Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale (BSW)

Abstract

The Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale (BSW), developed by Catherine Warren, Amy Wax, Olivia T. Brush, Joie Magalona, and Gino Galvez (2023), is a psychometrically validated, 19-item self-report questionnaire engineered to measure attitudes and behaviors that characterize benevolent sexism within organizational and occupational settings. Grounded in Peter Glick and Susan Fiske’s Ambivalent Sexism Theory, the BSW isolates the workplace-specific manifestations of patronizing, chivalrous, and subjectively positive yet fundamentally disempowering gender biases. The instrument operationalizes the construct along two primary subdimensions: Complementary Gender Differentiation (11 items), which captures the attribution of distinct, stereotypical communal traits to women (such as exceptional tact, natural peacemaking, and innate empathy), and Protective Paternalism (8 items), which assesses the tendency of male coworkers and managers to overprotect, shield, or chivalrously accommodate women during organizational adversity, crisis, or physical effort. Evaluated across diverse working adult cohorts—including employed young adults and full-time professional samples recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk—the BSW demonstrates superior psychometric integrity. Internal consistency is exceptionally high, with full-scale Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω) values of .95, accompanied by subscale reliabilities of .94 (Complementary Gender Differentiation) and .89 (Protective Paternalism). Test-retest stability across intervals remains robust (overall r = .73; subscales r = .70 and .75). Construct validity is evidenced through strong convergent correlations with general benevolent sexism (r = .65, p < .01) and discriminant divergence from feminist identity (r = −.08, p < .05). Furthermore, criterion-related regression analyses reveal that the BSW significantly accounts for variance in system justification (R² = .10) and attitudes toward workplace sexual harassment (R² = .29). The scale provides industrial-organizational psychologists, human resources scholars, and organizational leaders with a calibrated diagnostic metric for uncovering subtle prejudice that hinders female career mobility, promotion pipelines, and workplace equity.

Keywords

Benevolent Sexism, Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale, Ambivalent Sexism Theory, Protective Paternalism, Complementary Gender Differentiation, Workplace Inequality, Gender Discrimination, Organizational Behavior, Psychometrics, Glass Ceiling, Industrial-Organizational Psychology

Authors

The Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale was formulated and psychometrically standardized by a collaborative research team specializing in occupational psychology and organizational behavior:

• Catherine Warren, Ph.D. — Florida Institute of Technology, Institute for Culture, Collaboration, and Management, Melbourne, Florida, United States. (ORCID: 0000-0002-4960-2147; Corresponding Email: [email protected]).
• Amy Wax, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, California, United States.
• Olivia T. Brush, M.S. — Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, California, United States.
• Joie Magalona, M.A. — Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States.
• Gino Galvez, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, California, United States. (ORCID: 0000-0002-0029-2491).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale (BSW) is to provide an empirically validated, contextually tailored psychometric instrument capable of capturing benevolent sexism within the modern workplace. Historically, the study of gender discrimination focused almost exclusively on hostile sexism—overt antipathy, explicit misogyny, derogatory stereotyping, and visible antagonism toward women who contest traditional male dominance. However, social and organizational psychologists have established that prejudice often presents in insidious, socially sanctioned, and subjectively benign modalities. Benevolent sexism encapsulates attitudes that portray women as virtuous, fragile, and uniquely gifted in interpersonal domains, requiring male protection, chivalry, and accommodation.

Although general measures such as the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) have yielded foundational insights, their broad socio-relational framing (encompassing heterosexual intimacy, domestic roles, and general chivalry) fails to encapsulate the nuanced dynamics of corporate and professional settings. In workplace contexts, benevolent sexism does not typically manifest through explicit romantic desire or domestic expectations; rather, it surfaces through seemingly supportive practices that systematically disadvantage female professionals. Examples include shielding women from difficult negotiations or aggressive clients, excluding them from demanding yet career-accelerating stretch assignments, assigning them disproportional administrative “office housework” or emotional labor, and patronizingly praising them for their cooperative or communal temperaments rather than their strategic competence.

The clinical and applied utility of the BSW spans multiple domains within Industrial and Organizational (I-O) Psychology and human resource management:

• Diagnostic Assessment for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): The scale allows organizational auditors to uncover unexamined micro-biases within corporate cultures where leadership professes strong support for female employees while unintentionally stifling their development through paternalistic overprotection.
• Leadership Training and Executive Coaching: By distinguishing benevolent sexism from genuine mentorship and professional sponsorship, organizational practitioners can utilize the BSW to illustrate how chivalrous behaviors undermine female autonomy, reduce executive presence, and restrict access to high-stakes leadership experiences.
• Investigating Career Stagnation and the “Glass Ceiling”: In academic research, the BSW serves as a precise predictor of developmental allotment discrepancies, performance evaluation biases, and the subtle systemic hurdles that maintain structural gender stratification in executive pipelines.
• Preventative Harassment and Climate Interventions: Because benevolent sexism has been empirically correlated with broader system-justifying rationalizations and the normalization of subtle occupational sexual harassment, measuring BSW enables organizations to identify toxic organizational climates before overt hostility or legal liability emerges.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the BSW is benevolent sexism adapted to workplace environments. Conceptualized within a multidimensional framework, the construct reflects an interrelated ideology of chivalrous patronization that casts women as professional equals in theory, but treats them as delicate, uniquely communal beings in daily operations. In alignment with established psychometric scale development standards (Shultz et al., 2014; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), the BSW structures this construct into two distinct, correlated subscales:

1. Complementary Gender Differentiation (11 Items)

Complementary Gender Differentiation (CGD) involves the explicit endorsement of traditional, gender-stereotypical beliefs that women possess positive, natural interpersonal attributes that men inherently lack. Rather than devaluing women, this dimension ostensibly elevates them by praising their communal, peacemaking, and collaborative virtues. However, psychometrically and sociologically, these complementary stereotypes confine women to specific socio-emotional roles, subtly disqualifying them from authoritative, agentic, and competitive leadership positions.

Within professional environments, this dimension manifests through assumptions such as:

• Believing women possess an innate superiority in emotional intelligence, tact, and diplomatic conflict resolution (e.g., expecting female team members to mediate disputes or soothe frustrated clients).
• Asserting that women bring an inherent morality, warmth, and compassion to corporate culture that softens corporate aggressiveness.
• Assuming that female managers are inherently more empathetic, supportive, and relationship-oriented than male managers.

Although these attributions appear laudatory, they restrict female employees to communal support functions, reinforce descriptive and prescriptive gender roles, and place disproportionate psychological burdens on women to manage organizational morale while male counterparts focus on strategic, revenue-generating, and career-advancing objectives.

2. Protective Paternalism (8 Items)

Protective Paternalism (PP) operationalizes attitudes asserting that men have an obligation to protect, defend, and shield female colleagues from occupational adversity, physical exertion, aggressive interactions, and hazardous conditions. Rooted in paternalistic authority, this dimension posits that women require structural and personal guardianship from men within professional hierarchies.

Workplace expressions of this dimension include:

• The conviction that men must intervene to defend female colleagues during contentious meetings or corporate confrontations.
• Shielding female professionals from abrasive clients, hostile business negotiations, or dangerous work assignments.
• Endorsing chivalrous practices such as prioritizing women for safety or preservation during emergencies and downsizing, or assisting them with physical tasks under the assumption of female fragility.

While often framed as gallantry, protective paternalism infantalizes female professionals, denies them autonomy, and isolates them from the crucible experiences and crisis management roles required for senior executive advancement.

Theoretical Framework

The development of the Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale is grounded in three complementary theoretical paradigms within modern social and organizational psychology:

Ambivalent Sexism Theory (AST)

Formulated by Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (1996, 2001), Ambivalent Sexism Theory posits that gender relations are defined by a unique biological and social coexistence of male structural dominance (patriarchy) and male dyadic dependence on women (for reproduction, intimacy, and domestic partnership). Consequently, sexist attitudes split into two complementary evaluative forms:

1. Hostile Sexism (HS): An antagonistic ideology that punishes women who deviate from traditional gender roles or challenge male authority (e.g., ambitious, competitive, or non-conforming women).
2. Benevolent Sexism (BS): A subjectively positive, paternalistic ideology that rewards women who conform to conventional gender roles with affection, chivalry, and protective care.

AST argues that benevolent sexism serves as the “velvet glove” that disguises and reinforces the “iron fist” of hostile sexism. It seduces women into accepting subordinate roles by pairing systemic disempowerment with interpersonal warmth and chivalric rewards. In workplace environments, this manifests as an unspoken bargain: female professionals who accept paternalistic protection and occupy communal roles receive social approval, whereas those who demand equal autonomy, competitive stretch roles, or executive leadership face hostile backlash.

Role Congruity Theory and Social Role Theory

According to Alice Eagly and colleagues’ Role Congruity Theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly & Wood, 2012), prejudice arises when perceptions of a target group’s stereotypical attributes clash with the requirements of a particular social role. Leadership roles in modern corporations have historically been culturally coded as agentic (decisive, assertive, independent, and competitive). Conversely, traditional female gender roles are coded as communal (nurturing, warm, sensitive, and cooperative).

The BSW measures the ideological reinforcement of this divide. By continually emphasizing women’s superior communal skills (Complementary Gender Differentiation) and fragility under pressure (Protective Paternalism), benevolent sexism cements role incongruity between women and executive leadership. It justifies directing female employees into human resources, internal communications, and administrative support, while preserving executive, operational, and financial control for men.

System Justification Theory

Developed by John Jost and Mahzarin Banaji (1994; Jost, 2020), System Justification Theory demonstrates that individuals possess a fundamental psychological motive to defend, bolster, and justify prevailing social, economic, and organizational arrangements, even when those arrangements disadvantage them or their group. Complementary stereotypes are ideal system-justifying mechanisms because they create an illusion of balance: men have structural power and wealth, but women have moral, emotional, and social superiority. The BSW assesses workplace beliefs that pacify equity demands by reframing systemic organizational imbalances as natural, harmonious divisions of occupational labor.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale was conducted following established testing standards (Warren et al., 2023), confirming robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To verify convergent validity, the BSW was correlated with established benevolent sexism subscales from general instruments, most notably the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Demonstrating strong convergent validity, the BSW correlated strongly and positively with existing benevolent sexism measures:

• Convergent Correlation: r = .65, p < .01. This large effect size confirms that while the BSW captures the broader construct of benevolent sexism, it isolates significant domain-specific variance unique to workplace hierarchies and employee interactions.

Discriminant validity was established by evaluating the BSW against measures of feminist identity and general gender equity endorsement. Consistent with theoretical expectations that benevolent sexism operates via subtle, patronizing attitudes distinct from overt gender-political ideologies:

• Discriminant Correlation: r = −.08, p < .05. This small, negligible correlation confirms that the BSW is not merely a mirror measure of anti-feminism or generalized social conservatism, but an independent operationalization of chivalric paternalism in occupational settings.

Concurrent and Criterion-Related Validity

The predictive and concurrent criterion validity of the BSW was established through multiple regression models examining associations with workplace outcomes:

• Workplace System Justification: The BSW demonstrated a statistically significant association with generalized system justification within corporate hierarchies: R² = .10, F(1, 190) = 20.00, p < .001. Individuals endorsing higher levels of benevolent sexism in the workplace were significantly more likely to rationalize existing organizational hierarchies and view institutional status disparities as fair and natural.
• Attitudes Toward Sexual Harassment: The BSW accounted for substantial variance in occupational attitudes regarding sexual harassment: R² = .29, F(1, 190) = 78.33, p < .001. High BSW scores were strongly linked to tolerance, minimization, or misattribution of sexually harassing workplace behaviors, demonstrating that benevolent attitudes serve as a psychological buffer that shields sexist workplace climates from scrutiny.

Reliability

The BSW exhibits exceptional reliability across diverse working populations, showing high internal consistency, latent variable reliability, and temporal stability over repeated administrations.

Internal Consistency

In the primary validation cohorts, which included diverse adult employees recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) as well as employed university-affiliated working adults:

• Full 19-Item Scale Cronbach’s Alpha (α): .95
• Full 19-Item Scale McDonald’s Omega (ω): .95
• Complementary Gender Differentiation (11 items) Cronbach’s Alpha (α): .94
• Protective Paternalism (8 items) Cronbach’s Alpha (α): .89

The high McDonald’s omega coefficient (ω = .95) indicates that the scale maintains high composite reliability without violating tau-equivalence assumptions, confirming that the scale is suitable for both macro-level group research and applied organizational diagnostics.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability was evaluated by administering the BSW to a working adult sample across an established longitudinal interval. Test-retest reliability coefficients demonstrated solid consistency over time:

• Full Scale Test-Retest Coefficient: r = .73, p < .001
• Protective Paternalism Subscale: r = .75, p < .001
• Complementary Gender Differentiation Subscale: r = .70, p < .001

These values demonstrate that the BSW captures stable attitudinal orientations toward gender roles rather than temporary affective states, while retaining sufficient sensitivity to detect shifts following targeted organizational interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the BSW was established using rigorous exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic procedures in independent working adult samples, adhering to best-practice guidelines for psychological scale construction (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2011; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

An initial Exploratory Factor Analysis conducted during early scale development yielded a clear, stable two-factor solution:

• Total Explained Variance: The two extracted factors accounted for 38.90% of the total variance across the item pool.
• Factor Delineation: Factor 1 encapsulated items reflecting Complementary Gender Differentiation (presumptions of innate female interpersonal diplomacy, morality, and emotional warmth), whereas Factor 2 captured items reflecting Protective Paternalism (assumptions that men must shield, rescue, or sacrifice their advancement for female colleagues).
• All items displayed primary factor loadings exceeding established thresholds (> .40) without problematic cross-loadings, demonstrating structural clarity.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis was subsequently performed on an independent validation sample to cross-validate the hypothesized two-factor structure. Given the sensitivity of the chi-square goodness-of-fit test to sample size, multiple fit indices were examined:

• Model Chi-Square: χ²(151) = 270.33, p < .001
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .95
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .07 (90% Confidence Interval: [.057, .083])

According to structural equation modeling benchmarks (Kline, 2011; Hooper et al., 2008), a CFI value of .95 or higher alongside an RMSEA value at or below .07 indicates good model fit. The two-factor model demonstrated clear structural superiority over a single-factor unidimensional alternative, corroborating the theoretical distinction between protective and stereotyping components of workplace benevolent sexism.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale (BSW)
• Test Type: Original self-report inventory / psychometric questionnaire
• Author Group: Catherine Warren, Amy Wax, Olivia T. Brush, Joie Magalona, and Gino Galvez (2023)
• Target Population: Employed human adults (aged 18 years and older), across diverse occupational industries, organizational tiers, and professional sectors.
• Item Count: 19 items total, partitioned into two specific subscales:
  • Complementary Gender Differentiation (CGD): 11 items (Items 11 through 19, plus complementary trait items)
  • Protective Paternalism (PP): 8 items (Items 1 through 10 as designated within the protective/sacrificial factor pool)
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 to 6:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Slightly Disagree
  • 4 = Slightly Agree
  • 5 = Agree
  • 6 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Reverse Scoring: None of the 19 items are reverse-scored; all items are coded in the direct theoretical direction of benevolent sexism.
  • Step 1 (Subscale Scores): Calculate the arithmetic mean of items belonging to the Protective Paternalism subscale (sum of PP items divided by 8). Separately, calculate the arithmetic mean of items belonging to the Complementary Gender Differentiation subscale (sum of CGD items divided by 11).
  • Step 2 (Overall Composite Score): Compute the overall BSW score by averaging the two subscale means: (PP Mean + CGD Mean) / 2.
  • Score Interpretation: Higher mean scores indicate greater endorsement of benevolent sexism within the workplace. Subscale means provide granular insight into whether an individual or organization primarily endorses protective chivalry or complementary stereotyping.
• Administration Modality: Electronic survey format (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap) or paper-and-pencil inventory; typical administration duration is 4 to 7 minutes.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Development Year: 2023
• Intellectual Property & Permissions: The Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (Warren et al., 2023). For non-commercial research, academic inquiry, and educational evaluation, permissions can be requested from the corresponding author, Catherine Warren, Ph.D., at [email protected].
• Commercial Fee: There is no commercial licensing fee associated with non-commercial academic research utilization of this instrument. Commercial organizational consulting usage should obtain explicit authorization from the primary authors.

References

• Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
• Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458–476). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49
• Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as mutually reinforcing components of ambivalent 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
• Hooper, D., Coughlan, L., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. https://academic-conferences.org/ejbrm/ejbrm-volume-6/ejbrm-volume-6-issue-1/
• Jost, J. T. (2020). A theory of system justification. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674247147
• Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Shultz, M. J., Rindfleisch, A., & Kingston, M. D. (2014). The Benevolent Sexism Scale: An assessment of its conceptual and empirical limitations. Sex Roles, 70(7–8), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0352-7
• Warren, C., Wax, A., Brush, O. T., Magalona, J., & Galvez, G. (2023). Benevolent sexism in the workplace: Development and validation of a new scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(3), 497–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001035
• Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)