How chivalrous are you, and what does the science say about that?

Not in the everyday sense of the word. The ASI uses "sexism" as a technical term to describe any belief system that differentiates people by gender, regardless of whether the content feels positive or negative. A high BS score and low HS score (the "protective traditionalist" pattern) reflects warmth and protectiveness toward women but low explicit hostility. The research describes a pattern, not a moral verdict.

Research by Dardenne et al. (2007) found that women exposed to benevolent sexist framing performed worse on cognitive tasks than those exposed to hostile sexism, because benevolent sexism is harder to identify and resist. Glick et al. (2000) found that nations with higher average BS scores had greater gender inequality. However, researchers emphasise that individuals scoring high on BS are generally not consciously intending harm, the academic framing describes a pattern rather than attributing malicious intent.

Women's average BS scores are only slightly lower than men's (US women: 2.15 vs men: 2.36). This is because BS includes beliefs that feel protective and validating. Glick and Fiske describe this as the "pedestal effect", some women endorse beliefs that place them in a revered but restricted role because it offers perceived social protection. Cross-national data shows women in more gender-unequal nations tend to score higher on BS, suggesting it may function as a coping strategy.

The largest difference between men and women is on Hostile Sexism. In Glick and Fiske's original US validation (1996, n=2,250), men averaged 1.97 on HS while women averaged 0.79, a gap of over one point on a 0-5 scale. On Benevolent Sexism the gap is much smaller: men 2.36, women 2.15. This pattern holds across all 19 countries in the 2000 cross-national study. The HS gap reflects that hostile beliefs about women are less likely to be endorsed by women about themselves, while the smaller BS gap reflects the "pedestal effect" where both sexes can find benevolent beliefs appealing for different reasons.

Yes, and this is the pattern that gives the inventory its name. "Ambivalent sexism" describes the co-occurrence of hostile and benevolent attitudes. Glick and Fiske (1996) found that HS and BS are positively correlated (r=0.25 to 0.40 depending on the sample), meaning people who score high on one tend to score somewhat higher on the other. The ambivalent pattern, high on both scales simultaneously, is most common in countries with moderate gender inequality. HS and BS function as complementary ideologies: BS rewards women who conform to traditional roles, while HS punishes those who challenge them.

The US sits roughly in the middle of the 19 countries studied in Glick et al. (2000). The Netherlands had the lowest average scores on both scales (men HS: 1.12, men BS: 1.58), while Cuba had the highest (men HS: 2.55, men BS: 2.73). The UK and Australia scored slightly below the US on both scales. Across all 19 countries, both HS and BS correlated with national-level gender inequality as measured by the UN Gender Development Index (r approximately 0.65).

The ASI is one of the most widely cited instruments in social psychology, with over 10,000 citations since its 1996 publication. Researchers use it to study workplace discrimination, hiring bias, domestic violence attitudes, political attitudes, and relationship dynamics. It has been translated into more than 25 languages and validated across diverse cultural contexts. The scale's core contribution was distinguishing hostile from benevolent forms of gender bias, which prior instruments treated as a single dimension.

An egalitarian result means you scored below the population mean on both Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism. You are less likely than the average person to endorse beliefs about women needing male protection (low BS) or about women being manipulative or overly sensitive (low HS). Egalitarian scores are most common in Northern European countries like the Netherlands and Sweden. An egalitarian score does not mean you lack courtesy or warmth. It means your consideration extends equally regardless of sex rather than being specifically gendered.

The ASI predicts several real-world outcomes in published research. Higher HS scores correlate with greater tolerance for sexual harassment (Begany and Milburn, 2002), more victim-blaming in sexual assault scenarios (Abrams et al., 2003), and opposition to gender equality policies. Higher BS scores correlate with more restrictive attitudes toward women's career choices and paternalistic behaviour in relationships. However, a single test score does not determine how any individual will behave. The ASI is strongest as a population-level predictor and should be interpreted as a data point about belief patterns, not a verdict on character.

Research has not found a direct causal link between ASI scores and intrusive thought frequency. However, higher moral rigidity, which correlates somewhat with elevated traditional gender attitudes, has been associated with greater distress from unwanted thoughts. If you are interested in the broader psychology of unwanted mental content, the intrusive thoughts calculator explores how common disturbing thoughts are and what distinguishes normal occurrences from clinical OCD thresholds.