Laurie A. Rudman

Gender rules, that is, prescriptive and proscriptive gender stereotypes, dictate how women and men should and should not be, and thereby perpetuate the gender hierarchy that privileges men over women. Across seven nations that span the continuum of gender equality, we investigated gender status norms by identifying the extent to which gender rules correspond with social status beliefs. As expected, in all investigated nations, participants ( N  = 4,327) believed that men should not show low-status traits reflecting weakness (e.g., weak, naive) but should show high-status traits reflecting agency (e.g., leadership ability, ambitious). Correlational analyses found that the more gender-equal a nation, the more men's agency prescriptions were aligned with high-status and their weakness proscriptions with low-status characteristics. Moreover, participants believed that women should not show high-status traits reflecting dominance (e.g., dominant, demanding) in the United States, Turkey, India, and Ghana—that is, in the relatively less gender-equal nations. Yet, no trait was proscribed for women in the relatively more gender-equal nations of Switzerland and Sweden. The status alignment of women's prescriptions and proscriptions did not relate to nations’ achieved gender equality. We discuss how the alignment of men's gender rules with status beliefs represents a hidden barrier to achieving full gender equality.

This meta-analysis evaluated theoretical predictions from balanced identity theory (BIT) and evaluated the validity of zero points of Implicit Association Test (IAT) and self-report measures used to test these predictions. Twenty-one researchers contributed individual subject data from 36 experiments (total N = 12,773) that used both explicit and implicit measures of the social–cognitive constructs. The meta-analysis confirmed predictions of BIT’s balance–congruity principle and simultaneously validated interpretation of the IAT’s zero point as indicating absence of preference between two attitude objects. Statistical power afforded by the sample size enabled the first confirmations of balance–congruity predictions with self-report measures. Beyond these empirical results, the meta-analysis introduced a within-study statistical test of the balance–congruity principle, finding that it had greater efficiency than the previous best method. The meta-analysis’s full data set has been publicly archived to enable further studies of interrelations among attitudes, stereotypes, and identities.

Three studies supported a model whereby associations between ideologies that share roots in biological determinism and outcomes that reinforce inequality (based on gender, race, or class) were mediated by system justification beliefs (SJB). Outcomes included support for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton as president (Study 1), justifying police brutality (Study 2), and support for a White House budget that slashed the social safety net to endow the wealthy with tax cuts (Study 3). These findings provoke a vital question: How do people deem unequal systems worthy of defense? Each study compared social Darwinism, social dominance orientation (SDO), and biological essentialism. We expected social Darwinism to account for the most variance in SJB because it provides both the rationale for social hierarchies (natural selection) and defends them as required for human welfare. This prediction was supported in each study. Implications for the psychology of legitimacy are discussed.

The authors of sexual economics theory (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002; Baumeister & Vohs, 2004) argue that sex is a female commodity that women exchange for men’s resources; therefore, women (not men) are responsible for the cultural suppression of sexuality, ostensibly to preserve the value of sex. In this article, I describe the central tenets of sexual economics theory and summarize a growing body of research contradicting them. I also explain the negative implications of the claims of sexual economics theory for gender equality and heterosexual relationships. Researchers, clinicians, and educators engaged in understanding human sexuality may use the arguments provided in this article to counteract gender myths. This article also serves as a case study of how feminist scholars can employ empirical evidence to weaken a popularized, patriarchal theory.

Proponents of sexual economics theory argue that women exchange sex for men’s resources. This idea is likely to promote a competitive view of gender relationships that undermines gender equality by characterizing women as manipulative and financially dependent on men. Heterosexual college students (N = 474) who were randomly exposed to a popular YouTube video describing sexual economics theory increased their (1) behavioral support for sexual exchange concepts, (2) endorsement of the theory, and (3) adversarial views of heterosexual relationships, compared with a control group of students. Sexual exchange theory endorsement and adversarial heterosexual beliefs positively covaried, and both attitudes were related to participants’ sexism. Reading a critique of sexual exchange theory, that emphasized mutual respect and affection as precursors to heterosexual intimacy, counteracted the consequences of exposure to the theory. The findings provide evidence that disseminating sexual exchange theory via video on the Internet negatively affects young adults’ views of gender relationships. Educators, and others who wish to explore sexual economics theory through the use of this video, should also include a discussion of the countervailing evidence available. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index.

Minority groups who show implicit outgroup preference (African Americans, the elderly, and the overweight) are also likely to suffer from appearance stigma (for deviating from cultural aesthetic norms; Goffman, 1963). Three studies showed that people who automatically preferred Whites using the attitude Implicit Association Test (IAT) also associated Whites more than Blacks with attractiveness using the aesthetic IAT. In Study 1, the aesthetic IAT covaried with Black American’s preference for Black women with chemically treated versus natural hair, and rating products that purchase “racial capital” (e.g., skin whiteners) as important and useful. In Study 2, Black American’s pro-White bias was only eliminated when the attitude IAT represented their group as more attractive than Whites (i.e., when appearance stigma was reversed). Further, the aesthetic IAT predicted the attitude IAT more uniquely than outgroup contact. In concert, the findings suggest that appearance stigma is an overlooked factor influencing racial asymmetries in automatic ingroup esteem.

In the study reported here, data from implicit and behavioral choice measures did not support sexual economics theory’s (SET’s) central tenet that women view female sexuality as a commodity. Instead, men endorsed sexual exchange more than women did, which supports the idea that SET is a vestige of patriarchy. Further, men’s sexual advice, more than women’s, enforced the sexual double standard (i.e., men encouraged men more than women to have casual sex)—a gender difference that was mediated by hostile sexism, but also by men’s greater implicit investment in sexual economics. That is, men were more likely to suppress female sexuality because they resisted female empowerment and automatically associated sex with money more than women did. It appears that women are not invested in sexual economics, but rather, men are invested in patriarchy, even when it means raising the price of sexual relations.

In the first examination of the accuracy of metaperceptions of sexism among White, Asian, and Black women and men (N = 308), results showed that regardless of ethnicity, both genders were similarly inaccurate, but in opposing ways. Women overestimated men’s hostile sexism (HS) and underestimated men’s benevolent sexism (BS), whereas men overestimated women’s BS and underestimated women’s HS. Further, metaperceptions of HS were negatively related to metaperceptions of BS, for both genders. Individual differences in sexism informed metaperceptions only for men (not women). In concert, the findings support an illusion of antagonism between HS and BS. Viewing HS and BS as oppositional is an illusion because, cross-culturally, they are positively correlated in men and women alike (e.g., Glick et al., 2000), and both forms of sexism reinforce the gender hierarchy (Rudman & Glick, 2008). Therefore, disarming the illusion of antagonism is an overlooked key to advancing gender equality.