., and E. Gulick. 2009. Reliability and validity of the sexual pressure scale for women—Revised. Research in Nursing & Health 32:71–85. doi:10.1002/nur.20297 Kelley, S. S., E. A. Borawski, S. A. Flocke, and K. J. Keen. 2003. The role of sequential and concurrent sexual relationships in the risk of sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 32:296–305. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00710-3 Landrine, H., and E. A. Klonoff. 1997. Discrimination against women: Prevalence, consequences, remedies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Landrine, H., E. A. Klonoff, J. Gibbs, V. Manning, and M. Lund. 1995. Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination: An application of the schedule of sexist events. Psychology of Women Quarterly 19:473–92. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00087.x Montañes, P., S. De Lemus, M. Moya, G. Bohner, and J. L. Megias. 2013. How attractive are sexist intimates to adolescents? The influence of sexist beliefs and relationship experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly 37:494–506.

Benevolent Sexism and Women’s Condom Use

261

Pascoe, E. A., and L. Smart Richman. 2009. Perceived discrimination and health: A meta analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 135(4):531–54. doi:10.1037/a0016059 Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3):879–91. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 Randolph, M. E., S. D. Pinkerton, L. M. Bogart, H. Cecil, and P. R. Abramson. 2007. Sexual pleasure and condom use. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36:844–48. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9213-0 Reece, M., D. Herbenick, V. Schick, S. A. Sanders, B. Dodge, and J. D. Fortenberry. 2010. Condom use rates in a national probability sample of males and females ages 14 to 94 in the United States. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 7(5):266–76. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.02017.x Regnerus, M., and J. Uecker. 2011. Premarital sex in America: How young Americans meet, mate, and think about marrying. New York: Oxford University Press. Sabik, N. J., and T. L. Tylka. 2006. Do feminist identity styles moderate the relation between perceived sexist events and disordered eating? Psychology of Women Quarterly 30:77–84. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00264.x Sanchez, D. T., J. Crocker, and K. R. Boike. 2005. Doing gender in the bedroom: Investing in gender norms and the sexual experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(10):1445–55. doi:10.1177/0146167205277333 Sanchez, D. T., A. K. Kiefer, and O. Ybarra. 2006. Sexual submissiveness in women: Costs for sexual autonomy and arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32(4):512–24. doi:10.1177/0146167205282154 Schick, V. R., A. N. Zucker, and L. Y. Bay-Cheng. 2008. Safer, better sex through feminism: The role of feminist ideology in women’s sexual well-being. Psychology of Women Quarterly 32:225–32. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00431.x Schroder, K. E. E., M. P. Carey, and P. A. Vanable. 2003. Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 26(2):104–23. doi:10.1207/S15324796ABM2602_03 Scott-Sheldon, L. A. J., M. P. Carey, and K. B. Carey. 2010. Alcohol and risky sexual behavior among heavy drinking college students. AIDS and Behavior 14:845–53. doi:10.1007/s10461-008-9426-9 Teti, M., L. Bowleg, and L. Lloyd. 2010. ‘Pain on top of pain, hurtness on top of hurtness’: Social discrimination, psychological well-being, and sexual risk among women living with HIV/AIDS. International Journal of Sexual Health 22:205–18. doi:10.1080/19317611.2010.482412 Thomas, A. J., K. M. Witherspoon, and S. L. Speight. 2004. Toward the development of the stereotypic roles for Black women scale. Journal of Black Psychology 30:426–42. doi:10.1177/0095798404266061 Tolman, D. L. 2006. In a different position: Conceptualizing female adolescent sexuality development within compulsory heterosexuality. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 112:71–89. doi:10.1002/cd.163 Townsend, S. S. M., B. Major, C. E. Gangi, and W. B. Mendes. 2011. From “in the air” to “under the skin”: Cortisol responses to social identity threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(2):151–64. doi:10.1177/0146167210392384

262

C. C. Fitz and A. N. Zucker

UNAIDS. 2009. Position statement: Condoms and HIV prevention. Accessed September 2013. http://data.unaids.org/pub/BaseDocument/2009/20090318_ position_paper_conoms_en.pdf Walsh, J. L., R. L. Fielder, K. B. Carey, and M. P. Carey. In press. Changes in women’s condom use over the first year of college. Journal of Sex Research. Williams, D. R., and S. A. Mohammed. 2009. Discrimination and racial disparities in health: Evidence and needed research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 32:20–47. doi:10.1007/s10865-008-9185-0 Wingood, G. M., R. J. DiClemente, K. F. Harrington, D. L. Lang, S. L. Davies, E. W. Hook, M. K. Oh, and J. W. Hardin. 2006. Efficacy of an HIV prevention program among female adolescents experiencing gender-based violence. American Journal of Public Health 96(6):1085–90. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.053595 Zucker, A. N., and L. J. Landry. 2007. Embodied discrimination: The relation of sexism and distress to women’s drinking and smoking behaviors. Sex Roles 56:193–203. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9163-3

Copyright of Women & Health is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.