From Crude Jokes to Diminutive Terms: Exploring Experiences of Hostile and Benevolent Sexism during Job Search

Abstract

Despite the growing attention devoted to job search as a dynamic, self-regulatory process, there is comparatively less work elucidating how interpersonal events from the socio-contextual environment can facilitate or impede job seekers’ self-regulation. In light of this, I integrate ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) with self-regulation theory to explore how female job seekers’ weekly experiences of hostile (i.e., overt, derogatory, expressions of female inferiority) and benevolent sexism (i.e., subtle, seemingly positive, expressions of female incompetence) trigger distinct affective reactions (during week t), prompting different behavioral efforts that yield downstream effects on weekly job search success and well-being (during week t + 1). Further, drawing from social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985), I also consider the moderating role of gender of the perpetrator, exploring how male- versus female-instigated hostile and benevolent sexism yield differential effects on affective reactions to weekly sexism. I tested these ideas through a weekly study of 103 female new labor market entrants (Level 1 n = 654). Findings indicated that while weekly experiences of hostile sexism were marginally related to heightened anger, experiences of benevolent sexism elicited anxiety. Although neither anger nor anxiety were associated with my hypothesized behavioral efforts (focused and haphazard strategizing, respectively), supplemental analyses indicated that anxiety impacted weekly job search effort and intensity, which yielded distinct effects on job search success and well-being. Thus, the current study highlights the self-regulatory processes that unfold week-to-week following female job seekers’ exposure to hostile and benevolent sexism.