associated with expressed prejudice toward childfree women. Specifically, Hypothesis 2a proposed that IMS-S will be associated with lower prejudice and Hypothesis 2b proposed that EMS-S will be associated with relatively greater prejudice. Hypothesis 2a was wholly
supported, as greater levels of IMS-S were related to fewer perceived disadvantages of being childfree, more favorable evaluations of childfree women, and greater perceived warmth in childfree women. Additionally, there was partial support for Hypothesis 2b, as EMS-S was related to more negative evaluations of and perceived coldness in childfree women, but unrelated to perceived disadvantages of being childfree.
161
Generally (with the exception of perceived childfree disadvantages), these findings are consistent with previous reports that EMS-S is related to increased prejudice toward others (Plant & Devine, 1998) and negative responses toward women, including modern and hostile sexism (Klonis et al., 2005), BS (Gervais & Hoffman, 2013), ascribing more positive traits to men over women in the workplace (Latu et al., 2011), paternalistic attitudes toward women (Young & Nauta, 2013), and approval of sexist humor (Klonis et al., 2005). Additionally, the finding that greater IMS-S was associated with less (if any) prejudice toward childfree women across all outcome measures aligns with previous findings that IMS-S is related to reduced prejudice toward others (Plant & Devine, 1998) and more positive responses to women, such as less traditional and modern sexism (Klonis et al., 2005); less hostile sexism (Gervais & Hoffman, 2013; Klonis et al., 2005); greater warmth toward feminists (Gervais & Hoffman, 2013); lower likelihood of ascribing positive traits to men over women in the workplace (Latu et al., 2011); and disapproval of sexist humor (Klonis et al., 2005).
These findings also align with theory stating that the internal and external motivations to suppress prejudice operate in different ways. Recall that internally motivated individuals tend to report low levels of prejudice toward others (Plant & Devine, 1998), and that prejudice can be suppressed with effort and practice (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003, 2005). Thus, it might be expected that internally motivated individuals either are not prejudiced toward childfree women or will actively suppress their childfree prejudice to maintain a non-prejudiced view of self and avoid feelings of guilt and self-criticism (Plant & Devine, 1998). Because of their regular and deliberate attempts to suppress prejudice, internally motivated individuals may be more attuned to how “hot” cognitions elicit prejudicial responses and have had more practice in suppressing these responses. In this study, internally motivated participants may have recognized the “hot” cognitions associated with completing measures of childfree disadvantages and warmth, and the
162
concurrent potential for their non-prejudiced view of self to be threatened (resulting in guilt and self-criticism). And, even though the evaluation thermometer may evoke “cold” cognitions, internally motivated individuals may be more prone to evaluate all others favorably, regardless of the target’s identities or circumstances. In the absence of justification opportunities, they may have subsequently suppressed their responses on all prejudice measures to the extent that IMS-S appears to be directly related to wholly positive and nonprejudiced responses toward childfree women.
Nonetheless, why might the external motivation to respond without sexism be directly related to childfree evaluations and warmth, but not disadvantages? One potential reason is that this study may have conflated the external motivation to suppress negative responses toward women in general with the external motivation to suppress prejudice toward childfree women
specifically. Indeed, research by Crandall et al. (2002) on conformity to social norms suggests
that prejudice expression is least acceptable toward some subtypes of women (e.g., stay-at-home- mothers) and most acceptable toward others (e.g., a pregnant woman who consumes alcohol).
Perhaps not coincidentally, both the least and most acceptable prejudices toward women subtypes in Crandall et al.’s (2002) study involved women’s behavior toward children. Specifically, the pregnant woman consuming alcohol was allegedly harming her unborn child, whereas the stay-at-home mother was devoting much of her day to caring for her children. Although Crandall et al. (2002) did not include subtypes of women based on parental status, it is nonetheless conceivable that it is acceptable to express some forms of prejudice toward childfree women as a specific subtype (e.g., beliefs that childfree women are cold and unfavorable
evaluations of them), particularly in participants who are externally motivated to suppress their sexism otherwise. This is supported by Bays’ (2017) findings that mothers were the most
163
and harm behaviors. Moreover, when completing measures of prejudice suppression toward women in general (i.e., the IMS-S and EMS-S), participants may have imagined the prototypical woman, which research suggests includes images of motherhood (Chodorow, 1999; DiQuinzio, 1999; Ruddick, 1989). Additionally, as discussed by Edelman (2004), a cultural emphasis on reproductive futurity also places ultimate value on children, particularly as a vehicle for maintaining the status quo. Those who refuse to protect (e.g., the pregnant woman consuming alcohol) or produce (e.g., childfree women) children are viewed as threatening the established social order and stability of the future, potentially increasing prejudice expression toward them despite social norms that generally discourage prejudice toward women overall. Thus, it is possible that participants are externally motivated to suppress their prejudice toward women in general, but not consistently toward childfree women specifically. In other words, the motivation to suppress prejudice toward women may not map perfectly onto the motivation to suppress prejudice toward childfree women, resulting in a mixed pattern of significant results for measures of childfree prejudice.
Second, previous research proposes that both positive and negative attitudes can be held simultaneously toward women (Glick & Fiske, 1996), and that holding positive attitudes toward some women justifies holding negative attitudes toward others (Glick et al., 1997). In this study, participants may have endorsed the external motivation to respond without sexism to women in
general, which subsequently justified their expression of some prejudice toward childfree
women (e.g., perceived coldness and negative evaluations) in particular. Similar lines of research suggest that giving individuals the opportunity to accumulate legitimacy credits (i.e., prior behavior that makes one appear non-prejudiced) justifies the ensuing expression of
prejudice (Choi et al., 2014). In the present work, asking participants to first complete measures of the motivation to respond without sexism may have allowed them to amass legitimacy credits
164
regarding their attitudes toward women (i.e., they could initially establish that they are not sexist), which then allowed them to express some prejudice toward childfree women on subsequent measures. However, this temporal relation cannot be confirmed with these data because there was no condition in which participants did not complete suppression measures before completing prejudice measures.
A final explanation for the nonsignificant association between the external motivation to respond without sexism and perceived childfree disadvantages might again be found in
differences between prejudice measures. As discussed, both the evaluation thermometer and measure of interpersonal warmth require responses toward childfree women without sufficient context. As such, the evaluation and warmth measures may both assess childfree prejudice, but only indirectly and ambiguously. On the other hand, the disadvantages scale directly and unambiguously asks participants to consider the social consequences of being childfree, an arguably more conspicuous measure of childfree prejudice. Recall that externally motivated individuals are primarily concerned with avoiding negative social sanctions due to prejudice expression and associated feelings of threat from others (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Plant & Devine, 1998). Recall also that situational ambiguity increases prejudice expression, whereas unambiguous situations discouraging prejudice increase suppression (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). Conceivably then, externally motivated individuals may be practiced in identifying unambiguous and threatening situations in which their responses may be interpreted by others as obviously prejudicial. Being a more direct and unambiguous measure of childfree prejudice, the disadvantages scale may have activated this vigilance and potential feelings of threat, causing externally motivated individuals to suppress their negative responses regarding the disadvantages of being childfree. Because the process of identifying threatening and unambiguous situations might occur implicitly and/or automatically, even anonymous responding might have been
165
inadequate to overcome the suppression response. Conversely, externally motivated individuals might have felt less threatened by expressing prejudice toward childfree women on the
comparatively ambiguous evaluations and warmth measures. Thus, the interaction between suppression attempts and situational ambiguity may explain significant relations between external motivations, evaluations, and warmth, and the nonsignificant relation between external motivation and perceived disadvantages of being childfree.