Benevolent sexism (BS) has detrimental effects on women, yet women prefer men with BS attitudes over those without. The predominant explanation for this paradox is that women respond to the superficially positive appearance of BS without being aware of its subtly harmful effects. We propose an alternative explanation drawn from evolutionary and sociocultural theories on mate preferences: Women find BS men attractive because BS attitudes and behaviors signal that a man is willing to invest . Five studies showed that women prefer men with BS attitudes (Studies 1a, 1b, and 3) and behaviors (Studies 2a and 2b), especially in mating contexts, because BS mates are perceived as willing to invest (protect, provide, and commit). Women preferred BS men despite also perceiving them as patronizing and undermining. These findings extend understanding of women’s motives for endorsing BS and suggest that women prefer BS men despite having awareness of the harmful consequences.

According to ambivalent sexism theory, sexism is marked by a mixture of hostile and benevolent attitudes (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Hostile sexism (HS) encompasses overtly prejudiced attitudes, whereas benevolent sexism (BS) involves subjectively positive attitudes (e.g., “women should be cherished and protected by men”), chivalrous behaviors, and attempts to achieve intimacy with women (Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007; Glick & Fiske, 1996). Despite its romantic and flattering tone, BS is thought to reinforce the notion that women are inferior and confine women to their traditional gender roles (Glick & Fiske, 2001).

Many studies have demonstrated that endorsement of BS by women is associated with harmful consequences, including increasing women’s approval of protective restrictions imposed by a husband (Moya, Glick, Expósito, de Lemus, & Hart, 2007), increasing women’s acceptance of restrictions on their behavior during courtship (Viki, Abrams, & Hutchison, 2003), increased seeking of dependency-oriented help from men (Shnabel, Bar-Anan, Kende, Bareket, & Lazar, 2016), and decreasing women’s interest in independent thought and goal pursuit (Feather, 2004). Exposure to BS can lead women to perceive themselves as less competent at work (Dumont, Sarlet, & Dardenne, 2010), reduce their cognitive performance (Dardenne et al., 2007), undermine support for collective action against gender inequality (Becker & Wright, 2011), and increase self-objectification (Calogero & Jost, 2011).

Women, nevertheless, report liking men with BS attitudes (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Kilianski & Rudman, 1998) and even find them more attractive than non-BS men (Bohner, Ahlborn, & Steiner, 2010). Evidence shows that many women—even those who desire egalitarian relationships—want a man to be chivalrous, by, for example, paying for dates and opening doors for them (Lamont, 2014; Lever, Frederick, & Hertz, 2015). Given its harmful effects, it is important to understand why women, nevertheless, approve of BS.

One prominent explanation has been that BS is an “insidious” ideology: Women like BS because they respond to its “subjectively positive” appearance without being aware of its subtly harmful effects (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001; Goh & Hall, 2015). For example, authors have argued that “BS tends not to be recognized as sexism by those who are exposed to it and therefore is likely to remain unchallenged” (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005, p. 639). Evidence taken in support of this insidiously harmful view includes the findings that women do not report feeling that the attitudes on the BS scale are “prejudiced” because BS individuals are not perceived as prototypical sexists (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Dardenne et al., 2007).

One account that elaborates on the insidiously harmful view to explain women’s active preference for BS men over non-BS men is the protection racket hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, women adopt BS attitudes because it helps them deal with the threat of men’s HS by rewarding them with protection, provision, and affection (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Sarlet, Dumont, Delacollette, & Dardenne, 2012; Sibley et al., 2009). One study showed that in nations where men endorsed higher levels of HS, women endorsed higher levels of BS (Glick et al., 2000). The authors interpreted these findings as showing that women are more likely to value the benefits offered by BS in cultures in which they perceive men to be hostile. In support of this, Fischer (2006) showed that women endorsed stronger BS attitudes after reading about research showing that men hold hostile attitudes toward women. Thus, the protection racket hypothesis suggests that women may find BS men attractive because BS attitudes can protect them against other men’s HS.

The first main aim of the present research was to test the insidiously harmful assumption to find out whether the potentially undermining consequences of BS attitudes and behaviors really do go unnoticed by women. Our second aim was to introduce an alternative explanation for women’s approval of BS, drawn from evolutionary and sociocultural perspectives on human mate preferences. We propose that attitudes and behaviors typically included under the rubric of BS are taken as signals by women that a man has characteristics that are desirable in a potential mate, specifically, that he is willing to invest (Trivers, 1972) by being protective, providing, and committed. This benevolence as a mate-preference perspective suggests that women may prefer BS men despite knowing that they can be undermining because the desirable aspects of a man’s benevolent attitudes and behaviors outweigh the potential downsides. To substantiate our hypothesis, we turn to theory and research on mate preferences.

The Present Research We derived several predictions from our mate-preference account. First, women should perceive a male romantic partner who holds BS attitudes and displays BS behaviors as more attractive than one who does not. Second, greater attraction should be explained by the man’s willingness to protect, provide, and commit (conceptualized as components of willingness to invest). Third, a BS man will be rated as especially attractive when described as a potential romantic partner compared with a work colleague because the latter should not activate mating motivations to the same extent. In contrast to previous research that has characterized BS as insidiously and subtly harmful, we predicted that women would recognize a BS man as more patronizing and potentially undermining than a non-BS man. We expected that women would still find the BS man more attractive, due to signals of willingness to invest revealed by BS attitudes or behaviors. Following methods used by previous researchers (e.g., Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Bohner et al., 2010; Kilianski & Rudman, 1998; Ramos, Barreto, Ellemers, Moya, & Ferreira, 2016), in Studies 1a, 1b, and 3, participants evaluated profiles of men created using items from the BS subscale of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Studies 2a and 2b investigated whether findings using BS attitudes generalized to BS behaviors. If attraction to BS men is based on mate-preference psychology, then findings should not be limited to women who endorse traditional gender attitudes. Therefore, in Studies 1a and 2a, we examined whether effects held for women endorsing high as well as low levels of feminism. Finally, in Study 3, we measured women’s perceptions of male HS to test an alternative explanation—that BS men are desirable because they offer protection against men’s HS (i.e., the protection racket hypothesis).

Study 1b The aim of Study 1b was to ensure that the findings obtained from Study 1a replicated when some minor adjustments were made to the scenarios. In Study 1a, the non-BS profiles were created using negations of the BS scale items (e.g., “Mark firmly believes that people can be truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.”). To ensure that lower ratings of the non-BS man’s attractiveness were not due to negative-sounding attitudes or perceptions of him as not being interested in relationships, we reworded some of the non-BS items to make them less negative in tone, to ensure that the items reflected egalitarian attitudes rather than a lack of interest in women (e.g., “Mark firmly believes that people can be truly happy in life even if they are not romantically involved with a member of the other sex.”). Second, we made it clearer that both men had a romantic interest in the participant, and that both men were keen on having a serious relationship with the right person (see Supplemental Material for the full profile). Furthermore, in addition to measuring and controlling perceived warmth in our mediation analysis, we also measured and controlled for perception of the target’s interest in relationships. Finally, to ensure that findings were robust to order effects, we created six different versions of the BS and non-BS profiles by varying the order of the statements in the profile. Our sample was a community sample recruited from an online source (Prolific Academic), rather than the undergraduate psychology student samples used in Study 1a. Even with these changes, results of Study 1a fully replicated. Method Participants From the 185 females who participated, excluding those who failed to pass an attention check item, left data from 178 participants (M age = 40.31 years, SD age = 11.52 years) for analysis. Design, procedure, and measures The design of the study was exactly the same as in Study 1a, except all participants viewed the romantic partner condition. Participants rated relationship interest (r = .81), asking how interested the target was in having relationships with women and in a relationship with the right person, and the same items as in Study 1a: perceived attractiveness (r = .85), willingness to protect (α = .88), provide (α = .81), commit (α = .95), patronizing and undermining manner (α = .93), warmth (α = .92). Results Table 3 presents means and standard deviations (bivariate correlations are shown in Table S1 in Supplemental Material). Table 3. Study 1b: Mean Scores of Dependent Variables by Attitude Type (N = 178). View larger version Perception of the targets As expected, the BS target was perceived as not only warmer, F(1, 176) = 18.99, p < .001, η p 2 = .10; more interested in relationships, F(1, 176) = 93.13, p < .001, η p 2 = .35; more willing to protect, F(1, 176) = 45.18, p < .001, η p 2 = .20, provide, F(1, 176) = 85.52, p < .001, η p 2 = .33, and commit, F(1, 176) = 43.01, p < .001, η p 2 = .20; and more attractive, F(1, 176) = 5.00, p = .03, η p 2 = .03, but also more patronizing and undermining, F(1, 176) = 23.94, p < .001, η p 2 = .12, than the non-BS target. Test of the BS as a mate-preference account We tested for a mediation model using the bootstrapping PROCESS approach by Hayes (2013; Model 4). First, we created a willingness to invest measure as a composite of items measuring willingness to protect, provide, and commit (α = .95) to include as a mediator in the model (a factor analysis revealed a one-factor solution with loadings ranging from .61 to .93). We controlled for target’s warmth and interest in relationships in the analysis. Both willingness to invest, b = 0.28, SE = 0.11, CI = [0.11, 0.55], and patronizing and undermining manner, b = −0.29, SE = 0.12, CI = [–0.57, –0.09], mediated the effect of BS attitudes on perceived attractiveness beyond perceived warmth and relationship interest. Discussion The findings from Study 1b were consistent with those of Study 1a, showing that the results were robust to changes in the wording of the non-BS man’s attitudes. Furthermore, although the BS man was perceived as more interested in relationships than the non-BS man, this did not account for the former’s greater attractiveness, which was explained by the BS man’s perceived willingness to invest.

Study 2a Study 2a aimed to test whether the findings from Studies 1a and 1b would generalize to men who display BS behaviors. Researchers have identified actions such as offering help to carry heavy items, or offering a coat to a woman who feels cold, as behavioral forms of BS (e.g., Dardenne et al., 2007). We also aimed to extend our findings that BS attitudes do not appear to be insidiously harmful (because they are recognized as harmful by women), by including additional items designed to test whether women are aware of more specific harmful effects of BS behaviors, such as restriction of agency and competence. Study 1a unexpectedly revealed that the mean attractiveness ratings of the BS potential romantic partner and BS work colleague did not differ, despite results showing that in the work context, perceived willingness to invest did not explain attractiveness after controlling for perceived warmth. This may have been because the BS attitude items used in our scenarios are more relevant to relationship contexts than work contexts (as noted by other researchers: Hammond & Overall, 2013; Hammond, Overall, & Cross, 2016), so the wording may have led participants to think of the colleague as a potential mate. The current study addressed this limitation by making the nature of participants’ relationship with the targets more explicit. In addition, to keep the conditions as similar as possible, targets were described as work colleagues in all conditions. Instead of measuring attractiveness in the work colleague condition, we measured preference for the BS versus non-BS man, to ensure participants were not prompted to perceive the work colleague as if he was also a potential romantic partner. Method Participants Inputting the smallest interaction effect size from Study 1a (η p 2 = .02) into G*Power determined a sample size of 100 at 80% power. Of 116 heterosexual females recruited through Prolific Academic, two failed attention check items, leaving data from 114 participants (M age = 37.09 years, SD age = 12.18 years) for analysis. Design and procedure The experiment had a 2 (behavior type: BS vs. non-BS) × 2 (relationship type: romantic vs. professional) mixed factorial design. In the romantic relationship condition, participants imagined that they were single and open to starting a romantic relationship with a work colleague, whereas in the professional relationship condition, participants imagined that they were not single, not looking for new romantic relationships, and only interested in having professional relationships with work colleagues. In both conditions, participants were presented with a description of two men, Robert and John (names counterbalanced), one displaying BS behaviors and the other non-BS behaviors. The scenario described BS behaviors such as offering his coat, carrying heavy boxes, helping to use a computer program, and opening doors for the participant, whereas the non-BS man was described as taking a more gender equal role (see Supplemental Material for the scenarios). Participants then rated several items for both the BS and non-BS target on 7-point scales ranging from (1) not at all to (7) very. Measures Perception of the targets Participants in both relationship type conditions indicated their overall preference for each target on items asking how much they would prefer to have each man as a romantic partner/coworker and how happy they would be with each man as a romantic partner/coworker (r BS-target = .91, r non-BS-target = .86). We created a difference score measure by subtracting the preference for the non-BS man from the BS man to compare the preference for BS men over non-BS men in mating versus work contexts. Participants responded to the same patronizing and undermining items as in Studies 1a-b (α BS-target = .91; α non-BS-target = .92). They also rated perceived agency restricting manner items asking how open each man would be to their ideas and views, how comfortable they would feel to disagree with each man, and how free they would feel to be assertive toward each man (all items reverse coded; α BS-target = .79, α non-BS-target = .71). In the romantic relationship condition only, participants rated the same attractiveness (r BS-target = .81, r non-BS-target = .71), willingness to protect (r BS-target = .67; r non-BS-target = .69), provide (r BS-target = .71, r non-BS-target = .82), and commit (αs = .91) items as in Studies 1a and 1b (“vulnerable” and “selfish” were removed for scale reliability). Feminist beliefs Participants completed the same feminist beliefs scale as in Study 1a (α = .80). Results Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 4 (bivariate correlations are shown in Table S2 in Supplemental Material). Table 4. Study 2a: Mean Scores of Dependent Variables by Behavior Type and Relationship Type. View larger version Perception of the targets As expected, women’s preference for the BS man over the non-BS man was greater in the romantic relationship condition (M diff = 1.95, SD diff = 2.10) than in the professional relationship condition (M diff = 0.87, SD diff = 2.18), F(1, 112) = 7.22, p = .008, η p 2 = .06. This difference was largely due to the low ratings of the non-BS man in the romantic relationship condition (see Table 4). Moreover, the BS romantic partner was perceived as not only more attractive, F(1, 55) = 35.55, p < .001, η p 2 = .39; more willing to protect, F(1, 55) = 99.41, p < .001, η p 2 = .64, provide, F(1, 55) = 146.99, p < .001, η p 2 = .73, and commit, F(1, 55) = 34.17, p < .001, η p 2 = .38; but also more patronizing and undermining, F(1, 112) = 12.88, p < .001, η p 2 = .10, and agency restricting, F(1, 112) = 8.05, p = .005, η p 2 = .07, than the non-BS romantic partner. Test of the BS as a mate-preference account for high and low feminists We conducted mediation analyses using the bootstrapping MEMORE approach for within-subjects designs (Montoya & Hayes, 2017) for low and high feminists determined by median split. As in Study 1, first, we created a willingness to invest measure as a composite of willingness to protect, provide, and commit (αs for both targets = .92) to use as a mediator (factor analysis revealed a one-factor solution with loadings higher than .80). As predicted, willingness to invest mediated the relationship between romantic partner’s BS behaviors and perceived attractiveness (see Figure 3). This trend applied to both low and high feminists but, surprisingly, willingness to invest was a stronger mediator for high feminists (b = 2.44, SE = 0.46) than low feminists (b = 0.79, SE = 0.32; z = 2.94, p = .003). Although high feminists perceived the BS target as more patronizing and undermining, these were not significant mediators. Download Open in new tab Download in PowerPoint Discussion Results demonstrated that the findings from Studies 1a and 1b extended to men who displayed BS behaviors, in both mating and work conditions. The benevolence as a mate-preference hypothesis was also supported by the finding that the BS man was preferred over the non-BS man more strongly when evaluated as a potential mate than as a professional colleague. Furthermore, according to the mediation analysis, the attractiveness of the BS romantic partner was explained by willingness to invest for both high and low feminist women. Study 2a supported Studies 1a and 1b findings by showing that men who display BS behaviors are seen as more patronizing and undermining and by showing that women recognize more specific harmful effects: that, BS men are more likely to restrict their agency. Importantly, despite recognizing these potentially harmful effects, women (even high feminists) still found a potential romantic partner who displayed BS behaviors more attractive than one who did not, because he was perceived to have the dispositions of a mate who is willing to invest.

Study 2b The aim of Study 2b was to replicate the findings obtained from Study 2a that investigated perceptions of men displaying BS versus non-BS behaviors. Again, we wanted to ensure that the findings were not obtained because the non-BS behaviors seemed more negative in tone than the BS behaviors. Instead of presenting the non-BS man as failing to do a behavior (e.g., “John/Robert did not offer to show you how to use the program”), we presented him as acting in a way that was more obviously egalitarian (e.g., “John/Robert left you to get on with the work on the program, while he got on with his half of the work”), or we gave background details that showed that the non-BS man’s behavior was egalitarian (e.g., “you and John/Robert were both just wearing a shirt with a suit jacket on top”). In addition to measuring perceived warmth to control for it in our mediation analysis, we also measured and controlled for perceived interest in relationships. Method Participants Of 117 heterosexual females recruited through Prolific Academic, those who failed to pass attention check items were excluded, leaving data from 104 participants (M age = 38.58 years, SD age = 9.96 years) for analysis. Design, procedure, and measures The design of the study was the same as in Study 2a, except there was only one relationship type condition: romantic relationship. As in Study 2a, participants rated their overall preference for each target (r BS-target = .42, r non-BS-target = .82), as well as perceived attractiveness (r BS-target = .63, r non-BS-target = .44), willingness to protect (αs = .72 for both targets), provide (α BS-target = .76, α non-BS-target = .69), commit (α BS-target = .92, α non-BS-target = .94), patronizing and undermining manner (α BS-target = .90, α non-BS-target = .92), warmth (α BS-target = .92, α non-BS-target = .91), and relationship interest of each target (r BS-target = .74, r non-BS-target = .60; see Supplemental Material for the slightly edited scenario). Results Table 5 presents means and standard deviations (bivariate correlations are shown in Table S3 in Supplemental Material). Table 5. Study 2b: Mean Scores of Dependent Variables by Behavior Type (N = 104). View larger version Perception of the targets As expected, the BS target was preferred over the non-BS target, F(1, 97) = 101.20, p < .001, η p 2 = .51, and perceived as warmer, F(1, 97) = 90.25, p < .001, η p 2 = .48; more interested in relationships, F(1, 152) = 50.16, p < .001, η p 2 = .34; more attractive, F(1, 97) = 78.45, p < .001, η p 2 = .45; willing to protect, F(1, 97) = 107.11, p < .001, η p 2 = .53, provide, F(1, 97) = 304.88, p < .001, η p 2 = .76, and commit, F(1, 97) = 81.61, p < .001, η p 2 = .46, than the non-BS target. But the targets did not significantly differ on ratings of perceived patronizing and undermining manner, F(1, 97) = 0.94, p = .34, although means were in the expected directions. Test of the BS as a mate-preference account We conducted mediation models using the bootstrapping MEMORE approach for within-subjects designs (Montoya & Hayes, 2017). As in previous studies, we created willingness to invest measures by a composite of willingness to protect, provide, and commit items (α BS-target = .91, α non-BS-target = .92) to use as a mediator (a factor analysis on the difference scores revealed a one-factor solution with loadings higher than .64). We included perceived patronizing and undermining manner, warmth, and relationship interest as mediators in the analysis as well to examine whether perceived willingness to invest uniquely mediates the effect of BS behaviors on attractiveness when considered alongside these other variables. Apart from willingness to invest, none of the indirect effects was significant (perceived warmth: b = −0.15, SE = 0.32, CI = [–0.98, 0.34]; perceived relationship interest: b = −0.09, SE = 0.12, CI = [–0.32, 0.14]; patronizing and undermining manner: b = −0.02, SE = 0.03, CI = [–0.15, 0.01]). As expected, willingness to invest uniquely explained the effect of BS attitudes on attractiveness, b = 2.29, SE = 0.43, CI = [1.62, 3.36]. Discussion The findings from Study 2b were consistent with those of Study 2a, showing that the results were robust to changes to the wording of the behaviors that made the acts of the non-BS man more explicitly egalitarian. Furthermore, although the BS man was perceived as warmer and more interested in relationships than the non-BS man, these did not account for the former’s greater attractiveness, which was explained by the BS man’s perceived willingness to invest.

Study 3 Although findings from Studies 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b were consistent with our benevolence as a mate-preference hypothesis, they could also be explained by the “protection racket” hypothesis. This account claims that women embrace male BS attitudes for benefits such as protection, provision, and affection when they perceive themselves to be surrounded with men who hold HS attitudes (Glick et al., 2000; Glick et al., 2004). If the protection racket hypothesis accounts for our findings, then participants’ preference for the BS mate should increase to the extent that they perceive men in their environment to hold HS attitudes. Alternatively, if the evidence is explained by the benevolence as a mate-preference account, participants should find a BS man more attractive than a non-BS man because of his greater willingness to invest, regardless of perceived level of male HS. Thus, the aim of Study 3 was to rule out the protection racket as an alternative explanation for our findings. As in Studies 1a, 1b, and 2b, we included perceived warmth of the BS mate to confirm that this characteristic was not sufficient to explain his greater attractiveness. Method Participants Inputting a small effect size (η p 2 = .02) into G*Power determined a sample size of 131 at 90% power. Of 196 female students who participated, excluding those who reported being nonheterosexual or who failed attention check items left data from 153 participants (M age = 19.37 years, SD age = 2.77 years) for analysis. Design and procedure Participants imagined that they were single and interested in starting a relationship, and they knew two single men, John and Robert, who had both expressed an interest in them. They were presented with profiles of both men, one holding BS attitudes and the other non-BS attitudes. These profiles were the same as in Study 1a but emphasized that both men were keen on having a serious relationship with the right person, to ensure that the BS man’s greater attractiveness was not because he was perceived as having more interest in a relationship. Participants then rated a number of items on 7-point scales ranging from (1) not at all to (7) very. Measures Perception of the targets Participants rated perceived attractiveness (r BS-target = .69, r non-BS-target = .71); willingness to protect (r BS-target = .72, r non-BS-target = .70), provide (r BS-target = .65; r non-BS-target = .72), and commit (α BS-target = .82, α non-BS-target = .81); patronizing and undermining manner (α BS-target = .89, α non-BS-target = .90), agency restricting manner (αs = .78), and warmth (α BS-target = .84; α non-BS-target = .83) of the BS and non-BS targets with the same items as in Study 2a. Perceived environmental HS (pHS) Participants indicated on 6-point scales how much they thought most men in their environment (e.g., men who they are likely to encounter in their daily lives) would agree or disagree with the items from the HS scale (Glick & Fiske, 1996; α = .81). Results Table 6 presents means and standard deviations (bivariate correlations are shown in Table S4 in Supplemental Material). Table 6. Study 3: Mean Scores of Dependent Variables by Attitude Type (N = 153). View larger version Perception of the targets As expected, the BS romantic partner was perceived as not only warmer, F(1, 152) = 62.92, p < .001, η p 2 = .29; more attractive, F(1, 152) = 6.55, p = .01, η p 2 = .04; willing to protect, F(1, 152) = 149.41, p < .001, η p 2 = .50, provide, F(1, 152) = 204.67, p < .001, η p 2 = .57, commit, F(1, 152) = 46.92, p < .001, η p 2 = .24; but also more patronizing and undermining, F(1, 152) = 61.50, p < .001, η p 2 = .29, and agency restricting, F(1, 152) = 8.62, p = .004, η p 2 = .05, than the non-BS romantic partner. Test of the BS as a mate-preference account We conducted mediation models using the bootstrapping MEMORE approach for within-subjects designs (Montoya & Hayes, 2017). As in previous studies here, we created willingness to invest measures by a composite of willingness to protect, provide, and commit items (α BS-target = .88, α non-BS-target = .90) to use as a mediator (a factor analysis on the difference scores revealed a one-factor solution with loadings higher than .62). As seen in Figure 4, indirect effects for all mediators were significant. Importantly, willingness to invest explained the effect of BS attitudes on attractiveness, even when warmth was included as a mediator. Examination of the pairwise contrasts of the indirect effects showed that the specific indirect effect through willingness to invest was larger than the specific indirect effect through warmth with a bias-corrected CI = [0.16, 1.24] (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), meaning that willingness to invest explained the effect of a potential romantic partner’s BS attitudes on his attractiveness more strongly than did his warmth. Download Open in new tab Download in PowerPoint Moderating effect of pHS The pHS scores were approximately normally distributed (M = 3.86, SD = 0.73, median = 3.82). To examine the unique contribution of pHS to perceived attractiveness of the BS romantic partner over the non-BS one (difference score), we tested a hierarchical regression model where we entered pHS (standardized) and willingness to invest of the BS partner over the non-BS partner (difference score) in Step 1, and the interaction term in Step 2. As seen in Table 7, pHS did not significantly contribute to the variance in perceived attractiveness, but, as expected, willingness to invest did explain perceived attractiveness, even after pHS was accounted for. The interaction of pHS and willingness to invest was also nonsignificant meaning that the relationship between perceived willingness to invest and attractiveness was not affected by high versus low pHS. Table 7. Study 3: Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses on Perceived Attractiveness of the BS Romantic Partner Over the Non-BS Romantic Partner (N = 153). View larger version Discussion Findings from Study 3 supported the benevolence as a mate-preference hypothesis by ruling out the protection racket hypothesis as an alternative explanation for our findings. Specifically, women’s perceived level of male HS did not predict the attractiveness of the BS romantic partner; also, it did not moderate the relationship between perceived willingness to invest and attractiveness. This suggests that women are not attracted to BS men because they perceive them as offering a solution to the threat of HS (Glick & Fiske, 2001). One reason for this could be that women did not find the HS items very hostile or threatening (e.g., “women seek to gain power by getting control over men”), at least not to the extent that they desire protection from men who agree with these items. It may still be possible that, in highly hostile environments (e.g., where women perceive threats from rape or violence), the appeal of a BS romantic partner who signals to women that he is willing to protect and invest could increase (see Phelan, Sanchez, & Broccoli, 2010). Although Study 3 ruled out the protection racket as an alternative explanation for our findings, it did not rule out the protection racket hypothesis altogether. A full test of the protection racket hypothesis would require different measures of perceived hostility, using different samples from highly hostile environments, and would require asking women, not just whether men in their environment endorse HS, but how threatening those men are and whether and how they feel they could be protected by them.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes 1.

Although sometimes treated as such, these perspectives are not mutually exclusive because women’s mate preferences likely develop from an interaction between biologically evolved predispositions and culturally variable social role expectations. We return to the possibility of an integrated explanation for women’s mate preferences in the “General Discussion” section. 2.

Of the 97 participants who were excluded from data analysis, 37 reported being nonheterosexual and 60 were inattentive.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary material is available online with this article.