Sreejita Ghose, University of Kent-Canterbury, United Kingdom
published in the Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Love and Relationship Studies, 6-8 March, 2026
You can see the full video recording of this presentation at the YouTube channel of the International Institute of Love Studies
Introduction
Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996; 2001) distinguishes between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism, the latter representing a subjectively positive yet patronizing ideology that portrays women as pure, fragile, and deserving of male protection. While hostile sexism is increasingly rejected in public discourse and explicit attitudes, particularly in Western contexts, benevolent sexism remains relatively socially acceptable within heterosexual romantic and dating contexts, where it is often expressed as chivalry, care, or protectiveness.
Prior research suggests that men’s enactment of benevolent sexist behaviors may enhance romantic appeal by signaling willingness to invest, provide, and commit. Gul and Kupfer’s (2019) mate-preference model proposes that women’s attraction to such men reflects a “knowing bargain,” whereby perceived relational benefits outweigh ideological costs. However, their work found little evidence that women’s ideological commitments moderated these romantic preferences.
The present study aimed to replicate and extend this model by examining whether women’s feminist orientation, endorsement of benevolent sexism, and traditional gender role ideology differentially shape attraction to men who express benevolent sexism versus benevolent egalitarianism.
Methodology and Method
Three hundred nineteen heterosexual or bisexual women (M_age = 19.6) participated in an experimental study in which each participant was exposed to a single scenario describing a potential male dating partner. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three vignette conditions, allowing for comparisons of romantic attraction across groups exposed to different partner portrayals.
In each condition, participants read a brief vignette describing a male character (named Matt) whose attitudes and behaviors toward women reflected one of three theoretically derived profiles: a benevolent sexist man, a benevolent egalitarian man, or a non-benevolent egalitarian man. The vignettes depicted interpersonal behaviors and relational orientations relevant to romantic contexts, including expressions of care, protection, equality, and attitudes toward gender roles, thereby operationalizing variations in benevolent sexism and egalitarianism along desirable and undesirable trait dimensions associated with mate preferences.
Following the vignette, participants rated their romantic attraction to the target and completed measures assessing feminist orientation, endorsement of benevolent sexism, traditional gender role ideology, and perceived financial provisioning. Data were analyzed using one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) to test differences in attraction across conditions, as well as moderated regression analyses to examine the role of individual difference variables.
Highlights of Results
Women participating in the study rated their romantic attraction to a man exhibiting behaviors from three different vignettes, which were significantly varied across three experimental conditions. Women rated both the man depicted as benevolent sexist and the man depicted as benevolent egalitarian as more attractive than the non-benevolent egalitarian man. The benevolent egalitarian men rated highest overall.
Feminist orientation significantly moderated this romantic attraction: women high in feminism showed lower attraction to benevolent sexist men and had a preference for benevolent egalitarian men. On the other hand, women low in feminism showed the same preference. Endorsement of benevolent sexism by participating women also moderated their romantic attraction: women high in benevolent sexism preferred benevolent sexist men over benevolent egalitarian men. Traditional gender role ideology did not have a significant moderation effect on attraction.
Discussion and Conclusions
The findings of this study replicate the central theoretical proposition that benevolence enhances men’s romantic appeal to women. Importantly, the results extend prior research by demonstrating that ideological beliefs do, in fact, shape these preferences. Feminist orientation appears to buffer against the appeal of paternalistic benevolence, whereas internalized benevolent sexism amplifies it.
Together, these findings suggest that women’s dating preferences reflect not only perceived relational benefits but also ideological sensitivity to power dynamics and paternalism. This study highlights the nuanced ways in which gender ideology shapes romantic decision-making and challenges the assumption that attraction to benevolent sexism operates uniformly across women.
References
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
Gul, P., & Kupfer, T. R. (2019). Benevolent sexism and mate preferences: Why do women prefer benevolent men despite recognizing that they can be undermining? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218781000