In the intricate landscape of professional advancement, women continue to encounter formidable barriers that hinder their career trajectories. Recent groundbreaking research unravels a dual-layered form of prejudice—ambivalent sexism—that not only arises externally from male interviewers but also internally from female candidates themselves, collectively impacting women’s employment outcomes. This pioneering scientific inquiry, conducted through a series of quasi-experimental studies and an extensive survey, reveals how the subtleties of both hostile and benevolent sexism intricately intertwine, perpetuating systemic disadvantages during job interviews.
The phenomenon of ambivalent sexism refers to the coexistence of antagonistic attitudes, classified into hostile sexism—a blatant, openly disparaging stance towards women—and benevolent sexism, which masquerades as seemingly positive but patronizing beliefs that subtly reinforce traditional gender roles. Through meticulously designed experiments, the research decisively demonstrates that these two dimensions of sexism are not only present but interactively potent when held by both female candidates and male interviewers. The undercurrent of these biases significantly distorts perceptions of women’s professional competence, culminating in lowered evaluations of their employability.
One of the pivotal revelations of this study is the paradoxical role played by benevolent sexism. While often dismissed as harmless or even complimentary, this form of sexism paradoxically exacerbates the detrimental impact of hostile sexism. Benevolent attitudes, by cloaking demeaning stereotypes within a veneer of protection or affection, amplify the negative effects on women’s job prospects. This synergy between hostile and benevolent sexism establishes a more entrenched barrier, complicating women’s navigation through the hiring process and ultimately impeding their career progression.
By shifting the research lens to include sexism held by both the candidate and the interviewer, this investigation transcends conventional studies that isolate one party’s biases. The inclusion of female candidates’ internalized ambivalent sexism breaks new ground in understanding the multifaceted nature of employment discrimination. This bilateral perspective illuminates complex dynamics frequently overlooked, wherein women’s own biased self-assessments interplay with external prejudices to deepen the challenges faced during interviews.
Central to this research is the mediating mechanism of perceived competence. Detailed analyses affirm that ambivalent sexist attitudes distort judgments of women’s professional abilities, significantly lowering the estimated likelihood of their employment success. This perceptual bias acts as a critical conduit linking sexist attitudes to employment outcomes, manifesting through subtle but influential cognitive processes during candidate evaluation. In essence, the belief systems around gender profoundly shape how competence is construed and valued.
The significance of these findings lies not only in the identification of bias but also in exposing its underrecognized interactions. While hostile sexism’s overt negativity is well documented, benevolent sexism’s insidious reinforcement of traditional gender norms garners less attention despite its potent influence. This research situates these intertwined forces within the framework of risk-enhancement theory, illustrating how their conjunction magnifies vulnerability and perpetuates career obstacles for women.
Importantly, the research design involved a diverse sample of college students approaching employment, simulating real-world interview contexts. Despite this, the authors acknowledge the need for future studies to extend these findings to broader professional settings and culturally varied workplaces. The unique socio-cultural milieu of the Chinese labor market, where the study was conducted, may shape the salience and expressions of ambivalent sexism differently than in other global contexts, underscoring the complexity of generalizing these insights universally.
Another critical avenue for further inquiry highlighted by this study is the examination of actual employment decisions beyond evaluative judgments. While underestimations of competence and hiring probabilities were evidenced, how these attitudes translate into final employment offers remains to be clarified. Investigating the pragmatic consequences of ambivalent sexism during real recruitment processes will be essential to fully grasp its operational impact and to design targeted interventions.
The implications of this research extend beyond academic discourse, delivering vital messages for organizational policy and praxis. Recognizing the dual genesis of sexism within both candidates and interviewers calls for a paradigm shift in how workplace equity is pursued. Interventions must incorporate strategies that address internalized biases among women alongside external prejudicial attitudes. This holistic approach can foster self-awareness, boost confidence, and ultimately empower women to counteract limiting stereotypes.
Additionally, the findings advocate for systemic cultural transformations within hiring practices to dismantle covert benevolent sexism masked as chivalrous or protective behaviors. Training programs targeting both overt hostility and subtler patronizing attitudes can cultivate more egalitarian interview environments. Policymakers are urged to incorporate these nuanced understandings of sexism into regulations and workplace guidelines, ensuring that gender equity initiatives are comprehensive and inclusive of the multifaceted nature of gender bias.
In terms of applied solutions, the research suggests educational initiatives aimed at enhancing women’s self-perceptions and resilience. Workshops and coaching could help female job seekers recognize and resist internalized sexist attitudes, enabling them to present their competence confidently and authentically. Such empowerment aligns with the broader quest for gender parity in increasingly competitive labor markets.
Future research trajectories proposed by the authors include comparative analyses of sexism’s effects on male versus female candidates. Understanding whether hostile and benevolent sexism differentially influence hiring evaluations depending on gender could refine the tailoring of anti-bias strategies. Moreover, longitudinal explorations extending beyond job interviews into career development phases—such as promotions, role fulfillment, or termination—would deepen insights into the cumulative career impact of ambivalent sexism.
The comprehensive nature of this research delivers a compelling account of how intertwined sexist attitudes permeate multiple layers of the employment process, reinforcing each other to obstruct women’s professional success. By exposing the interactive dynamics between hostile and benevolent sexism and pinpointing competence perception as the fulcrum of bias, the study significantly advances the scientific dialogue on gender discrimination.
It is imperative that stakeholders across sectors heed these findings and commit to transformative actions. Only through confronting the complex realities of ambivalent sexism can workplaces evolve towards genuine inclusivity. As such, this research not only broadens academic understanding but also charts a course for pragmatic solutions to one of the enduring challenges facing gender equity in employment worldwide.
Subject of Research: Ambivalent sexism (hostile and benevolent) and its impact on women’s employment outcomes during job interviews, examining biases of both female candidates and male interviewers.
Article Title: Two obstacles to the success of women: ambivalent sexism from interviewers and candidates themselves.
Article References:
Zhang, S., Xia, X. & Wang, P. Two obstacles to the success of women: ambivalent sexism from interviewers and candidates themselves. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1276 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05583-4
Image Credits: AI Generated
