Revisiting Ambivalent Sexism and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Examining the Effects of Respondents’ and Targets’ Racial Group Membership on Endorsement

Abstract

In recent years, social psychologists have increasingly acknowledged the importance of intersectionality in social-psychological research, especially in the domain of gender. In particular, the intersection between gender and race may be especially important to understanding gender prejudice, particularly ambivalent sexism and its two components, hostile sexism and benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996). I argue that ambivalent sexism theory as well as its measure, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, are due for an intersectional re-examination to determine the role that race plays in endorsement and application of hostile and benevolent sexism. In Study 1, I investigated the influence of respondent race on ASI scores, finding that measurement invariance could not be established across the four race-by-gender groups of interest (i.e., Black men, Black women, White men, and White women) and therefore ASI scores could not be compared between these groups. This raises several important questions about whether or not the ASI is a valid measure of ambivalent sexism for Black Americans and if that construct properly reflects Black Americans’ contemporary sexist attitudes. In Study 2, I investigated the influence of target race on ASI scores after first establishing measurement invariance for three of the four race-by-gender groups (the exception being Black Men). I found no evidence that target race affected hostile and benevolent sexism endorsement but did find differences in endorsement between Black women and White women, as well as between White men and White women. My research indicates that an intersectional perspective is critical to research using ambivalent sexism theory and the ASI, suggesting that, at the least, race must be considered in concert with gender when studying this particular form of sexism. Finally, and more generally, my research highlights the need for social psychologists to better attend to proper measurement evaluation (including testing measurement invariance) to ensure that measures are functioning as intended across all groups of interest so as to avoid invalid or overly broad findings and conclusions.