Chivalry and the Moderating Effect of Ambivalent Sexism: Individual Differences in Crime Seriousness Judgments

By Herzog, Sergio; Oreg, Shaul | Law & Society Review, March 2008 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Chivalry and the Moderating Effect of Ambivalent Sexism: Individual Differences in Crime Seriousness Judgments


Herzog, Sergio, Oreg, Shaul, Law & Society Review


Previous studies have shown that female offenders frequently receive more lenient judgments than equivalent males. Chivalry theories argue that such leniency is the result of paternalistic, benevolent attitudes toward women, in particular toward those who fulfill stereotypical female roles. Yet to date, studies have not examined whether such leniency is indeed associated with paternalistic societal attitudes toward women. The present study goes beyond the investigation of demographics and employs Click and Fiske's (1996) concepts of hostile and benevolent sexism. We use these concepts to highlight the role of individual differences in attitudes toward women as a key to our understanding of lenient attitudes toward female offenders. Eight hundred forty respondents from a national sample of Israeli residents evaluated the seriousness of hypothetical crime scenarios with (traditional and nontraditional) female and male offenders. As hypothesized, hostile and benevolent sexism moderate the effect of women's "traditionality" on respondents' crime seriousness judgments and on the severity of sentences assigned.

Principles of justice require that arrestees, suspects, defendants, and sentenced offenders (henceforth offenders) be treated equally. Accordingly, offenders' characteristics, such as their demographics, ought to be disregarded. However, a vast amount of theoretical and empirical research suggests that in practice this is not the case (see Daly & Tonry 1997). Most of this literature reports discrimination against disadvantaged social groups, such as African Americans, and individuals who are financially underprivileged.

Even though women are members of a socially weak group, several studies have demonstrated that female offenders tend to receive more lenient treatment than male offenders who have committed the same crimes (see Daly 1989; Daly & Tonry 1997; Spohn 1999). Chivalry theory has arisen as the primary theoretical framework for understanding these findings, suggesting that protective and benevolent societal attitudes toward women lead (predominantly male) decision makers throughout the criminal justice system to take a relatively lenient approach toward female offenders. However, despite the theory's logical appeal, several of its assumptions remain untested. First, most studies of chivalry theory maintain their focus on the characteristics of the offender (e.g., Johnson & Scheuble 1991; Spohn & Beichner 2000; Bickle & Peterson 1991), whereas a test of the theory's assumptions actually requires examination of the characteristics of the evaluators of crime.

In addition, the majority of studies on crime judgments adopt a sociological perspective and take into account demographic characteristics, such as gender (e.g., Allen & Wall 1993; Coontz 2000). The premise of this sociological perspective is that demographics represent the underlying attitudes that ultimately guide crime judgments. However, even if members of different demographic categories (e.g., men and women) tend to form different crime judgments, such a perspective forgoes the possibility of exploring individual differences among members of the same demographic group. When trying to explain differences in crime judgments, there is no reason to presume that all men or all women will hold the same attitudes. Therefore, instead of restricting the investigation to demographics, a direct assessment of attitudes toward women is more likely to provide meaningful insights for our understanding of the chivalry phenomenon.

Finally, because the theory proposes societal norms and attitudes as the basis for the differential treatment of offenders, one would need to study crime judgments among the general public in order to complement extant evidence from concrete decisions taken by law enforcement employees (e.g., police officers, prosecutors, judges). Even though some studies have revealed corresponding judgment patterns for law enforcement personnel and society as a whole (e.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Chivalry and the Moderating Effect of Ambivalent Sexism: Individual Differences in Crime Seriousness Judgments
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?