| Title |
Ambivalent Sexism in Close Relationships: (Hostile) Power and (Benevolent) Romance Shape Relationship Ideals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sex Roles, April 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11199-010-9770-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tiane L. Lee, Susan T. Fiske, Peter Glick, Zhixia Chen |
| Abstract |
Gender-based structural power and heterosexual dependency produce ambivalent gender ideologies, with hostility and benevolence separately shaping close-relationship ideals. The relative importance of romanticized benevolent versus more overtly power-based hostile sexism, however, may be culturally dependent. Testing this, northeast US (N=311) and central Chinese (N=290) undergraduates rated prescriptions and proscriptions (ideals) for partners and completed Ambivalent Sexism and Ambivalence toward Men Inventories (ideologies). Multiple regressions analyses conducted on group-specific relationship ideals revealed that benevolent ideologies predicted partner ideals, in both countries, especially for US culture's romance-oriented relationships. Hostile attitudes predicted men's ideals, both American and Chinese, suggesting both societies' dominant-partner advantage. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 150 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 99 | 63% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Unknown | 31 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 January 2024.
All research outputs
#3,070,312
of 25,183,822 outputs
Outputs from Sex Roles
#696
of 2,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,520
of 101,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sex Roles
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,183,822 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 101,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.