Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale (BSW)

Abstract

The Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace (BSW) scale, developed by Warren et al. (2023), aims to measure benevolent sexism within a professional setting. This construct encompasses attitudes towards women in the workplace that, while seemingly benign or kind, are fundamentally paternalistic and condescending. The scale’s development adhered to established guidelines for this construct (Shultz et al., 2014; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). The BSW is a 19-item instrument that has been evaluated using samples of employed young adults from a large public university in Southern California and employed adults recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. The development and evaluation of the BSW involved comprehensive analyses of factor structure, reliability, and various aspects of validity.

Keywords

Benevolent Sexism, Workplace, Complementary Gender Differentiation, Protective Paternalism, Employee Interaction, Sexism, Working Conditions, Organizational and Occupational Measures

Authors

Warren, Catherine; Wax, Amy; Brush, Olivia T.; Magalona, Joie; Galvez, Gino

---

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace (BSW) scale is to quantitatively assess the presence and extent of benevolent sexism specifically within the context of a workplace environment. This allows for a structured evaluation of attitudes that, while appearing superficially positive, embody underlying paternalistic and condescending views towards women in professional settings.

Validity

Convergent and Discriminant Validity: The BSW demonstrated strong convergent validity, indicated by a large effect size (r = .65, p < .01) when correlated with benevolent sexism items from other established scales. For discriminant validity, the BSW showed a small effect size (r = −.08, p < .05) when correlated with feminism, suggesting it measures a distinct construct.

Concurrent Criterion Validity: The BSW showed significant associations with relevant workplace variables, supporting its criterion validity. Specifically, it was significantly associated with system justification (R² = .10, F(1, 190) = 20.00, p < .001) and with sexual harassment (R² = .29, F(1, 190) = 78.33, p < .001). These findings indicate that the BSW effectively correlates with constructs theoretically linked to benevolent sexism in the workplace.

Reliability

Internal Consistency: The BSW demonstrated high internal consistency across samples. For the Amazon Mechanical Turk sample, the 19-item BSW exhibited excellent internal consistency (α = .95, McDonald’s omega = .95). Its subscales also showed strong internal consistency: complementary gender differentiation (11 items, α = .94) and protective paternalism (8 items, α = .89).

Test-Retest Reliability: The BSW demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability over time (r = .73, p < .001). Both subdimensions also showed acceptable test-retest reliability: complementary gender differentiation (r = .70, p < .001) and protective paternalism (r = .75, p < .001).

Factor Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): An EFA revealed a 2-factor model for the BSW, which accounted for 38.90% of the variance in the data. This indicates that the items primarily group into two distinct underlying dimensions.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): A CFA was conducted to confirm the proposed 2-factor structure. The chi-square statistic was significant (χ²(151) = 270.33, p < .001). However, acknowledging the influence of large sample sizes on chi-square significance, additional fit statistics were examined. These further fit statistics, including a Comparative Fit Index (CFI = .95) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .07), suggested that the model provided a good fit to the data, aligning with established guidelines (Hooper et al., 2008; Kline, 2011).

Instrument: Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale (BSW)

Test Type: Original Inventory/Questionnaire.

Format: The BSW consists of 19 items, categorized into two subscales: 11 items for complementary gender differentiation and 8 items for protective paternalism. Responses are rated on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). Scoring involves two steps: first, calculate the average for each subscale separately (protective paternalism and complementary gender differentiation), and then calculate a final average by averaging these two subscale averages. The administration method is electronic.

Language Available: English.

Population Group: Human (Male and Female).

Age Group: Adulthood (18 years and older).

Population Details: The scale was evaluated using samples of employed young adults from a large public university in Southern California and employed adults recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. The respondents were located in the United States.

Test Methodology: The development and evaluation of the BSW involved a rigorous methodological approach, including various aspects of test validity (Concurrent Validity, Convergent Validity, Criterion Validity, Discriminant Validity) and test reliability (Internal Consistency, Test-Retest Reliability). Factor analysis, including both Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor Analysis, was extensively employed to establish the underlying structure of the scale.

Keywords

Benevolent Sexism, Workplace, Complementary Gender Differentiation, Protective Paternalism

Authors

Warren, Catherine

• Author ORCID Identifier: 0000-0002-4960-2147

• Affiliation: Florida Institute of Technology, Institute for Culture, Collaboration, and Management

• Email Address: [email protected]

• Correspondence Address: Florida Institute of Technology, Institute for Culture, Collaboration, and Management, Melbourne, Florida, United States, [email protected]

Wax, Amy

• Affiliation: California State University, Long Beach

• Email Address: No data is Available

Brush, Olivia T.

• Affiliation: California State University, Long Beach

• Email Address: No data is Available

Magalona, Joie

• Affiliation: Michigan State University

• Email Address: No data is Available

Galvez, Gino

• Author ORCID Identifier: 0000-0002-0029-2491

• Affiliation: California State University, Long Beach

• Email Address: No data is Available

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: To obtain permissions for use of the Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale, contact the Corresponding Author, Catherine Warren, at [email protected].

Fee: There is no commercial fee associated with the use of this scale.

Test Year: The Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale was developed and evaluated in 2023.

References

The majority of metadata for this record was created from the original source reference: 2023-57382-001. Additional relevant references include:

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis. In P. D. Spector (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 53-73). John Wiley & Sons.

Items of the Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale (BSW)

The specific items of the Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale (BSW) are not provided in the supplied text. However, the text indicates that the scale consists of 19 items, which are divided into two distinct subscales:

• Complementary Gender Differentiation: This subscale comprises 11 items.

• Protective Paternalism: This subscale includes 8 items.

For a detailed list of the items, interested parties should refer to the original source publication: 2023-57382-001, Appendix A, Page 502, or contact the corresponding author, Catherine Warren, at [email protected].