ORIGINAL ARTICLE
When Female Applicants Meet Sexist Interviewers: The Costs
of Being a Target of Benevolent Sexism
Jessica J. Good
&
Laurie A. Rudman
Published online: 28 July 2009
#
Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract American undergraduate participants (N=205)
read an interview transcript and then evaluated male
interviewers and a female job applicant to investigate
perceptions of women who receive benevolent or hostile
sexism (relative to non-sexist controls). As predicted,
positive evaluations of the male interviewer in the benev-
olent and hostile sexist conditions negatively predicted
participants’ hiring decisions—an effect that was fully
mediated by low ratings of applicant competence. In accord
with ambivalent sexism theory’s claim that women who
challenge male dominance are not eligible for protective
paternalism, participants’ hostile sexism scores predicted
lower ratings of applicant competence and hireability, but
only when the interviewer was a benevolent sexist.
Implications for workplace discrimination are discussed.
Keywords Ambivalent sexism
.
Gender attitudes
.
Sex discrimination
.
Employment discrimination
Introduction
A business-savvy woman applies for a high power manage-
ment position at a large, retail outlet store. She is on guard for
overtly sexist or sexual remarks and a hostile work environ-
ment, but instead is greeted with paternalistic behavior from
her potential boss. He calls her “sweetheart,” mentions that the
men who would be working under her could use a little
smoothing over from a “nice young lady,” and assures her they
would be willing to assist with the more dangerous aspects of
her job. How will perceivers react to this job applicant, as the
target of benevolent sexism—a subtle form of discrimination
that may seem positive on the surface (Glick and Fiske 2001)?
To date, researchers have focused on women’s own reactions
to being the recipient of benevolent sexism, finding that it
circumscribes their aspirations (Moya et al. 2007) and can
lead to cognitive performance impairments, either because
they are angry (Vescio et al. 2005) or because they doubt
their abilities (Dardenne et al. 2007). But how do perceivers
react to recipients of benevolent sexism—including a female
job applicant? Do they view her as qualified and deserving of
the position, or do they view her as incompetent and weak,
penalizing her for the sexist treatment she received?
The present research sought to answer these questions by
investigating perceptions of a target of benevolent sexism in a
job interview context. After pretesting our materials, partic-
ipants (U.S. undergraduates) read one of three interview
transcripts in which the male interviewer acted in a benevolent
sexist, hostile sexist, or non-sexist manner. They then reported
their favorability toward the male interviewer and evaluated
the female job applicant’s competence, likeability, and
hireability. Because benevolent sexism has been extensively
documented in the U.S. (for a review, see Glick and Fiske
2001), as well as cross-culturally (e.g., in 19 countries; Glick
et al. 2000; see also Barreto and Ellemers 2005;Moyaetal.
2007), it is plausible that individuals may frequently observe
women receiving benevolent sexist treatment. Therefore, it is
important to investigate how perceptions of a target of
benevolent sexism may be affected, particularly in the
context of a job interview.
Benevolent and Hostile Sexism
Benevolent and hostile sexism are distinct but psychologically
related constructs in that they both support male dominance
J. J. Good (*)
:
L. A. Rudman
Department of Psychology, Rutgers University,
53 Avenue E, Tillett Hall,
Piscataway, NJ 08854-8040, USA
e-mail: goodj@eden.rutgers.edu
Sex Roles (2010) 62:481–493
DOI 10.1007/s11199-009-9685-6