Currently, research on sexism has been on the rise, providing an increasing amount of data on the subject. However, there is significant variability among different population sectors, emphasizing the need to continue to conduct studies that contribute specific insights into the issue. This study aims to analyze gender differences in sexist attitudes among university students and how they perceive and interpret faculty behaviors. The significance of this approach lies in conducting a detailed analysis to identify patterns and peculiarities within this demographic group. Understanding gender dynamics in higher education is crucial for shaping future professionals and leaders. By specifically addressing the perception of sexist attitudes in the academic sphere, this study will contribute to a more holistic and contextualized understanding of sexism manifestations in contemporary society.
This work will be structured into several sections with the purpose of providing a comprehensive and systematic exposition of the conducted research. Firstly, the theoretical framework supporting the research will be addressed, furnishing a solid foundation for understanding the analyzed variables and phenomena. Subsequently, the working hypotheses will be presented, outlining the fundamental expectations and assumptions that guided the inquiry. Following this, the methodology employed will be detailed, including the description of materials used and the procedure followed during data collection.
Section 3 will concisely and objectively present the findings derived from the analysis of the collected data. Finally, this article will conclude with
Section 4 and
Section 5 in which the results will be interpreted considering the existing literature, implications of the findings will be explored, and potential directions for future research will be suggested. This structure aims to facilitate a well-organized and detailed comprehension of each phase of the research process.
1.1. Theoretical Framework
Sexism can be conceptualized as “an attitude directed towards individuals based on their belonging to a particular biological sex, according to which different characteristics and behaviors are assumed” [
1]. Classic assumptions, such as men being “strong” and “protectors”, and women being “delicate” and “sensitive”, are considered sexist as they are solely based on a person’s sex, disregarding individual characteristics. Importantly, these gender-based assumptions need not be explicitly negative or harmful to be considered sexist. The contemporary understanding of sexism breaks from traditional definitions of “prejudice or antipathy” toward a sex [
2] and establishes a duality known as “ambivalent sexism” [
3]. This theory posits that sexism comprises two distinct ideologies: hostile sexism (HS), representing more traditional and overtly hostile and violent sexist behaviors, and benevolent sexism (BS), representing more modern, implicit, and seemingly positive or adoring sexist behaviors.
For instance, an HS behavior might involve perceiving a successful woman as dominant and power-hungry, while not applying the same judgment to a man in a similar position. On the other hand, a BS behavior could manifest as giving more verbal praise to a woman in the workplace for completing a task well or assigning her simpler tasks under the guise of being “caring” or “protecting” her, inadvertently limiting her opportunities for promotion [
4].
Despite common perceptions that individuals displaying BS are more approachable and equality-minded, this perspective often leads to a misunderstanding of BS and its actual negative consequences for equality [
5]. It is crucial to emphasize that these ambivalent gender ideologies are complementary, and both are negatively associated with equality [
6].
There is an ongoing debate about the explanation of sexism and differences between men and women [
7], with extreme positions advocating an evolutionary/biological origin (nature) and another a cultural/environmental origin (nurture). This conflict, known as nature vs. nurture, has persisted in various research areas. In the context of this debate, evolutionary perspectives suggest that some sexual differences in behavior and psychological dispositions can be attributed to pressures from natural selection [
8]. For instance, male competition for mates may explain men’s greater inclination toward aggression and risk taking [
9]. However, the cultural perspective argues that these aggressive or risk-taking behaviors in men result from social pressures or rewards, without genetic or evolutionary influence.
Currently, there is a recognized imperative to transcend ideologies within gender studies [
10], as they impose limitations and impediments to research. There is a concerted effort to broaden the focus toward models that integrate theories, explicitly delineating various causal interactions in their explanations, such as the biosocial model [
11] or the life history model [
12]. These models take into account both biological and social factors to furnish more comprehensive explanations. This perspective is responsive to recent studies suggesting that structural disparities in the brain between sexes are more aptly explicated as manifestations of heterogeneity rather than being solely associated with sex. The aforementioned perspectives advocate a broader and more comprehensive approach by considering models like the biosocial and life history models. These models acknowledge that despite there being multiple structural disparities in the brain between sexes, such as different raw volumes, surface areas, cortical thickness, or white matter tract complexity [
13], these differences can be better understood as expressions of inherent heterogeneity in biology and human experience, rather than being exclusively attributable to sex. For example, ref. [
14] proposes that sex differences can be classified in four dimensions: persistent vs. transient across the lifespan, context independent vs. dependent, dimorphic vs. continuous, and direct vs. indirect consequences of sex. In essence, differences in brain structure may arise from a nuanced interplay of biological and social factors. This fuller understanding challenges the simplistic notion that brain differences are solely driven by sex and underscores the importance of grappling with the complexity of factors influencing human brain development. For example, a robust trans-species sex difference is seen in playing behavior in juveniles, with males being more persistent and prone to rough and tumble play. However, through detailed investigations, behaviors like this cannot be explained by sex alone and require an understanding of the complex interrelation of biological, cultural, and environmental factors [
15]. Similar arguments can be made in relation to stress, another variable commonly investigated under a sex difference view. Again, there are many factors influencing a stress response that have nothing to do with sex (like age or past experience) [
16]. It is wrong to assume than males and females will respond in the same way to a stressful situation, but it is equally wrong to assume that generalities about sex differences will offer a clear explanation.
In order to enhance the understanding of ambivalent sexism, various studies have examined potential differences between men and women in levels of benevolent sexism (BS) and hostile sexism (HS) [
17,
18,
19]. However, the results are notably varied and contradictory. For instance, research has reported that levels of BS exceed those of HS in contemporary society, with the only gender discrepancy being that men exhibit higher levels of HS than women [
20]. Conversely, other studies indicate that HS prevails over BS, with men showing the highest levels of both types of sexism [
21,
22]. Indeed, a stronger correlation between BS and HS has been observed in men compared to women [
5]. Finally, some studies find no significant differences between men and women in levels of BS or HS [
23].
This lack of consensus among studies highlights two crucial aspects. Firstly, it reinforces the assertion that environmental and cultural factors play a significant role, as greater uniformity in behaviors across studies would be expected if solely determined by genetic/biological factors. Social and behavioral predispositions influencing gender roles and gender inequality are evolutionary traits but are not inflexible, suggesting they can change rapidly due to cultural influences and environmental alterations [
12]. Secondly, if these cultural and environmental factors are paramount, more research is needed to address these issues in various settings, in different contexts, and with diverse populations to thoroughly comprehend ambivalent sexism in contemporary society. Therefore, this study specifically focuses on the educational setting, addressing the university population in the Spanish context.
Teaching at the studied university omitted mandatory content on gender and diversity. It cannot be assumed that adults automatically possess this knowledge. Previous research confirms that preservice teachers, those who have not yet started teaching, struggle to identify situations of gender-based inequality, discrimination, and symbolic gender violence [
24]. Similarly, university students are influenced by the sexist behaviors of teachers, even through mere suggestion. A study demonstrated that women reported a less positive experience and lower performance when suspecting the instructor could be sexist [
25].
Regarding the levels of ambivalent sexism among university students themselves, research with Spanish samples suggests that they exhibit lower levels than students in compulsory secondary education [
26]. It appears that the educational level and/or the consolidation of attitudes in young adults are crucial factors in reducing sexism. However, these data should not be misconstrued, as the evolution of sexist behaviors seems to follow a U-shaped curve, decreasing until adulthood and then gradually increasing, especially hostile sexism [
18]. Concerning gender differences among university students, men seem to display higher levels of hostile sexism than benevolent sexism, whereas in women, the opposite is observed. Additionally, men score higher on all sexism scales than women [
27].
The good news is that sexism can be relatively easily reduced through appropriate training [
4,
28].