In a new study, researchers have uncovered significant differences in how bystanders perceive and respond to two forms of sexism in the workplace: benevolent and hostile sexism. This research highlights the nuanced challenges in recognizing and addressing sexism, particularly the subtler, often overlooked form of benevolent sexism. The findings have been published in Sex Roles.
Hostile sexism and benevolent sexism represent two different manifestations of sexist attitudes and beliefs. Hostile sexism is the more overt and recognizable form. It is characterized by clear, negative stereotypes and antagonism toward women. Typically, hostile sexism manifests in actions and statements that openly degrade women, question their abilities, or treat them as inferior.
Benevolent sexism, on the other hand, is more insidious and can be harder to detect because it is often cloaked in what appears to be positive or protective language. It involves attitudes that seemingly place women on a pedestal but ultimately reinforce traditional gender roles and the idea of female dependency.
For example, a male colleague insisting on carrying heavy objects for a female colleague “because it’s too much for her” or suggesting that women are more suited to nurturing roles due to their “innate kindness” are instances of benevolent sexism. While these actions or comments might be intended or perceived as kind or chivalrous, they perpetuate stereotypes and the notion that women are less capable or independent.
Despite growing awareness and efforts to foster gender-inclusive environments, sexism remains a pervasive issue in workplaces. With over 20,000 complaints of sexism reported in 2020 in the United States alone, the researchers aimed to investigate the potential of bystander intervention as a means to address this issue. They sought to understand how bystanders perceive different forms of sexism and their willingness to intervene, an area that has seen limited research despite its potential impact.
“We were interested in this topic because people often have think sexism has to take the form of overtly negative beliefs about or behaviors toward women, but we know that benevolent sexism – this seemingly positive or protective form of sexism – also exists and does harm to those who experience and witness it,” said study author Lindsay Y. Dhanani, an assistant professor at Rutgers University.
“We therefore wanted to draw attention to this form of sexism and examine whether it is less likely to prompt positive bystander reactions that can help to alleviate the harm of sexism when it occurs. If so, this would tell us that organizations need to be really intentional about calling attention to benevolent sexism to enable bystanders to respond more positively.”
The research involved 527 full-time employees in the United States, who were recruited through an online panel. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of three vignettes depicting either benevolent sexism, hostile sexism, or a control scenario in a real estate office setting.
The sexism vignettes depicted a situation where a male employee suggests that he should handle an upcoming home sale instead of his female colleague. In the benevolent vignettes, he justifies his suggestion by implying that women struggle with assertiveness, which is necessary for sales negotiations. In the hostile sexism vignette, on the other hand, the male employee bluntly asserts that he does not believe women are capable of succeeding in sales roles. In the control vignette, the male employee suggests that he should take on the sale, simply because his female colleague negotiated the last one, implying a fair distribution of work.
After reading the scenarios, participants reported their perceptions and reactions. Specifically, they rated the extent to which they believed the depicted behavior was immoral, the level of moral anger they felt, and their willingness to intervene in the situation.
The researchers found that participants perceived hostile sexism as a greater moral violation than benevolent sexism. This difference also translated into feelings, with hostile sexism evoking more moral anger compared to benevolent sexism.
In other words, benevolent sexism, due to its seemingly positive guise, is less likely to be immediately recognized as a moral violation, and consequently, it does not elicit the same level of moral anger as hostile sexism does. This difference in perception and emotional reaction means that bystanders are less likely to feel compelled to intervene in cases of benevolent sexism.
“The main takeaway from our study is that benevolent sexism – this form of seemingly positive sexism that still causes harm and reinforces gender roles and hierarchies – is less likely to trigger bystander responses commonly associated with discrimination and harassment,” Dhanani told PsyPost. “That is, people who witness benevolent sexism are less likely to view it as a violation of moral norms and are less likely to experience anger in response, both of which are linked to important outcomes such as bystanders taking prosocial actions to intervene after harassment occurs. This means that when employees experience benevolent sexism, their coworkers are less likely to give them the support they need to lessen the harm of that experience.”
The study’s methodology and approach, however, come with certain limitations. The use of vignettes and self-reported measures may not fully capture the complexities and nuances of real-life sexism scenarios and bystander responses. Additionally, the research was conducted within the cultural context of the United States, which raises questions about the applicability of the findings in different cultural settings.
“One major caveat is that we used a vignette design to assess what people would do after they witnessed sexism at work,” Dhanani said. “Research still needs to be done in a more realistic setting to assess what people actually do in those situations. Research should also take a more intersectional approach because we know that the race of the woman being targeted might impact the way people respond as well.”
Looking ahead, the researchers suggest several directions for future research. They recommend studying how targets of sexism respond to different forms of sexism and how this influences bystander reactions. Additionally, exploring the impact of witnessing benevolent sexism on bystanders, and the potential costs or benefits of intervening, could provide deeper insights. The researchers also note the importance of conducting similar studies in varied cultural contexts to understand how cultural norms might influence bystander responses to sexism.
“Organizations should be vigilant against all forms of sexism, including those forms of sexism that don’t immediately meet people’s view of what sexism is,” Dhanani added. “Organizations are increasingly relying on bystander intervention as a way to mitigate workplace harassment, and those efforts will be limited to the extent that bystanders misdiagnose sexist behaviors as benign.”
The study, “Cloaked in Kindness: Bystander Responses to Witnessed Benevolent and Hostile Sexism“, was authored by Taylor K. Hall and Lindsay Y. Dhanan.
