Chivalry Theory

Although the number of female offenders convicted and incarcerated has increased dramatically in recent years, the biased lenient approach toward them has persisted and has been empirically demonstrated at practically every stage of the judicial process. Studies have shown that wherever discretionary decisions are made, women are less likely than men to be detected, arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced (e.g., Reference Daly, Tonry and TonryDaly & Tonry 1997; Reference Demuth and SteffensmeierDemuth & Steffensmeier 2004; Reference SpohnSpohn 1999; Reference Spohn and BeichnerSpohn & Beichner 2000; Reference Stolzenberg and D'AlessioStolzenberg & D'Alessio 2004). If sentenced, women are likely to receive milder sentences than men (e.g., Reference O'NeilO'Neil 1999; Reference Steffensmeier and KramerSteffensmeier, Kramer, et al. 1993; Reference Steffensmeier and UlmerSteffensmeier, Ulmer, et al. 1998). These results have held, albeit somewhat attenuated, even after controlling for important legal variables, such as the type of offense and the offender's criminal history (e.g., Reference Farnworth and TeskeFarnworth & Teske 1995; Reference SpohnSpohn 1999; Reference Spohn and BeichnerSpohn & Beichner 2000).

To explain this pattern, a number of researchers have developed what is known as chivalry theory. Of several explanations offered within this framework (for a review see Reference SteffensmeierSteffensmeier 1980), the most prevalent is termed true chivalry (Reference EdwardsEdwards 1989:168), according to which protective and benevolent societal attitudes toward women are responsible for the lenient approach toward female offenders. The theory suggests that patriarchal cultures tend to identify women as weak, submissive, childlike, and defenseless, and as not being fully responsible for their actions. In this context, “well”-socialized individuals come to believe that female offenders need to be protected rather than punished (e.g., Reference KulikKulik et al. 1996; Reference O'NeilO'Neil 1999; Reference ScheiderScheider 2000; Reference Steffensmeier and KramerSteffensmeier, Kramer, et al. 1993; Reference Stolzenberg and D'AlessioStolzenberg & D'Alessio 2004). Contrary to how these individuals would view a male offender—as an independent and mature individual who is responsible for his actions—female offenders are often considered victims of an environment that has failed to provide the necessary guidance and supervision that women generally deserve (Reference SteffensmeierSteffensmeier 1980).Footnote ¹ Thus chivalry theory suggests that society's view of women as weak and defenseless leads to an overall lenient approach toward female offenders.

Nevertheless, a number of studies have found no empirical backing for chivalry arguments, failing to discover gender differences in the treatment of criminal offenders, or even finding women treated more harshly than men (see Reference Daly, Tonry and TonryDaly & Tonry 1997; Reference Spohn and BeichnerSpohn & Beichner 2000; Reference Steffensmeier and KramerSteffensmeier, Kramer, et al. 1993). Some researchers have suggested that the differential treatment of female offenders is not applied to all female offenders, but rather depends on the type of women involved (e.g., Reference CorleyCorley et al. 1989; Reference CrewCrew 1991; Reference Farnworth and TeskeFarnworth & Teske 1995). We now turn to review these studies.

Selective Chivalry

In light of research inconsistencies regarding the leniency shown toward female offenders, more elaborate formulations of chivalry theory suggest that only women who meet a certain set of social criteria will benefit from preferential treatment (e.g., Reference CrewCrew 1991; Reference Farnworth and TeskeFarnworth & Teske 1995; Reference Johnson and ScheubleJohnson & Scheuble 1991). The chivalry effect can be thought of as a form of exchange in which society grants female offenders more lenient treatment in return for maintaining “appropriate” and traditional gender-role attributes and behaviors (Reference Steury and FrankSteury & Frank 1990). Specifically, in order to enjoy chivalrous treatment, women need to be socially and economically subordinate to their male partners and are expected to fulfill utilitarian familial functions: they should be married, preferably with children (Reference Bickle and PetersonBickle & Peterson 1991; Reference DalyDaly 1987, Reference Daly1989); live with their husband; serve as a housewife; and be in paid employment for only a few hours a day at most (Reference CorleyCorley et al. 1989; Reference CrewCrew 1991).Footnote ²

Accordingly, the selective chivalry argument is that only female offenders who conform to traditional gender roles (henceforth “traditional” women) are entitled to the protection granted by society in the form of leniency (see Reference Bickle and PetersonBickle & Peterson 1991; Reference Spohn and BeichnerSpohn & Beichner 2000). However, female offenders who fail to conform to such traditional roles (e.g., by being single, careerist, or feminist; henceforth “nontraditional” women) forfeit the advantages normally granted to traditional women and in some cases draw even harsher treatment than men (e.g., Reference Johnson and ScheubleJohnson & Scheuble 1991; Reference O'NeilO'Neil 1999; Reference Steury and FrankSteury & Frank 1990). According to this perspective (also known as the “evil woman” thesis; see Reference CrewCrew 1991; Reference DalyDaly 1989; Reference SpohnSpohn 1999), evaluations of crimes take into consideration not only what the woman has done but also who she is with respect to her position in the family and in society (Reference LasterLaster 1994). In this sense, nontraditional women are accused of a double deviance: once for the crime they have committed, and once more for departing from what is considered gender-appropriate behavior (e.g., Reference Bickle and PetersonBickle & Peterson 1991; Reference Steury and FrankSteury & Frank 1990). Thus it appears that societal attitudes toward female offenders are not so much a result of chivalry as they are a result of an attempt to enforce sex-role expectations (e.g., Reference CrewCrew 1991; Reference EdwardsEdwards 1989).

This portrayal is consistent with postmodern gender theory (e.g., Reference ButlerButler 1990), whereby women's performances are expected to adhere to socially constructed regulative discourses. These regulative discourses, or disciplinary regimes, predetermine the acts that will appear as coherent and “normal” in a given society. Thus, gender roles consist of a rehearsed set of acts that serve as scripts by which women behave. In paternalistic societies, the common scripts by which women are considered “normal,” and whereby their behavior is deemed appropriate, portray a submissive, family-oriented role. From this perspective, crime judgments can be considered one possible means by which women are led to abide by expected scripts.

In support of selective chivalry theory, a number of studies found that nontraditional women were treated more harshly than men by the criminal justice system (e.g., Reference DalyDaly 1987, Reference Daly1989; Reference FarrFarr 2000; Reference Johnson and ScheubleJohnson & Scheuble 1991; Reference LasterLaster 1994; Reference Spohn and BeichnerSpohn & Beichner 2000).Footnote ³ Nevertheless, even after taking women's traditionality into consideration, the expected leniency toward women is still not always found (see Reference Bickle and PetersonBickle & Peterson 1991). Contrary to this theory's propositions, women's parental status did not predict offenders' sentence outcomes (Reference Steffensmeier and KramerSteffensmeier, Kramer, et al. 1993), pretrial release decisions (Reference Kruttschnitt and GreenKruttschnitt & Green 1984), or the likelihood of being incarcerated (Reference SpohnSpohn 1999). Thus the picture appears to be even more complex than has been conceptualized in selective chivalry theory. An examination of the proposed sources of chivalry may help explain the inconsistent findings in both chivalry theories, neither of which addresses the presumed sources of this differential approach. Although it is part of the theory's main argument, previous research has not yet tested the assumption that differential treatment stems from protective attitudes toward women in society, and in particular toward traditional women.

While chivalry theories argue that chivalry is contingent on the type of offender (i.e., traditional or nontraditional women versus men), we suggest that any form of chivalry (selective or not) is also contingent on characteristics of the person evaluating the situation (e.g., a sexist or egalitarian individual). When judging the actions of female offenders, some evaluators may exhibit chivalry, while others may not. Beyond demographic influences, chivalrous judgments will depend on the extent to which decision makers hold sexist attitudes toward women. Although it is without explicit reference to chivalry theory, the literature on ambivalent sexism offers a deeper understanding of the chivalry phenomenon and presents a possible explanation of the inconsistencies in current findings.

Ambivalent Sexism

Sexism is commonly defined as the endorsement of discriminatory or prejudicial beliefs based on gender (e.g., Reference CampbellCampbell et al. 1997:89). This definition typically involves negative discrimination based on hostility toward, and negative stereotyping of, women, and the endorsement of traditional gender roles (i.e., confining women to roles that are less powerful or esteemed than those of men; Reference Glick and FiskeGlick & Fiske 1997). Challenging this common view, Reference Glick and FiskeGlick and Fiske (1996, Reference Glick and Fiske1997) argue for a reconceptualization of both the nature and measurement of sexism. In their opinion, sexism and traditional attitudes toward women are not necessarily negative or hostile but may also involve subjectively positive and benevolent feelings, as embodied in traditional beliefs such as protectiveness, paternalism, and chivalry (Reference Glick and FiskeGlick, Fiske, et al. 2000:765). In other words, sexist attitudes toward women are fundamentally ambivalent, encompassing both hostile and benevolent attitudes.

Reference Glick and FiskeGlick and Fiske (1996, Reference Glick and Fiske1997) note that despite the contradictory emotions involved, the two types of sexism share a paternalistic approach to women. Hostile sexism explicitly regards women as inferior. While less explicit, benevolent sexism also reinforces patriarchy by portraying women as weak and needy. Both hostile and benevolent sexism justify and maintain patriarchal social structures that emphasize men's domination of women (Reference Glick and FiskeGlick, Fiske, et al. 2000). Nevertheless, the two are still distinct, and several studies have found them to correlate only moderately (Reference Glick and FiskeGlick & Fiske 1996, Reference Glick and Fiske1997; Reference Glick and FiskeGlick, Fiske, et al. 2000).

Glick and Fiske's framework closely corresponds with tenets of the chivalry arguments. Almost by definition, the benevolent sexist approach toward women implies lenient and forgiving judgments, whereas the denigration involved in hostile sexism suggests harsher judgments. More specifically, Reference Glick and FiskeGlick and Fiske (1996, Reference Glick and Fiske1997) propose that the two types of sexism constitute a form of “carrot and stick” aimed at maintaining women's traditional gender roles (Reference Glick and FiskeGlick & Fiske 1997:129). Hostile sexism, they argue, “may be directed most strongly at women who challenge men's power (e.g., feminists) and status (e.g., career women)” (Reference Glick and FiskeGlick, Fiske, et al. 2000:765). Conversely, benevolent sexism is usually associated with affection for women who fulfill traditional female stereotypes, such as stay-at-home mothers. In this case, the benevolent approach toward traditional women excuses the hostile approach to nontraditional women, who allegedly “deserve” it. “Whereas hostile sexism serves to punish women who fail to conform to (male-defined) acceptable roles, benevolent sexism represents the rewards women reap when they do conform” (Reference Glick and FiskeGlick, Fiske, et al. 2000:765).

Indeed, the two forms of sexism have been found to correlate with men's views of traditional and nontraditional women. Some studies have found hostile sexism to correlate positively with negative attitudes toward women in nontraditional roles: in one study, hostile sexism correlated positively with negative attitudes toward women managers (Reference Sakalli Ugurlu and BeydoganSakalli Ugurlu & Beydogan 2002). A second study found hostile sexism to be associated with negative evaluations of female job candidates for a masculine-typed occupational role (Reference Masser and AbramsMasser & Abrams 2004). In yet another study, benevolent sexism was positively associated with attitudes toward women whose behavior was consistent with a “positive” (i.e., chaste) female subtype, whereas hostile sexism was associated with attitudes toward women who depicted a “negative” (i.e., promiscuous) subtype (Reference Sibley and WilsonSibley & Wilson 2004).

The Present Study

In light of these formulations, we propose that benevolent and hostile sexism have a central role in explaining chivalry effects. The leniency toward female offenders, and toward traditional female offenders in particular, may not be so much a general phenomenon as specifically characteristic of evaluators who hold benevolent attitudes toward women (i.e., those who espouse benevolent sexism). On the other hand, the reprimanding approach that, according to selective chivalry theory, is displayed toward nontraditional women, may in fact be characteristic only of evaluators who tend to hold negative and hostile views of women (i.e., those who espouse hostile sexism). The present study aims to test the claim posited in chivalry theory that paternalistic attitudes are the source of chivalry effects. At the same time, by incorporating the concepts of benevolent and hostile sexism, we also challenge the underlying assumption that such attitudes are uniform across individuals.

Unlike most empirical research into chivalry theory, which is based on data collected from decisions made by law enforcement officials, in the present study we focus on crime seriousness judgments among the general public. This is important for several reasons: first, research has shown that judicial decisions are influenced by the social, cultural, political, and economic contexts in which criminal justice systems operate (e.g., Reference DixonDixon 1995). Furthermore, sentencing policies are typically framed with a “community standard” in mind (e.g., Reference Rossi and BerkRossi & Berk 1997). It is therefore important to first establish what this community standard is. Finally, because hostile and benevolent sexism are believed to stem from people's socialization within their culture, and are not particular to members of a particular profession (e.g., Reference Glick and FiskeGlick, Fiske, et al. 2000), an investigation of judgments among the general public can offer a direct assessment of the public's role in the formation of crime seriousness judgments. Accordingly, in the present study respondents from a national sample were asked to evaluate the seriousness of hypothetical crime scenarios and to propose the appropriate punishment for these crimes as committed by (traditional and nontraditional) women and men. Our goal was to assess the relationship between the offender's gender and gender-role “traditionality” and the crime seriousness judgments assigned as a function of respondents' sexist attitudes toward women.

As a first step, to test chivalry theory we wanted to see if positive attitudes toward women—such as those manifested in benevolent sexism—are associated with a lenient approach toward female offenders, and if negative attitudes toward women—such as those manifested in hostile sexism—are associated with a lack of leniency or with an even harsher approach toward female offenders than toward their male counterparts. If paternalistic sexist attitudes are indeed responsible for the differential treatment of men and women, the absence of sexist attitudes would be expected, at the very least, to reduce such differential treatment. We thus posit our first two hypotheses:

Note that these hypotheses do not take into consideration the extent to which these women conform to stereotypical traditional gender roles, as selective chivalry theory suggests. Even if our first two hypotheses are supported, the question still remains whether all female offenders receive differential treatment, or whether it depends on the “type” of woman the offender is. In line with the extensions proposed by selective chivalry theory, our next two hypotheses refer to the differential reactions that traditional and nontraditional female offenders elicit, compared with those toward male offenders. We expect positive attitudes toward women (i.e., among individuals with high benevolent sexism scores) to be associated with a particularly lenient approach toward traditional female offenders, but not toward nontraditional female offenders. Correspondingly, we expect negative attitudes toward women (i.e., among those with high hostile sexism scores) to be associated with a notably harsher approach to nontraditional female offenders, but not toward traditional female offenders. Hence:

Method

Data were collected from a random sample of the adult Israeli population (n=840). Although the majority of studies in the field have been conducted on U.S. samples, several studies of crime seriousness (e.g., Reference HerzogHerzog 2003a, Reference Herzog2003b), sexism (e.g., Reference Lieblich and FriedmanLieblich & Friedman 1985; Reference SeginerSeginer et al. 1990), and judicial treatment of female offenders (e.g., Reference Erez and HassinErez & Hassin 1997) with Israeli samples have produced findings comparable with those of U.S. studies. Furthermore, our guiding theoretical framework suggests that chivalry effects occur because of sexist attitudes toward women. We therefore expect our findings to be relevant for other societies besides the U.S., where sexist attitudes may be prevalent.

The most recent Israeli home telephone directories (2003), covering all geographical regions, provided the study's sampling pool. Official data from the Ministry of Communications indicate that 98 percent of Israeli households are hooked up to the phone system and are listed in the telephone directories. To boost response rates, respondents who could not be initially reached were contacted again. This ultimately led to a high response rate of 62 percent. Overall, the sample presents a close fit to the official data on the Israeli population on a large variety of demographic and social variables (CBS 2005).

Data were collected through personal questionnaires, administered by means of a telephone survey,Footnote ⁴ between January and March 2004. A content analysis of Israel's major national newspapers was conducted in this period and revealed no outstanding crimes that were liable to affect responses to our questionnaire. Terrorist, military, and criminal acts directly related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict were excluded from the scenarios used in the study. The study focused solely on criminal acts typically committed in Israel and abroad, thereby enhancing the potential to generalize our findings to other national contexts. Although ideally we would like to have gathered as much information as possible from each respondent, in order to obtain respondents' willingness to participate in the phone surveys and to maintain their focus throughout the interview we limited each questionnaire to five crime scenarios (see more details in the next section), one sexism scale (i.e., benevolent or hostile), and a small number of demographic variables. Each telephone interview lasted approximately five minutes. The wording in the questionnaire was kept as simple as possible, and the students who served as surveyors were carefully trained by the researchers to minimize potential biases. Furthermore, the questionnaire was pretested with a small number of respondents (n=80) to provide an initial test of the measures' reliability and to reveal unexpected response patterns (none were found). The questionnaire was originally written in Hebrew; however, because the Israeli population includes many Arabic- and Russian-speaking individuals, questionnaires were translated to Arabic and Russian through a translation-back-translation process. A comparison of the original questionnaire with the back-translated versions revealed very close similarity between versions.

Because of limitations involving survey length, each respondent answered either benevolent sexism or hostile sexism questions, but not both. The assignment of sexism scale was conducted randomly, and differences between the two groups in respondent demographics were negligible. Those who were assigned the hostile sexism scale comprised a slightly greater number of women (55 percent, compared with 47 percent among those assigned the benevolent sexism scale), and a slightly younger age (mean age of 35.2, compared with 36.6 among those assigned the benevolent sexism scale). No other significant differences were found in respondent demographics across the two groups.

Results

We started by testing a baseline model in which only the control variables were regressed on crime seriousness judgment scores (Table 1, first column). As expected, offenders with a criminal record received harsher seriousness judgments than offenders with no stated record. Similarly, in line with previous works on offender's race and ethnicity (Reference Daly, Tonry and TonryDaly & Tonry 1997; Reference Sampson, Lauritsen and TonrySampson & Lauritsen 1997), crimes where the offender was a member of the minority group (i.e., Arab) received harsher seriousness judgments. Also in line with previous works (e.g., Reference RubackRuback et al. 1999; Reference SeelauSeelau et al. 2003), the victim's gender had a significant effect on seriousness judgments, with crimes against female victims receiving harsher judgments. In addition, a number of respondent characteristics had significant effects on crime seriousness judgments. Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Reference O'Connell and WhelanO'Connell & Whelan 1996), women tended to report higher seriousness judgments than men. Furthermore, harsher judgments were provided by respondents with a higher employment status (e.g., full-time rather than part-time employees) and by respondents who are married with children. A possible explanation for these findings is that individuals who lead a more conservative form of life, with full-time jobs and families, may also exhibit more conservative views toward crime. A deeper understanding of these findings would require a separate study, with these variables as its focus.

Table 1. OLS Unstandardized Coefficients (with standard errors in parentheses) of Crime Seriousness Scores on Variables of Hypotheses 1, 2, 3a, and 4a

^* p<0.05;

^** p<0.01;

^*** p<0.001.

Sexism and Chivalry

Before testing our hypotheses, we wanted to examine the relationships among benevolent sexism, hostile sexism, and respondents' demographics. In line with previous findings (e.g., Reference Glick and LameirasGlick, Lameiras, et al. 2002), both benevolent sexism and hostile sexism correlated negatively with level of education (−0.38 and −0.06, respectively). Similarly, both sexism scales correlated negatively with income (−0.21 and −0.06, respectively). Benevolent sexism also correlated significantly and positively with respondents' age (0.19).

Because each subject received only one sexism scale (either benevolent or hostile), this sample cannot provide information about the relationship between benevolent sexism and hostile sexism. However, in an independent representative sample of 3,149 Israeli respondents (these data were collected for a different study), where both benevolent sexism and hostile sexism data were collected from all respondents, the correlation between benevolent sexism and hostile sexism was 0.32 (p<0.01). Furthermore, in line with factor analytic work among U.S. samples, the two scales in this independent sample loaded on two distinct factors.

Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to compare the two sexism scales in this study across values of the respondents' demographic variables. Men proved significantly higher (p<0.01) than women on hostile sexism; in particular, single men were higher on hostile sexism than married women with children (p<0.05). In addition, fully employed women were significantly lower (p<0.01) on hostile sexism than unemployed women and men working part-time. No differences were found in benevolent sexism across the different employment groups.Footnote ¹²

Next we turned to test our hypotheses. Results of these analyses are presented in columns 2–5 of Table 1. As expected, the interaction effect proposed in Hypothesis 1 was significant (β=−0.262, p<0.001, see second column in Table 1). In addition, offenders' gender (β=−0.105, p<0.01) and benevolent sexism (β=0.447, p<0.001) also yielded significant effects. The gender effect indicates that, on average, when the same crimes were committed by women, they were judged significantly less serious than when they were committed by men. Because hypotheses were not raised regarding possible main effects of benevolent sexism or hostile sexism, and as such effects are not central to this article, we do not elaborate on them.

To interpret the significant interaction effect, we dichotomized the benevolent sexism variable into high- and low-benevolent-sexism groups (one standard deviation above or below the scale's mean) and plotted the interaction effect (see Figure 1a). All the interaction effects in the following analyses were plotted using the same procedure. As can be seen, the relationship outlined supports Hypothesis 1. While among respondents who were low on benevolent sexism, crimes when committed by women were judged as only slightly less serious than when committed by men, high-benevolent-sexism respondents judged crimes committed by women as substantially less serious than the same crimes committed by men.

Figure 1. (a) Interaction Effect of Offender's Gender and Respondent's Benevolent Sexism on Crime Seriousness Judgments. (b) Interaction Effect of Offender's Gender and Respondent's Hostile Sexism on Crime Seriousness Judgments.

In testing Hypothesis 2—that respondents with high, but not low, hostile sexism scores would judge crime scenarios to be more serious when the perpetrators were women than when they were men—beyond the significant interaction term (β=221, p<0.05, see third column in Table 1), both gender and hostile sexism yielded significant effects. As before, the gender effect (β=−0.638, p<0.01) indicated that on average, when crimes were committed by women, they were judged significantly less serious than when they were committed by men. The interaction effect is plotted in Figure 1b. The relationship outlined supports Hypothesis 2. Whereas low-hostile-sexism individuals judged crimes committed by women as less serious than the same crimes committed by men, high-hostile-sexism respondents judged them more serious when committed by women than by men.

Sexism and Selective Chivalry

Our primary hypotheses concerned the interaction between sexist attitudes and selective chivalrous judgments. Results of the analyses testing Hypothesis 3a—that respondents with high, but not low, benevolent sexism scores would judge crime scenarios when committed by traditional women as less serious than when committed by men—are presented in the fourth column of Table 1. In addition to the expected significant interaction effect (β=−0.279, p<0.001), the traditional female versus male contrast also yielded a significant effect (β=−0.320, p<0.001), indicating that crimes committed by traditional women were on average judged to be significantly less serious than when committed by men. The interaction effect is plotted in Figure 2a. As can be seen, the relationship outlined presents strong support for Hypothesis 3a. While among respondents who were low on benevolent sexism, crimes committed by traditional women were judged as seriously as when committed by men, among those who were high on benevolent sexism, crimes committed by traditional women were judged to be substantially less serious than when committed by men. As expected in Hypothesis 3b, the interaction between gender/nontraditionality (nontraditional women versus men) and benevolent sexism did not have a significant effect on seriousness judgments.

Figure 2. (a) Interaction Effect of the Traditional Female versus Male Offender Contrast and Respondents' Benevolent Sexism on Crime Seriousness Judgments. (b) Interaction Effect of the Nontraditional Female Versus Male Offender Contrast and Respondents' Hostile Sexism on Crime Seriousness Judgments.

Results of the analyses testing Hypothesis 4a—that respondents with high, but not low, hostile sexism scores would judge crime scenarios when committed by nontraditional women more harshly than when committed by men—are presented in the fifth column in Table 1. The interaction term (β=0.120, p<0.01), offenders' gender/traditionality (β=0.112, p<0.01), and hostile sexism (β=−0.086, p<0.05), all yielded significant effects. The gender/traditionality effect indicated that, on average, crimes were judged to be more serious when committed by nontraditional women than when carried out by men. As can be seen in Figure 2b, the interaction effect supports Hypothesis 4a. For individuals who were low on hostile sexism, there was no difference between crime seriousness judgments of crimes committed by nontraditional women and those committed by men. On the other hand, those who were high on hostile sexism considered crimes more serious when committed by nontraditional women than when committed by men. Last, as expected in Hypothesis 4b, the interaction between gender/traditionality (traditional women versus men) and hostile sexism did not have a significant effect on seriousness judgments. A summary of the results is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of Selective Chivalry Findings (Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b)

To test our hypotheses another way, we reran the analyses using the respondents' choice of punishment as the dependent variable instead of seriousness judgments. With the exception of Hypothesis 4a, where the finding using the punishment variable was in the predicted direction but was not significant (p=0.079), all the hypotheses were reconfirmed.

Discussion

We set out to examine the role of individuals' attitudes toward women in explaining chivalry phenomena. Previous studies demonstrated the existence of differential treatment of male and traditional female offenders, and assumed that such differences can be explained in terms of chivalrous attitudes. Our study, by contrast, addresses the process by which such effects are likely to arise. In line with the formulations of chivalry theories, we demonstrated empirically that paternalistic attitudes toward women are one likely source of chivalry effects. But beyond this, our study challenges underlying implications of such theories—namely, that paternalistic attitudes are uniform across individuals, and in particular across men.

In keeping with chivalry theories, we found that female offenders tended to receive more lenient seriousness judgments than men and that judgments were contingent on the extent to which female offenders assumed traditional gender roles. However, the further complexity of the chivalry phenomenon is only revealed when the evaluators' underlying attitudes are considered. Our findings suggest that the extent to which crime evaluators hold benevolent or hostile attitudes toward women is a key factor in forming crime seriousness judgments. Chivalry effects were substantial among respondents who held benevolent attitudes toward women but were negligible among those who did not. Conversely, the disfavor in judgments of women was offered only by respondents who held hostile attitudes toward women.

Our findings were particularly substantial for the benevolent component of sexism. While nonsexist respondents (i.e., those scoring particularly low on the benevolent sexism scale) did not exhibit any difference in the crime seriousness judgments of female versus male offenders, individuals with high benevolent sexism scores judged traditional female offenders qualitatively differently than male offenders; male offenders received extremely high seriousness scores, while traditional female offenders received only moderate seriousness scores. The fact that the effect for hostile sexism was somewhat weaker than the effect for benevolent sexism was likely due to the smaller variance and non-normal distribution in hostile sexism. The lower variance may reflect extant social pressures against the expression of overt hostility toward women. Research on sexism has in fact suggested that paternalistic and sexist attitudes toward women have become less overt (as in the case of hostile sexism) since the early 1970s, and that other constructs, such as modern sexism or benevolent sexism, may better reflect sexist attitudes toward women today (e.g., Reference Glick and FiskeGlick & Fiske 1996, Reference Glick and Fiske1997; Reference SwimSwim et al. 1995).

In line with studies that link socioeconomic variables with liberalism (e.g., Reference AdornoAdorno et al. 1950; Reference Rice and CoatesRice & Coates 1995), higher levels of education and income were generally negatively associated with sexist attitudes. Sexism also varied across some of the other demographic categories. For example, men tended to exhibit more hostile sexism than women; in particular, single men tended to score higher on the hostile sexism scale than married women with children. Although our findings indicate that some of these socio-demographic variables are related to crime seriousness judgments, the support for our hypotheses was established after controlling for the effects of these variables. Beyond any effect that social characteristics such as age, education, and family status may have on people's crime seriousness judgments, individual differences in benevolent and hostile sexism appear to be quite meaningful for understanding differences in judgments of male versus female offenders.

Such individual differences may also be related to the type of crime prototypes that people embody (Reference SmithSmith 1991, Reference Smith1993). According to Reference SmithSmith (e.g., 1991, Reference Smith1993), certain crime categories appear more typical than others. For example, robberies with an armed perpetrator are perceived as more typical than those with an unarmed perpetrator. Similarly, robberies of homes are more typical than robberies of workplaces. In her studies, Smith has shown that individuals' crime judgments are influenced by the extent to which the crime is similar to their crime prototypes. Although not previously tested, it is plausible that the perpetrator's gender, and gender traditionality, may also be part of people's crime prototypes. Furthermore, our findings raise the possibility that crime prototypes may also be a function of individuals' overall attitude toward women. Thus a crime committed by a nontraditional woman may be perceived as more typical, and thus judged more harshly, by individuals who are high, rather than low, on hostile sexism.

Overall, our findings reveal a much more complex picture than has been previously portrayed in theories of differential judicial treatment. Chivalry theses rest on the assumption that chivalrous treatment results from society's paternalistic view of women. Rather than using gender as a proxy for the evaluator's view of women, we focused on what seems to be the actual source of chivalry—the particular benevolent or hostile attitudes toward women. This new focus gains additional support from the fact that respondents' gender was not significant and did not alter the results of our analyses (see Table 1).

Furthermore, in the light of our results, it is less surprising that previous chivalry studies, which have not addressed individuals' attitudes toward women, failed to produce consistent support for the theories. It is possible that in studies where chivalry was revealed, samples comprised a majority of individuals who were high on benevolent sexism. On the other hand, where chivalry was not found, and in particular where the “evil women thesis” (i.e., harsher judgments of nontraditional women) was observed, samples may have had a majority of decision makers who were low on benevolent sexism, or even high on hostile sexism.

Although our findings shed light on the phenomenon of the differential treatment of men and women, because our sample comprised members of the general public rather than judicial practitioners, they cannot be conclusively applied to judicial personnel, whose training and experience on the job distinguishes them from the average respondent. Nevertheless, the aim in this article was to test the central premise on which chivalry theories are based, whereby chivalrous treatment is based on a paternalistic approach in society at large. That said, the next step in this line of research could be to directly examine the relationship between sexist attitudes and chivalry effects among judicial practitioners in order to consolidate our conclusions here.

Future studies should consider additional variables for conceptualizing nontraditional women and additional social divides, such as race or ethnicity, and their interplay with gender and social position. Effects were found in the present study even with nontraditional women being conceptualized simply as being unmarried and fully employed. It may very well be that differential treatment across the various gender/traditionality categories will be even more extreme when race is added to the equation. In line with our current perspective, we suggest that individual differences in racist attitudes may help explain when and why differential treatment is observed across racial groups.

It is somewhat ironic that the literature on chivalry theories, which highlights the role of stereotypical views of women, appears to have adopted a somewhat simplistic and stereotypical view of men. Although one's gender may be somewhat associated with one's attitudes toward women (see, for example, social identity, self-categorization, and defensive attribution theories), the assumption that men in general hold paternalistic and sexist attitudes toward women is just as sexist as the assumption that women are weak and helpless. While such a view may have been better founded years ago, there is sufficient evidence today to suggest that gender-based attitudes have experienced substantial shifts in recent decades, and that men's and women's views of society are now far more heterogeneous, and far less based on the observer's gender, than they were in the past (Reference Glick and FiskeGlick & Fiske 1996, Reference Glick and Fiske1997; Reference SwimSwim et al. 1995).

Although the present study focused on differential judgments of crime seriousness, our findings could explain similar patterns of discrimination in other contexts as well. Our main argument is that instead of using social categories as proxies for people's judgments, whenever possible researchers should focus on the actual attitudes that people hold in the context of the phenomenon studied.