A study published in Psychological Science found that hostile sexism increases tolerance for all forms of violence against women in India, while benevolent sexism reduces tolerance for public harassment but increases acceptance of intimate partner violence.
Violence against women in India has often drawn international attention, especially following high-profile cases of sexual assault. However, the more pervasive forms of violence, including routine sexual harassment and domestic violence, often go underreported.
Approximately one in five Indian women experience frequent public sexual harassment, and the lifetime rate of domestic violence is estimated to be 41%. In this work, researchers Nikhil K. Sengupta and colleagues examined the relationship between ambivalent sexism—comprising both hostile and benevolent sexism—and tolerance of violence against women in India.
Ambivalent sexism theory, proposed by Glick and Fiske, distinguishes between hostile sexism, which involves overtly negative attitudes towards women, and benevolent sexism, which includes seemingly positive but patronizing views of women as pure and needing protection. While hostile sexism promotes gender inequality and violence, the role of benevolent sexism is more complex. It can both reduce and increase tolerance for violence, depending on whether the perpetrator is an outsider or an intimate partner. Thus, it’s necessary to examine both forms of sexism to understand their overall impact on gender relations and violence in India.
The researchers utilized data from the Centre for the Monitoring of the Indian Economy’s consumer pyramid sample, as part of the Samaj Survey Project conducted in 2017. This representative national sample included over 160,000 households from diverse regions across India. A total of 133,398 individuals who made face-to-face contact with interviewers were included in the final sample.
Participants completed measures for hostile sexism (e.g., “Women seek to gain power by controlling men”) and benevolent sexism (e.g., “Women should be cherished and protected by men”), rating agreement on a 5-point scale. Tolerance of violence was assessed with single-item indicators: “Women should accept eve-teasing as a normal part of life” for outsider violence, and “A husband has the right to discipline his wife” for spousal violence. These items were validated in a separate study with 503 Indian adults, confirming their reliability in capturing the intended constructs.
Sengupta and colleagues found that hostile sexism predicted both tolerance of outsider violence and spousal violence for both men and women, revealing a strong relationship in both cases. Similarly, hostile sexism predicted higher tolerance of spousal violence for both men and women. These results confirm that hostile sexism consistently promotes tolerance of violence against women, regardless of the violence source.
In contrast, benevolent sexism had opposing effects depending on the context for violence. It was negatively associated with tolerance of outsider violence, indicating that individuals with benevolent sexist beliefs were less accepting of public harassment. However, benevolent sexism was positively associated with higher tolerance of spousal violence, suggesting that such beliefs increase acceptance of intimate partner violence.
This paradox highlights that while benevolent sexism can seemingly protect women from strangers, it simultaneously legitimizes intimate partner violence under the guise of protection or discipline.
A limitation to this work is the reliance on cross-sectional data, which precludes definitive conclusions about the directionality of the observed relationships. While the study provides strong evidence that sexist attitudes correlate with tolerance of violence, it cannot conclusively determine whether these attitudes precede the tolerance or vice versa. Longitudinal research would be needed to explore these causal pathways more definitively.
The study, “Ambivalent Sexism and Tolerance of Violence Against Women in India”, was authored by Nikhil K. Sengupta, Matthew D. Hammond, Chris K. Deak, and Ragini Saira Malhotra.
