Research Article

She Loves Him, She Loves Him Not:Attachment Style as a Predictor ofWomen’s Ambivalent Sexism Toward Men

Joshua Hart1, Peter Glick2, and Rachel E. Dinero3

AbstractIn two studies, we examined how romantic attachment style relates to women’s sexism toward men. Specifically, we appliedstructural equation modeling and mediation analyses to the responses of over 500 self-reported heterosexual women. Study 1included 229 women who answered questionnaires tapping attachment anxiety and avoidance, ambivalent sexism toward men,romanticism, and interpersonal trust. We conducted Study 2 as a replication, changing questionnaire order to gauge therobustness of results, using a new sample of 273 women. In general, women’s attachment anxiety predicted ambivalent sexism(both benevolence and hostility) toward men, whereas women’s attachment avoidance predicted univalent hostility (andlower benevolence) toward men. Romanticism mediated attachment style’s relationship to benevolence toward men, whereaslower interpersonal trust mediated attachment’s relationship to hostility toward men. The results suggest that, for women (asfor men), sexist attitudes toward members of the other sex have roots in attachment style and associated worldviews. Betterunderstanding of women’s ambivalence toward men in romantic relationships may help to inform marital therapy.

Keywordsattachment behavior, sexism, sex role attitudes, romance, trust (social behavior), interpersonal attraction

Despite much research on sexism’s consequences, little is

known about the personality factors that predispose indi-

viduals to adopt sexist attitudes. This is especially true for

women’s sexism toward men, which receives much less

attention than men’s sexism toward women, perhaps because

powerful groups are not typically seen as suffering deleter-

ious consequences from less powerful groups’ prejudices.

However, women’s sexism toward men plays a significant

role in reinforcing gender stereotypes and perpetuating male

dominance (Glick et al., 2004), so researchers and others who

are committed to understanding and combating systems of

gender inequality should be just as concerned with women’s

attitudes toward men as the other way around.

The present research focuses on personality predictors of

women’s ambivalent sexism toward men by building on

the previous finding that men’s romantic attachment style

predicts sexism toward women (Hart, Hung, Glick, & Dinero,

2012). Might attachment style also help explain women’s

sexist attitudes toward men? Because attachment style

reflects general mental representations of close relationships

that, in turn, influence interpersonal and ideological orienta-

tions, we theorize that (as with men) heterosexual women’s

attachment style predisposes sexist attitudes toward the other

sex—with the two dimensions of attachment insecurity (anxi-

ety and avoidance) predicting distinct patterns of hostility and

benevolence toward men (HM and BM).

Women’s Sexism Toward Men

Ambivalent sexism theory and research suggest that male

dominance combined with heterosexual interdependence

generates hostile and benevolent sexism between men and

women (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001). Because members of the

other sex represent both potential romantic partners and out-

group members competing for social resources (e.g., status,

jobs), heterosexual men and women relate to one another

on both interpersonal and intergroup bases. Ambivalently

sexist men exhibit hostile sexism toward women viewed as

competitors (e.g., for jobs), but they direct their benevolent

sexism toward women who fulfill intimacy goals (e.g., as

wives; see Glick & Fiske, 2001, for a review). Accordingly,

hostile sexism characterizes (some) women as manipulative,

untrustworthy adversaries, whereas benevolent sexism views

1 Department of Psychology, Union College, Schenectady, NY, USA2 Department of Psychology, Lawrence University, Appleton, WI, USA3 Psychology Program, Cazenovia College, Cazenovia, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Joshua Hart, Department of Psychology, Union College, 807 Union Street,

Schenectady, NY 12308, USA.

Email: hartj@union.edu

Psychology of Women Quarterly37(4) 507-518ª The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0361684313497471pwq.sagepub.com

(some) women as special, indispensable, and morally pure

beings whose companionship ‘‘completes’’ men.

Similar to men’s sexism, women’s sexism toward the other

sex encompasses two overlapping facets: HM and BM (Glick

& Fiske, 1999, 2001). HM expresses resentment of men’s

abuse of power, whereas BM expresses admiration for the

ways in which men’s power appears to benefit women within

traditional relationships, celebrating men as women’s ‘‘protec-

tors and providers.’’ Like hostile and benevolent sexism

toward women, ambivalent beliefs about men maintain the sta-

tus quo in gender relations. For example, cross-cultural com-

parisons show that the greater the gender inequality in a

society, the more the women endorse both HM and BM (Glick

et al., 2004). Additionally, whereas HM characterizes men as

arrogant, hypercompetitive, and callous, it also essentializes

men as designed for dominance, viewing men’s power as an

unchangeable fact of life. Although HM does not correlate

with gender inequality’s perceived legitimacy, it does predict

gender inequality’s perceived stability (Glick & Whitehead,

2010). Indeed, HM correlates positively with BM because both

presume that men have greater power. Sometimes this power is

used to harm or control women, as HM acknowledges, but it

can also be used to protect and provide for women, as BM

celebrates. So, although HM is resentful toward men’s power,

like hostile and benevolent sexism toward women, it correlates

positively with traditional values (Feather, 2004), negatively

with feminist beliefs (Anderson, Kanner, & Elsayegh, 2009),

and positively with other sexist beliefs, including BM

(Glick et al., 2004). Thus, despite important differences (dis-

cussed below), sexist attitudes toward women and men share

complex (i.e., ambivalent) structures, cultural derivations, and

functions.

But what accounts for individual differences, within

cultures, in women’s endorsement of HM and BM? The evi-

dence described above suggests that HM and BM stem from

similar social–structural and ideological antecedents as

hostile sexism and benevolent sexism, which underscores the

importance of understanding sexism toward men as part of a

larger psychological and cultural context that supports gender

inequality. However, to our knowledge, no research has

explored nonideological personality correlates of women’s

HM and BM. Because gender relations involve intimate inter-

personal as well as intergroup dimensions, we propose that

differences in women’s attachment styles predict distinct

patterns of hostile and benevolent sexism toward men.

Attachment Insecurity and Sexism

Our research builds on Hart et al.’s (2012) theoretical and

empirical analysis of attachment styles and men’s sexism

toward women. They proposed that sexism derives in part from

the operations of the ‘‘attachment system,’’ the behavioral sys-

tem thought to influence the maintenance of close interperso-

nal relationships throughout individuals’ lives (Bowlby, 1982;

Hazan & Shaver, 1994; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Although

the attachment system coalesces within the first year of life, it

shapes, and is shaped by, experiences throughout life (Simp-

son, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007). Hence, by adulthood,

people maintain elaborate, affectively tinged representations

or internal ‘‘working models’’ (Bowlby, 1982) of the self and

others, based on prior experiences, especially in the context of

close relationships. These working models create expectations

about close relationships, but their influence extends well

beyond that domain to affect emotion and behavior regulation,

intergroup attitudes, sex, parenting, and psychopathology—to

name just a few examples (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007,

for a comprehensive review of adult attachment theory and

research).

The attachment system’s internal working models,

although unique to each individual, exhibit broad patterns

that reliably differentiate styles of attachment. Most notably,

two insecurity dimensions distinguish how much people (a)

yearn for intimacy, fear rejection and abandonment, and per-

severate about relationships (attachment anxiety) and (b) fear

intimacy and pursue a strategy of self-reliance and emotional

distancing from close relationship partners (attachment

avoidance). People who are lower on both insecurity dimen-

sions are considered ‘‘secure.’’

Attachment anxiety and avoidance reflect, in part, the

extent of individuals’ overall psychological security (i.e.,

durability vs. insecurity or vulnerability; Hart, Shaver, &

Goldenberg, 2005), which in turn shapes their views of them-

selves, their close relationship partners, and the world at

large. Indeed, people are likely to apply their attachment

working models to potential future partners (Brumbaugh &

Fraley, 2006) and to exhibit their attachment tendencies dur-

ing interactions with strangers (e.g., support seeking or lack

thereof; Feeney, Cassidy, & Ramos-Marcuse, 2008). More-

over, attachment style reflects general sensitivity to threats

to the self (i.e., insecurity vs. security) so that it influences

intergroup attitudes, which frequently involve potential threat

and conflict. Specifically, priming secure attachment has

been found to reduce intergroup bias (Mikulincer & Shaver,

2001); in contrast, attachment anxiety relates to believing that

the world is a dangerous place (Weber & Federico, 2007) and

attachment avoidance predicts social dominance orientation

(SDO), an adversarial intergroup ideology (Hart et al.,

2012; Weber & Federico, 2007). In sum, theory and research

suggest that attachment style plays a prominent role in shap-

ing individuals’ worldviews, including their interpersonal

and intergroup attitudes and ideologies.

Concerning men’s sexism toward women, Hart et al.

(2012) found that attachment avoidance predicts men’s uni-

valent hostility toward women—that is, higher hostile sex-

ism combined with lower benevolent sexism. This finding

makes sense because attachment avoidance reflects working

models depicting others as undependable and intimacy as

threatening—a cynical disposition compatible with hostile

sexism’s characterization of women as manipulative and

untrustworthy but not with benevolent sexism’s idealization

508 Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)

of romantic relationships. Accordingly, Hart et al. found

that the avoidance ! hostile sexism link was mediated by

SDO, which is related to avoidant individuals’ tendency to

view the world as a cold, competitive jungle (Weber &

Federico, 2007). Further, the avoidance ! benevolent sex-

ism link was mediated by lower romanticism (i.e., cynical

beliefs about romantic love), reflecting avoidant individu-

als’ discomfort with intimacy.

Hart et al.’s (2012) research also revealed that men higher

in attachment anxiety were prone to ambivalence toward

women, scoring higher on both benevolent sexism and hostile

sexism than men lower in attachment anxiety. These findings

are consistent with anxiously attached individuals’ simulta-

neous craving for intimacy (often leading to overinvestment

in relationships) and concern that others will not provide the

intimacy and love they seek. Thus, anxious men idealize

women as potential partners (consistent with benevolent

sexism) but also worry that women will be uncaring (consis-

tent with hostile sexism). Accordingly, Hart et al. found that

the anxiety ! benevolent sexism link was mediated by

endorsement of romanticism, whereas the anxiety ! hostile

sexism link appeared to reflect anxious men’s generalization

of their relational concerns—that is, directing their occa-

sional rejection-based hostility toward women as a group.

The Present Research

Given the parallels between sexism directed toward women

and sexism directed toward men and their complementary

roles in maintaining a system of gender inequality, we

suggest that attachment insecurities will predict women’s

sexist beliefs about men. In particular, intimate interdepen-

dence represents a symmetrical complementarity between men

and women—heterosexual members of each sex ‘‘need’’ each

other—creating similarities between benevolent sexism and

BM that seem unavoidably related to attachment (because both

ideologies focus on intimate relationships between the sexes).

Therefore, as with men’s benevolent sexism, women’s BM

should be based partly on their emotional and ideological

proclivities toward potential romantic relationship partners and

toward romantic relationships in general.

However, the other structural factor undergirding sexism

makes women’s HM different from men’s hostile sexism in

at least one important way. In contrast to intimate interdepen-

dence between the sexes, social power is inherently asymme-

trical, such that traditionally, men are higher and women are

lower in power. Power’s asymmetry should create gender-

specific dynamics because prejudice directed ‘‘upwards’’

(i.e., from women toward men) qualitatively differs from

prejudice directed ‘‘downwards’’ (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick,

2008). Below, we explicate both the expected similarities and

differences in how attachment insecurities predispose

women’s sexism toward men, as compared to men’s sexism

toward women.

First, due to the symmetries in heterosexual interdepen-

dence, we expected a similar pattern with respect to the

fundamental relation between women’s attachment insecuri-

ties and sexism toward men, as observed in Hart et al.’s

(2012) research on men’s sexism. As with men, women’s

attachment anxiety should predict ambivalence toward the

other sex—that is, endorsement of both HM (a cynical view

of men as callous abusers of power) and BM (an idealized

view of men as women’s protectors and providers). Further-

more, women’s avoidance should predict univalent hostile

sexism toward men (higher HM and lower BM).

Concerning mediators of the attachment ! sexism links,

we expected that women’s (like men’s) benevolence toward

the other sex should be mediated by romanticism, an ideology

that idealizes romantic interdependence (Sprecher & Metts,

1989). Individuals with anxious romantic attachment styles

desperately crave ‘‘true love’’ and want to merge completely

with partners, whom they tend to idealize; but they simulta-

neously fear they will be rejected, leading to defensive beha-

viors (e.g., jealousy; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Their intense

desire for love may predispose anxious individuals toward

romanticism, which views ‘‘true love’’ as a powerful merging

of two souls in a relationship ‘‘meant to be.’’ Among men,

Hart et al. (2012) found that anxious individuals tended to

endorse romanticism, which accounted for their greater

acceptance of benevolent sexism. By contrast, avoidant men

tended to reject romanticism, which accounted for their lower

endorsement of benevolent sexism. Because romanticism,

like both benevolent sexism toward women and BM,

expresses views about intimate interdependence, in the pres-

ent research we expected mediational effects with women

that parallel men’s. Specifically, we predicted that anxious

women would endorse romanticism, and this linkage would

account for their acceptance of BM; in contrast, avoidant

women would reject romanticism and, in turn, reject BM.

However, due to power asymmetries, we expected a key dif-

ference from the dynamics of men’s sexism toward women with

respect to mediation of the links between attachment and HM.

Hart et al.’s (2012) work showed that SDO (Sidanius & Pratto,

1999) mediated the relationship between men’s avoidant attach-

ment and hostile sexism, suggesting that avoidant men are prone

to viewing women as members of an adversarial out-group.

SDO represents a particularly attractive intergroup ideology for

members of powerful groups because it justifies the current

group hierarchy (i.e., that groups in power deserve their privi-

leges). By contrast, members of disadvantaged groups are less

attracted to SDO, an ideology that justifies their poorer social

outcomes as legitimate. Indeed, research shows a persistent gen-

der gap in SDO, with men endorsing it more strongly than

women (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Further, as noted above,

unlike hostile sexism, HM does not function as a system-

legitimizing ideology (even though it relates to perceived sys-

tem stability); thus, HM (unlike hostile sexism toward women)

should not be functionally related to SDO (the system-justifying

antecedent to hostile sexism), at least among women. In other

Hart et al. 509

words, the asymmetry in power between the sexes suggests that

SDO would not mediate avoidant women’s hypothesized HM.

Although we included SDO in the current studies, we did

not expect it to act as a mediator. We predicted instead that

‘‘interpersonal trust’’—people’s generalized expectancies

about the trustworthiness of others (Rotter, 1967)—would

mediate between women’s attachment avoidance and HM.

We chose this construct for three reasons. First, trust (or mis-

trust) seems likely to be part of avoidant individuals’ world-

view because their working models depict close relationship

partners as distant and undependable; in fact, the original mea-

sure of avoidance in adulthood emphasized difficulty trusting

romantic partners (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). If these working

models generalize beyond close relationships, avoidantly

attached individuals would be lower on interpersonal trust.

Second, whereas hostile sexism is system justifying,

thereby naturally stemming from a system-justifying ideo-

logy like SDO (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Sibley,

Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007), HM expresses antipathy toward

men and their systemic power. Therefore, HM seems likely

to originate from a generally cynical and suspicious world-

view. If so, women’s avoidance should predict such cynical

views about others (i.e., lower trust), which, in turn, should

predict mistrust about men’s motives; that is, HM (which

views men as seeking to control women). A third advantage

to exploring trust as a mediator is that it might also mediate

the relationship of women’s anxiety to HM (whereas SDO

is unrelated to anxiety, even among men). Attachment anxi-

ety involves concerns that others will not be responsive to

one’s needs or desires for intimacy. For anxious women, this

mistrust might, in turn, predict HM.

In sum, we hypothesized: (a) women’s attachment anxiety

would predict a tendency to endorse both HM and BM; (b)

women’s attachment avoidance would predict a tendency to

endorse HM and reject BM; (c) the links from attachment inse-

curities to BM would be mediated by romanticism (with avoid-

ance leading to less romanticism and therefore lower BM, but

anxiety leading to higher romanticism and therefore higher

BM); and (d) the links from both attachment insecurities to

HM would be mediated by lower interpersonal trust. Because

we wanted to ensure that our results could not be attributed to a

methodological artifact, such as the particular questionnaire

order we chose (i.e., such that completing one questionnaire

could prime concepts that influence responses on subsequent

questionnaires), we tested these hypotheses in two studies that

varied the order of questionnaire presentation.

Study 1

Method

Participants

After excluding 19 women who self-identified as either lesbian

or ‘‘other,’’ participants were 232 heterosexual women located

in the United States, who were recruited through Mturk.com

(see Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011), and compensated

with credit toward their Amazon.com accounts. We eliminated

three individuals from data analysis whose responses were

obviously disingenuous (e.g., one participant responded with

all 4s and another with a 4-5-4-5 alternating pattern) leaving

229 participants. Their ages ranged from 18 to 78 (Mdn ¼30). Most were Caucasian (182, 79.5%), with the rest identify-

ing as Asian American/Pacific Islander (18, 7.9%), African

American (17, 7.4%), Hispanic/Latina (6, 2.6%), Native

American (5, 2.2%), Middle Eastern American (1, 0.4%),

‘‘other’’ (3, 1.3%), or ‘‘more than one’’ (8, 3.5%). (Percentages

sum to more than 100 because participants were allowed to

select multiple options.)

Materials and Procedure

Participants first completed online questionnaires assessing,

in order: attachment style, ambivalence toward men, roman-

ticism, interpersonal trust, and SDO. We intentionally placed

the hypothesized mediators last to reduce the chance that

questionnaire order could spuriously contribute to the media-

tional relationships we predicted. For all measures, partici-

pants rated their agreement with items on a 1 (disagree

strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) scale, and scores were aver-

aged across all items (after transforming reverse-coded items

where applicable). Table 1 displays a coefficients for each of

the scales. Finally, participants provided demographic infor-

mation (age, followed by ethnic identification and sexual

orientation).

The Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) inventory

measured attachment anxiety and avoidance (Brennan, Clark,

& Shaver, 1998). The ECR has been extensively validated

and used in hundreds of studies to measure adult attachment

style, with typical a coefficients above .90 (Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2007). It includes 36 items assessing attachment

anxiety (e.g., ‘‘I worry about being abandoned’’ and ‘‘I often

wish that my partner’s feelings for me were as strong as my

feelings for him/her’’) and avoidance (e.g., ‘‘I don’t feel com-

fortable opening up to romantic partners’’ and ‘‘I am nervous

when partners get too close to me’’). Higher scores indicate

greater anxiety or avoidance.

A short version of the Ambivalence Toward Men Inven-

tory (AMI; Glick & Whitehead, 2010) measured BM and

HM. An example of the 6 items assessing HM is: ‘‘Even men

who claim to be sensitive to women’s rights really want a tra-

ditional relationship at home, with the woman performing

most of the housekeeping and child care.’’ An example of one

of the six BM items is: ‘‘A woman will never be truly fulfilled

in life if she doesn’t have a committed, long-term relationship

with a man.’’ Higher scores indicate greater BM or HM. The

AMI has been validated in prior research, including a 16-

nation study involving over 8,000 participants in which HM

was shown to predict more negative and BM more positive

stereotypes of men (Glick et al., 2004). Glick et al. (2004)

510 Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)

also found evidence for a consistent structure (with correlated

but distinct HM and BM subfactors) across nations. Addi-

tional detailed psychometric analyses of the AMI can be

found in Glick and Fiske (2001).

The 15-item Romantic Beliefs scale assessed romanti-

cism. Its reliability (a ¼ .81) and validity were established

in a large (N ¼ 730) sample of undergraduate students whose

responses to the romantic beliefs items correlated with their

scores on related scales measuring aspects of love and

romance (Sprecher & Metts, 1989). Items include: ‘‘Once I

experience ‘true love,’ I could never experience it again, to

the same degree, with another person’’ and ‘‘The relationship

I will have with my ‘true love’ will be nearly perfect.’’ Higher

scores indicate higher romanticism.

In the interest of brevity, we measured trust using the

‘‘interpersonal exploitation’’ dimension of Rotter’s (1967)

Interpersonal Trust Scale (see Chun & Campbell, 1974). Rot-

ter’s scale is one of the most frequently used trust measures

(Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007). The interpersonal exploita-

tion dimension has been shown to have adequate internal con-

sistency (a ¼ .60; Chun & Campbell, 1974). It includes 8

items (e.g., ‘‘In dealing with strangers one is better off to

be cautious until they have provided evidence that they are

trustworthy’’ [reverse coded] and ‘‘Most people can be

counted on to do what they say they will do’’). This dimen-

sion seemed the most general compared with the other three

dimensions of interpersonal trust, whose items focus specifi-

cally on political cynicism, hypocrisy, and reliable role per-

formance (e.g., ‘‘Most repairmen will not overcharge even

if they think you are ignorant of their specialty’’), although

we think it is likely that using the entire scale would yield

similar results. Higher scores indicate greater interpersonal

trust.

The SDO scale included 8 items (Weber & Federico,

2007), such as ‘‘some groups of people are simply inferior

to others.’’ This widely used scale has been shown to relate

to a broad range of hierarchical ideologies, including political

conservatism, just-world beliefs, and nationalism—in addi-

tion to sexism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The short version

of the scale used here has shown good internal consistency

(a ¼ .83; Weber & Federico, 2007). Higher scores indicate

higher SDO.

Results

Table 1 displays the zero-order correlations among all study

variables. Our main hypotheses—that anxiously attached

women would exhibit ambivalence toward men (higher HM

and BM), whereas avoidant women would show only hostile

sexist attitudes toward men and reject benevolent ones

(higher HM, lower BM)—are most stringently tested using

partial correlations (e.g., the correlation between attachment

anxiety and BM controlling for attachment avoidance and

HM). As expected, attachment anxiety correlated positively

with HM, r(225) ¼ .18, p < .01, but its predicted correlation

with BM did not attain significance, r(225) ¼ .11, p ¼ .10.

Also as expected, avoidance correlated positively with HM,

r(225) ¼ .19, p < .01, and negatively with BM, r(225) ¼�.22, p < .01. Notably, SDO did not correlate with either

avoidance or HM, consistent with our prediction that it would

not mediate the avoidance ! HM link.

We next tested our complete model of the structural rela-

tions between attachment and sexism toward men, including

the hypothesized mediating variables of romanticism and

interpersonal trust and using structural equation modeling

(SEM; see Figure 1). For the measurement model, we used

the method described by Sibley, Wilson, and Duckitt

(2007) to create three parcels for each latent variable in the

model. To create the parcels, items from each measure were

randomly divided into three groups, using equivalent numbers

of reverse-scored items where possible. Items in each group

were averaged to create three parcels (or observed variables)

to load onto each latent variable in the model. (See Table 2 for

the factor loadings of the parcels that predict each latent

variable.) The model fit the data adequately, w2 ¼ 205.96, df

¼ 123, w2/df ¼ 1.67, root mean square of approximation

(RMSEA)¼ .05, comparative fit index (CFI)¼ .97. Together,

anxiety, avoidance, and trust explained 23% of the variance in

Table 1. Correlation Matrix for Both Studies’ Variables.

Study 1 Study 2Anxiety Avoidance BM HM Romanticism Trust SDOM (SD) M (SD)

Anxiety 3.89 (1.23) 3.63 (1.23) (.94, .94) .30*** .17* .29*** .16* �.18** .12Avoidance 3.03 (1.21) 2.72 (1.17) .15* (.95, .96) �.10 .18** �.26*** �.16* .02BM 3.39 (1.25) 3.56 (1.19) .12 �.15* (.75, .79) .43*** .46*** �.05 .21**HM 3.67 (1.17) 3.81 (1.14) .16* .21** .54*** (.79, .79) .20** �.31*** .08Romanticism 4.16 (0.93) 4.35 (0.98) .17** �.31*** .41*** .18** (.86, .88) �.10 .08Trust 4.64 (0.77) 4.52 (0.83) �.28*** �.15* �.25*** �.36*** �.06 (.72, .78) �.08SDO 2.63 (1.24) 2.54 (1.10) .04 .08 .24*** .21*** .07 .16* (.89, .86)

Note. BM ¼ benevolence toward men; HM ¼ hostility toward men; SDO ¼ social dominance orientation.Study 1’s correlation coefficients are above the diagonal; Study 2’s are below the diagonal. The coefficient a for each measure is reported in parentheses alongthe diagonal (Studies 1 and 2).*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hart et al. 511

HM, and anxiety, avoidance, and romanticism explained 27%of the variance in BM. The SEM analysis supported all of the

predicted links, with one exception: the avoidance ! trust

link. Although in the predicted direction, this relationship was

not significant (and we address this finding below).

Finally, we conducted direct tests of our mediational

hypotheses by following Preacher and Hayes’s (2004,

2008) recommendations. We ran mediation analyses using

5,000 bootstrap samples and estimated bias-corrected and

accelerated 95% confidence intervals. When attachment

anxiety was the independent variable, we included avoidance

as a covariate (and vice versa); we also included both sexism

dimensions in each analysis.

Anxiety ! Romanticism ! BM

Results supported our prediction that women’s romanticism

would mediate the positive anxiety ! BM link. Anxiety sig-

nificantly predicted the proposed mediator, romanticism, at

.15 (p < .01), and in turn, the direct effect of romanticism on

BM was significant at .49 (p < .0001). The total effect of anxi-

ety on BM was of .10 was not significant (p ¼ .10), and the

direct link from anxiety to BM (.03) was also not significant

(p¼ .63). Despite the total effect of anxiety on BM being non-

significant, the confidence interval for the indirect effect of

anxiety on BM via romanticism was .0222 to .1437, indicating

a significant test of mediation (because the confidence interval

excludes zero).

Figure 1. Structural equation model predicting women’s benevolence (BM) and hostility (HM) toward men from attachment anxiety andavoidance for Studies 1 (top) and 2 (bottom). Dashed lines represent nonsignificant pathways.

512 Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)

Avoidance ! Romanticism ! BM

Results also supported the prediction that rejecting romanti-

cism would mediate the (negative) avoidance ! BM link.

Avoidance significantly predicted the proposed mediator,

romanticism, at�.28 (p < .0001), and in turn, the direct effect

of romanticism on BM was significant at .49 (p < .0001). The

total effect of avoidance on BM was significant at �.22 (p <

.001), and the direct effect was not significant at �.08 (p ¼

.20). The confidence interval for the indirect effect of avoid-

ance on BM via romanticism was �.2181 to �.0706, indicat-

ing a significant test of mediation.

Anxiety ! Trust ! HM

We hypothesized that women’s lower interpersonal trust

would mediate the anxiety! HM link. Anxiety significantly

predicted the proposed mediator, trust, at �.09 (p < .05), and

in turn, the direct effect of trust on HM was significant at

�.36 (p < .0001). The total effect of anxiety on HM was

significant at .16 (p < .01), and the direct effect was signifi-

cant at .13 (p < .05). However, the confidence interval for the

indirect effect of anxiety on HM via trust was �.0037 to

�.0722, which did not reach the threshold for a significant

test of mediation.

Avoidance ! Trust ! HM

We had predicted that avoidance would influence HM via

lower interpersonal trust. However, the significant zero-

order correlation between avoidance and trust did not trans-

late into a significant path between avoidance and trust in the

SEM. This suggested that covariance with another variable

might account for the influence of avoidance on trust. Indeed,

regression analyses revealed that the significant influence of

avoidance on trust was eliminated (p¼ .10) when controlling

for attachment anxiety. Thus, we conclude that attachment

avoidance predicts lower interpersonal trust—and therefore

higher HM—in part due to common variance shared with

attachment anxiety.1

Discussion

Study 1 partially supported our central predictions that

women’s attachment anxiety would predict both hostility and

BM, whereas women’s attachment avoidance would predict

HM combined with lower benevolence. Specifically, we

found support for all but one predicted relationship: The anxi-

ety ! BM relationship, although significant as a first-order

correlation, was reduced to nonsignificance using the more

stringent partial correlation (controlling for the BM–HM rela-

tionship). Our results also supported the hypotheses that

lower interpersonal trust would mediate the links between

attachment avoidance and HM, whereas romanticism would

mediate the links between attachment and BM. However,

controlling for trust did not significantly reduce the total

effect of anxiety on HM, in contrast to our tentative predic-

tion that trust would mediate the anxiety ! HM link in

addition to the avoidance ! HM link. Also unexpectedly,

we found that women’s avoidance predicted HM due to

covariance with anxiety, suggesting that a general insecurity

factor could explain that avoidance ! HM link. These last

two unexpected findings, along with our concerns about pos-

sible testing effects, led us to conduct a replication study.

Study 2

Study 2 replicated Study 1, but with one important difference:

We transposed the questionnaires’ presentation order. Specif-

ically, instead of completing the ECR first, followed by the

AMI, participants in Study 2 completed those questionnaires

in the reverse order. Additionally, we swapped the order of

the trust and romanticism questionnaires. Changing the ques-

tionnaire order allows us to test the possibility that the order

may have contributed to Study 1’s specific pattern of

findings. For example, it seems possible that filling out the

attachment questionnaires could have primed romantic rela-

tionship schemas that then influenced attitudes toward men

in the predicted direction. Hence, Study 2 tested whether our

findings would replicate, as well as whether they would hold

up given a different questionnaire order.

Participants and Procedure

After excluding 26 women who self-identified as either les-

bian or ‘‘other,’’ participants were 273 women located in the

United States recruited through Mturk.com. Three partici-

pants were removed because they had participated in Study

1. The remaining participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 82

(Mdn¼ 31). Most were Caucasian (203, 75.2%), with the rest

identifying as African American (27, 10.0%), Hispanic/

Latina (18, 6.7%), Asian American/Pacific Islander (15,

5.6%), Middle Eastern American (3, 1.1%), Native American

(1, 0.4%), ‘‘other’’ (1, 0.4%), or ‘‘more than one’’ (6, 2.2%).

(Percentages sum to more than 100 because participants were

allowed to select multiple options.) The materials and

Table 2. Regression Weights (b) for the Parcels That Predict EachLatent Variable.

Study 1 Study 2

VariablesParcel

1Parcel

2Parcel

3Parcel

1Parcel

2Parcel

3

Anxiety .90* .91* .92* .91* .91* .94*Avoidance .95* .96* .95* .98* .96* .94*BM .69* .78* .84* .73* .77* .80*HM .77* .78* .66* .81* .79* .65*Romanticism .70* .84* .87* .67* .85* .96*Trust .73* .66* .78* .72* .75* .86*

Note. BM ¼ benevolence toward men; HM ¼ hostility toward men.*p < .001.

Hart et al. 513

procedure were identical to Study 1 except for the previously

noted change in the questionnaire order.

Results

Table 1 displays the zero-order correlations between the

study variables. As in Study 1, the lack of a significant corre-

lation between SDO and avoidance suggests that SDO did not

mediate the avoidance! HM link (despite SDO correlating

positively with HM in Study 2). Also as in Study 1, the partial

correlations supported our main predictions concerning the

relation between attachment avoidance and both HM and

BM: r(266) ¼ .33, p < .001 and r(266) ¼ �.32, p < .001,

respectively. Different from Study 1, neither of the partial

correlations between attachment anxiety and HM or BM were

significant: r(266) ¼ .06, p ¼ .36 and r(266) ¼ .08, p ¼ .17,

respectively. The discrepancy between the zero-order and

partial correlations in Study 2 suggests that the association

between attachment anxiety and each of the sexism dimen-

sions was due to shared variance between attachment anxiety

and the other sexism dimension. Thus, it seems that, in Study

2, women’s attachment anxiety predicted their HM in part

because of their BM—and vice versa.

To test our full model, we again used SEM (see Table 2

and Figure 1), applying the same parameters as in Study 1.

The model again fit the data adequately, w2 ¼ 241.07, df ¼123, w2/df ¼ 1.96, RMSEA ¼ .06, CFI ¼ .97. Together,

anxiety, avoidance, and trust explained 13% of the variance

in HM; anxiety, avoidance, and romanticism explained

12% of the variance in BM.2 We also conducted mediation

analyses according to the same procedures described in rela-

tion to Study 1.

Anxiety ! Romanticism ! BM

Results replicated Study 1’s finding that romanticism signif-

icantly mediated the anxiety ! BM link. Anxiety signifi-

cantly predicted the proposed mediator, romanticism, at .15

(p < .001), and in turn, the direct effect of romanticism on

BM was significant at .30 (p < .0001). The total effect of anxi-

ety on BM was not significant at .07 (p ¼ .17), and the direct

effect was also not significant at .02 (p ¼ .67). Despite the

nonsignificant total effect, the confidence interval for the

indirect effect of anxiety on BM via romanticism indicated

a significant test of mediation (.0171 to .0926).

Avoidance ! Romanticism ! BM

As in Study 1, rejecting romanticism significantly mediated the

(negative) avoidance! BM link. Avoidance significantly pre-

dicted the proposed mediator, romanticism, at�.32 (p < .0001),

and in turn, the direct effect of romanticism on BM was signif-

icant at .30 (p < .0001). The total effect of avoidance on BM was

significant at �.29 (p < .0001), and the direct effect was also

significant at �.19 (p < .001). The confidence interval for the

indirect effect of avoidance on BM via romanticism was

�.1626 to �.0518, indicating a significant test of mediation.

Anxiety ! Trust! HM

In Study 1, anxious women’s lower interpersonal trust did not

significantly mediate the anxiety! HM link, but in Study 2,

it did. Anxiety significantly predicted the proposed mediator,

trust, at �.15 (p < .0001), and in turn, the direct effect of trust

on HM was significant at �.26 (p < .001). The total effect of

anxiety on HM was not significant at .04 (p ¼ .36), and the

direct effect was also not significant at .003 (p ¼ .95). Not-

withstanding the nonsignificant total effect of anxiety on

HM, the confidence interval for the indirect effect of anxiety

on HM via trust was .0140 to .0780, indicating a significant

test of mediation.

Avoidance ! Trust! HM

Our hypothesis that avoidance would predict HM via lower

interpersonal trust—which received qualified support in

Study 1—was better supported by Study 2’s results. Avoid-

ance significantly predicted the proposed mediator, trust, at

�.11 (p < .05), and in turn, the direct effect of trust on HM

was significant at .26 (p < .001). The total effect of avoidance

on HM was significant at .28 (p < .0001), and the direct effect

was also significant at .25 (p < .0001). The confidence inter-

val for the indirect effect of avoidance on HM via trust was

.0070 to .0585, indicating a significant test of mediation.

Discussion and Comparison of the TwoStudies

Study 2 provided additional data with which to evaluate our

theoretical model. As in Study 1, the model was generally

supported. The main exception was that neither the partial

correlations nor the total effects of attachment anxiety on

HM and BM were significant in Study 2, despite significant

zero-order correlations. That the relation between attachment

anxiety and sexism became attenuated when controlling for

other overlapping variables may suggest that the unique var-

iance in each sexism dimension explained by attachment

anxiety is relatively modest. However, even if anxiety

predicts shared variance between HM and BM, the basic pre-

diction holds: Anxiously attached women evince greater

ambivalence (higher HM and higher BM) toward men.

Further, the mediation analyses (anxiety ! romanticism !BM and anxiety! lower trust! HM) were both significant

in Study 2. We note that according to current recommenda-

tions concerning mediation analyses, the significant indirect

effects trump the lack of significant total effects. For exam-

ple, Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, and Petty (2011) argue that:

Although there is value in testing the total effect of X on Y,

we propose that overemphasizing the X ! Y relationship

514 Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)

before or after controlling for a mediator can lead to mislead-

ing, or even false, conclusions in theory testing . . . research-

ers interested in understanding intervening effects in

proposed theoretical models should shift attention to testing

the mediation effect itself and not constrain themselves by

placing undue emphasis on the significance of the X ! Y

relationship. (p. 360)

Moreover, Study 2 showed that the avoidance! HM and

BM relations found in Study 1’s partial correlation results

were robust and reliable, and Study 2 was also consistent with

our theoretical model concerning the mediation of the avoid-

ance to sexism links (avoidance ! lower romanticism !lower BM and avoidance ! lower trust! HM).

Despite the overall consistency, there were two differ-

ences in mediational analyses across Studies 1 and 2. First,

the anxiety ! lower trust ! HM mediational path was sig-

nificant only in Study 2. It seems that the path may simply

be a weak one: All the constituent paths were significant in

Study 1 but the test of mediation did not reach significance;

Study 2 used a larger sample and found significant mediation.

Second, the avoidance! lower trust! HM path, significant

in Study 2, was nonsignificant in Study 1 when controlling

for attachment anxiety. We conclude that covariance between

attachment anxiety and avoidance and between HM and BM

may sometimes complicate interpretation of the unique

relations among them.

General Discussion

We have presented a theoretical model which proposes

attachment style as a potential personality antecedent to het-

erosexual women’s sexism toward men. We therefore

hypothesized that women’s attachment anxiety would predict

ambivalent sexism toward men (higher HM and BM),

whereas their avoidance would predict univalent hostile sex-

ism (higher HM, lower BM). Results of the two studies were

generally consistent with these hypotheses. In particular, the

links between avoidance and sexism were robust across both

studies. However, the links between attachment anxiety and

each sexism dimension were attenuated when controlling for

avoidance and/or the other sexism dimension, suggesting that

these links are comparatively weak.

The two studies also generally (but not completely) sup-

ported our model’s mediational predictions: Compared to

women lower in attachment anxiety, anxiously attached

women tended to idealize romance (Studies 1 and 2), which

accounted for their endorsement of benevolently sexist atti-

tudes toward men (Studies 1 and 2), but they also tended to

generally distrust others (Studies 1 and 2), which accounted

for their endorsement of hostile sexist attitudes toward men

(Study 2 only). By contrast, compared to women lower in

attachment avoidance, avoidantly attached women tended

to reject romanticism (Studies 1 and 2), which accounted for

their rejection of BM (Studies 1 and 2); yet, like anxious

women, their lower interpersonal trust (Studies 1 and 2)

accounted for their endorsement of HM (Study 2 only).

Importantly, the relations between the variables measured

in our studies are complex enough—anxiety and avoidance

predict HM in the same manner but have opposite relations

to BM—that they cannot be parsimoniously explained by

response biases, which should mitigate concerns about the

use of self-report methodology.

Although caution is warranted regarding the findings that

were inconsistent across studies, taken together, these and

earlier findings (Hart et al., 2012) are consistent with the view

that sexism may be partly derived from social beliefs and

attitudes that arise from attachment working models. Of

course, our use of correlational methodology restricts causal

inferences, but our findings agree with theoretical models

positing that just as sexism toward men and women share

structural similarities, they share some antecedents. Broadly

speaking, different patterns of sexism may be predisposed

by different attachment insecurities: Individuals’ attachment

anxiety and avoidance in adult romantic relationships lead

them to develop worldviews that predispose them to adopt

or reject benevolent and/or hostile sexist attitudes toward

members of the other sex.

However, important nuances distinguish between men’s

and women’s attitudes toward the other sex. Whereas SDO

mediates the link between men’s attachment avoidance and

hostile sexism toward women (Hart et al., 2012), it does not

mediate women’s hostile sexism toward men. We have sug-

gested that this difference reflects asymmetry in power, with

men’s hostility toward women protecting men’s power and

privilege (as social dominance beliefs do), whereas women’s

HM reflects lack of power relative to men. Instead, the pres-

ent study revealed that women’s HM is related partly to (lack

of) interpersonal trust. Trust represents a more interpersonal

(as opposed to intergroup) attitudinal mediator, which was

not investigated in prior work on men’s sexism toward

women (Hart et al., 2012). We can therefore only speculate

about trust’s potential role in men’s attitudes. However, given

the competitive themes in the hostile sexism scale (e.g.,

‘‘Feminists are seeking for women to have more power than

men’’ or ‘‘Women are too easily offended’’; Glick & Fiske,

1996), interpersonal trust seems a likely mediator between

men’s attachment insecurity and hostile sexism.

Limitations

The present study was limited in some ways. Most notably,

our correlational design precludes confident causal conclu-

sions. Specifically, plausible alternative causal models may

be compatible with our data; for example, attachment anxiety

and avoidance could have direct causal influence on sexist

ideologies, which in turn influence romanticism and interper-

sonal trust (flipping our proposed mediators and dependent

variables). Indeed, we conducted exploratory analyses of

alternative models testing sexism (HM and BM) as mediating

Hart et al. 515

links from attachment to romanticism and trust, and we found

that they were significant in three of the four analyses for

Study 1 and two of the four analyses for Study 2. Although

such bidirectional mediation is not uncommon, it underscores

the need for caution in drawing directional conclusions from

mediation analyses (we note that similar caution is warranted

even in experimental studies employing mediation analysis;

see Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005).

However, consistent with our preferred interpretation,

prior research and theory suggest that stable attachment styles

develop quite early in life (Bowlby, 1982), before children

are even aware that they belong to stable social groups (i.e.,

before gender constancy develops; see Lutz & Ruble,

1995). Furthermore, some experimental work shows that

priming attachment security changes ideology, including

values and intergroup attitudes (Mikulincer et al., 2003;

Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001). Similarly, theorists propose that

general intergroup ideologies precede rather than follow the

development of attitudes toward specific groups. For exam-

ple, in his dual process model of ideology and prejudice,

Duckitt (2001) argues that general intergroup ideologies

(e.g., SDO) precede and influence more specific intergroup

attitudes (e.g., racism or sexism). Further, a longitudinal

study by Sibley et al. (2007) supported this view when

predicting men’s hostile and benevolent sexism toward

women. Specifically, after controlling for baseline levels of

all variables, general intergroup ideologies (right-wing

authoritarianism and SDO) predicted changes over time in

men’s sexist beliefs. Nevertheless, alternative models (e.g.,

with reciprocal causal paths) remain plausible until they are

disconfirmed, so longitudinal or experimental studies would

be useful to help verify the causal model we have posited.

Another caveat that bears mentioning is that some of our

results changed depending on which variables were included

in analyses. For example, in Study 1, the avoidance ! trust

link became nonsignificant when anxiety was controlled.

Although this was not true in Study 2, and the test for media-

tion in Study 1 was significant despite the nonsignificant

effect of avoidance on trust, it is possible that a general

‘‘attachment insecurity’’ factor may account for much of the

relation between avoidance and HM via lower interpersonal

trust, with avoidance explaining little additional (unique) var-

iance. Similarly, in Study 2 (but not in Study 1), attachment

anxiety’s correlation with HM became nonsignificant when

controlling for BM, and vice versa. To our knowledge, there

is no research that addresses the nature of the shared variance

between anxiety and avoidance, or between HM and BM,

respectively (research instead focuses on the unique individ-

ual properties of the two insecurity and sexism dimensions),

so it is difficult to interpret these findings. This may suggest

an area for additional research.

Finally, it should be noted that we do not know the extent

to which the present results can be generalized. For example,

although we think our analysis is likely to apply across

cultures, additional research will be necessary to examine the

possibility that the model we have described is moderated by

ethnicity or other demographic factors.

Theoretical Implications

We hope the present research will prove useful to attachment

and other personality and social psychology theorists. Even

though causality is uncertain for our findings, they agree with

a large literature depicting attachment style as a personality

predictor of many psychological outcomes. That is, attach-

ment does not simply relate to individuals’ close relation-

ships; rather, it broadly relates to patterns of thought,

feeling, and behavior across many domains over the life span.

These ‘‘downstream’’ processes suggest a kind of coherence

to psychological functioning in which seemingly disparate

processes actually operate in accord—for instance, as a result

of a more fundamental motivational process. In an example

from the present study, attachment anxiety, which reflects

operations directed at maintaining feelings of security, relates

to beliefs (i.e., romanticism) and, in turn, attitudes (i.e., BM)

that reflect or resonate the underlying dynamic. In this way,

women’s benevolent attitudes toward men could be construed

as oriented toward augmenting a romantic worldview that func-

tions to counteract attachment insecurities. Such ‘‘motivated

social cognition’’ (Kruglanski, 1996) appears to be ubiquitous

and may well represent a basic principle of psychological

functioning.

In a similar vein, there may be other personality traits or

processes beside attachment that contribute to sexism in

analogous ways. If sexism is a general response to, or com-

pensation for, underlying insecurities, then perhaps other

forms of dispositional insecurity, such as lower self-esteem,

intolerance of uncertainty, or death anxiety may also play a

role (cf. Hart et al., 2005; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sullo-

way, 2003).

Practice Implications

For researchers interested in how sexist beliefs and attitudes

influence romantic relationship outcomes, our findings sug-

gest teasing out attachment style’s influence. Attachment

style likely influences relationship outcomes directly, but our

research suggests that it may also predict outcomes via

ideologies such as sexism, which has recently been found

to predict romantic relationship dynamics (Overall, Sibley,

& Tan, 2011).

Therapists, particularly marital counselors, may find the

implications for romantic relationships to be of particular

interest. Attachment insecurities, of course, have long been

known to predict conflict and instability in relationships. The

current research adds insight into how attachment insecurity

translates into more generalized sexist ideologies. Such ideol-

ogies can, in turn, influence the types of men to whom women

are attracted (Montanes, de Lemus, Moya, Bohner, & Megıa,

2013; Sibley & Overall, 2011) and desire for men to ‘‘take

516 Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)

charge’’ in at least some aspects of their romantic relation-

ships (Sarlet, Dumont, Delacollete, & Dardenne, 2012). More

broadly, sexist ideologies can lead women to unconsciously

justify and tolerate inequalities (whether in relationships or

life more generally; Connelly & Heesacker, 2012) that they

might resist or seek to change if they more carefully reflected

on these beliefs. Therapists could explore, within the context

of psychoeducational interventions, how clients’ attachment

insecurities and sexist beliefs might be linked in their past and

current relationships and life choices.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, ours is the first research to closely exam-

ine personality correlates of women’s sexism toward men. In

general, research on sexism has neglected questions about

personality, instead focusing on ideological correlates of

sexism. But if ideology is partly a function of personality,

it is important for researchers to explore the distal roots of

sexism and to piece together comprehensive models of its

antecedents. Not only will such lines of inquiry open up new

possibilities for interventions aiming to reduce sexism, and to

understand and ameliorate related romantic relationship

problems, but they will also help theorists understand more

about the psychodynamic interplay between emotion and

cognition as well as trace the processes leading from personal

and interpersonal precursors to ideological outcomes. We

hope the present research will inspire additional investiga-

tions of the theoretical model we have articulated.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect

to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) declared the following financial support for the

research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research

was supported in part by an internal faculty research grant from

Union College.

Notes

1. Although we did not predict interactions between anxiety and

avoidance, exploratory analyses showed an interaction (p ¼ .03)

on hostility toward men (HM), such that secure attachment (lower

anxiety and avoidance) predicted the lowest HM compared to the

other attachment styles. This interaction did not replicate in Study

2, so we do not interpret it further.

2. We speculate that the reduced variance explained in Study 2

compared to Study 1 may be attributable to our rearranged ques-

tionnaire order.

References

Anderson, K. J., Kanner, M., & Elsayegh, N. (2009). Are feminists

man haters? Feminists’ and nonfeminists’ attitudes toward men.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 216–224.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.).

New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report mea-

surement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview.

In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and

close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2006). Transference and attach-

ment: How do attachment patterns get carried forward from one

relationship to the next? Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 32, 552–560.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s

mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-

quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.

Chun, K., & Cambell, J. B. (1974). Dimensionality of the Rotter

interpersonal trust scale. Psychological Reports, 35, 1059–1070.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trust-

worthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their

unique relationships with risk taking and job performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 909–927.

Connelly, K., & Heesacker, M. (2012). Why is benevolent sexism

appealing?: Associations with system justification and life satis-

faction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 432–443.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and

competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The

stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In M. P. Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40,

pp. 61–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.

Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of

ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Feather, N. T. (2004). Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes

toward gender relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-

letin, 30, 3–12.

Feeney, B. C., Cassidy, J., & Ramos-Marcuse, F. (2008). The general-

ization of attachment representations to new social situations: Pre-

dicting behavior during initial interactions with strangers. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1481–1498.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory:

Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp.

115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.

Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato,

C., . . . Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes

toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.

Glick, P., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Hostility toward men and the

perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41,

177–185.

Hart, J., Hung, J. A., Glick, P., & Dinero, R. E. (2012). He loves her,

he loves her not: Attachment style as a personality antecedent to

men’s ambivalent sexism. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 38, 1495–1505.

Hart et al. 517

Hart, J., Shaver, P. R., & Goldenberg, J. L. (2005). Attachment,

self-esteem, worldviews, and terror management: Evidence for

a tripartite security system. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 88, 999–1013.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as

an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52, 511–524.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational

framework for research on close relationships. Psychological

Inquiry, 5, 1–22.

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system

justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and

unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology,

25, 881–919.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003).

Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychologi-

cal Bulletin, 129, 339–375.

Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Principles of

the interface. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social

psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 493–520). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lutz, S. E., & Ruble, D. N. (1995). Children and gender prejudice:

Context, motivation, and the development of gender concep-

tions. Annals of Child Development, 10, 131–166.

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Sapir-Lavid, Y., Yaakobi, E., Arias, K.,

Tal-Aloni, L., . . . Bor, G. (2003). Attachment theory and

concern for others’ welfare: Evidence that activation of the sense

of secure base promotes endorsement of self-transcendence

values. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 299–312.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and

intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema

attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 81, 97–115.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral

system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interper-

sonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). New York, NY: Aca-

demic Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood:

Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Montanes, P., de Lemus, S., Moya, M., Bohner, G., & Megıas, J. L.

(2013). How attractive are sexist intimates to adolescents?

The influence of sexist beliefs and relationship experience.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 494–506.

Overall, N. C., Sibley, C. G., & Tan, R. (2011). The costs and

benefits of sexism: Resistance to influence during relationship

conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101,

271–290.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures

for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Beha-

vior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling

strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multi-

ple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

Rotter, J. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal

trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.

Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011).

Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and

new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 5, 359–371.

Sarlet, M., Dumont, M., Delacollette, N., & Dardenne, B. (2012).

Prescription of protective paternalism for men in romantic and

work contexts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 444–457.

Sibley, C. G., & Overall, N. C. (2011). A dual process motivational

model of ambivalent sexism and gender differences in romantic

partner preferences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35,

303–317.

Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of

men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social

dominance orientation and ring-wing authoritarianism. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup

theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007).

Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions in

adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 355–367.

Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a

causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than

mediational analyses in examining psychological processes.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.

Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the ‘Romantic

Beliefs Scale’ and examination of the effects of gender and

gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Rela-

tionships, 6, 387–411.

Weber, C., & Federico, C. M. (2007). Interpersonal attachment and

patterns of ideological belief. Political Psychology, 28, 289–416.

518 Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(4)