Relationship between sexism and romantic courtship styles Toshifumi Sakai (Hiroshima University) The relationship between sexism and mate preference was investigated to elucidatecharacteristics of sexist courtship styles. A relationship with an opposite-sex partner is a contradiction for sexist individuals because they seek an opposite-sex partner despite their discriminatory attitudes and beliefs regarding the opposite sex. Therefore, this study hypothesized that there would be a tendency for sexist individuals not to seek emotional bonds with their partners, but to seek egocentric and instrumental relationships. Questionnaires were administered to university students (n=400). The results indicated that male sexists tended to emphasize the partner's physical attractiveness and female sexists tended to emphasize the partner's financial situation, physical attractiveness, and the desire for short-term relationships. These results were discussed in terms of sexist adaptation to opposite-sex relationships. Key words: sexism, mate preference, romantic courtship. The Japanese Journal of Psychology 2007, Vol. 78, No. 4, pp. 390-397 Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Toshifumi Sakai, Graduate School of Biosphere Sciences, Hiroshima University, Kagamiyama, Higashihiroshima 739-8521, Japan (e-mail: sakai907 @hiroshima-u.ac.jp)
Mladinic, Saiz, Abrams, Masser, Adetoum, Osagie, Akande, Alao, Brunner, Willemsen, Chipeta, Dardenne, Dijksterhuis, Wigboldus, Eckes, Six- Materna, Exposito, Moya, Foddy, Kim, Lameiras, Sotelo, Mucchi- Faina, Romani, Sakalli, Udegbe, Yamamoto, Ui, Ferreina, & Lopez, 2000; Glick, Lameiras, Fiske, Eckes, Masser, Volpato, Manganelli, Pek, Huang, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Castro, Pereira, Willemsen, Brunner, Six- Materna, & Wells,
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111-125. (Akazawa, J.) Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 157-215. Buss, D. M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49. Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. M. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423. Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1992). What's so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oscamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society: Applied social psychology annual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 173-196. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventry: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalent toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 115-188. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoum, B., Osagie, J. E., Akande, A., Alao, A., Brunner, A., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Exposito, F., Moya, M., Foddy, M., Kim, H., Lameiras, M., Sotelo, M. J., Mucchi-Faina, A., Romani, M., Sakalli, N., Udegbe, B., Yamamoto, M., Ui, M., Ferreina, M. C., & Lopez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, Y. R. (2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47, 433-441. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato. C., Manganelli, A. M., Pek, J. C. X., Huang, L., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Castro, Y. R., Pereira, M. L. D., Willemsen, T. M., Brunner, A., Six-Materna, I., & 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. Gowaty, P. A. (2001). Women, psychology, and evolution. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 61-77. Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554-558. Kite, M. (2001). Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do we want women and men to be. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 256-271. (Wakao, Y. (2003). Two types of "Illusions of Romantic Love" among Japanese young adults: The false inference of rate of and the positive images toward those who have romantic partners. Tokyo Metropolitan University psychological research, 13, 9-16.) Yakushko, O. (2005). Ambivalent sexism and relationship patterns among women and men in Ukraine. Sex Roles, 52, 589-596.