Modern Sexism Scale

Abstract

The Modern Sexism Scale (MSS), developed by Janet K. Swim, Kathryn J. Aikin, Wayne S. Hall, and Barbara A. Hunter (1995), represents a foundational psychometric instrument within social psychology designed to assess covert, contemporary gender bias. Parallel to conceptual advances in modern racial prejudice (specifically McConahay’s Modern Racism Scale), the Modern Sexism Scale was established to measure beliefs that characterize subtle forms of prejudice against women that persist even as overt, blatant hostility and traditional role prescriptions have declined in public acceptance. The construct of Modern Sexism is characterized by three intercorrelated cognitive components: (a) denial of continued discrimination against women, (b) antagonism toward women’s demands for equality and political action, and (c) resentment toward policies designed to assist women (such as affirmative action or specialized educational initiatives). Often administered alongside or contrasted with the Old-Fashioned Sexism Scale (OFSS)—which measures explicit endorsement of gender inequality, traditional sex-role segregation, and assertions of biological or intellectual inferiority—the Modern Sexism Scale captures resistance to institutional change and structural remediation. Psychometric evaluations across diverse university and community samples consistently demonstrate strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging between .75 and .85), stable test-retest reliability, robust convergent validity with voting behavior, evaluations of female leaders, and attributions of sexual harassment, as well as distinct discriminant validity from old-fashioned sexism, social desirability, and political conservatism. Responses are recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). As a cornerstone of feminist psychology and social cognition research, the scale remains widely utilized to investigate contemporary institutional discrimination, microaggressions, gender disparities in STEM fields, and political resistance to progressive equity policies.

Keywords

Modern Sexism Scale, Old-Fashioned Sexism, Gender Prejudice, Subtle Sexism, Covert Discrimination, Ambivalent Sexism, Psychometrics, Gender Role Attitudes, Janet K. Swim, Implicit Bias

Authors

The Modern Sexism Scale was developed and validated by a research team led by Janet K. Swim at the Pennsylvania State University in collaboration with Kathryn J. Aikin, Wayne S. Hall, and Barbara A. Hunter.

• Janet K. Swim, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. Contact: [email protected]. Dr. Swim is a prominent social psychologist specializing in prejudice, gender discrimination, daily microaggressions, and environmental psychology.
• Kathryn J. Aikin, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Aikin has contributed extensively to research on health communication, regulatory science, and social cognition.
• Wayne S. Hall, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University. Research interests focused on social psychology, intergroup relations, and stereotyping.
• Barbara A. Hunter, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University. Contributions encompass psychometric assessment of prejudice, social perceptions, and egalitarian attitudes.

Purpose

The Modern Sexism Scale was formulated to address a pressing methodological and conceptual challenge that emerged in gender research during the late 20th century: the apparent divergence between survey respondents’ verbal adherence to egalitarian values and the continued presence of systemic gender inequality across organizational, legal, and relational spheres. Prior to the mid-1990s, existing psychometric inventories—such as the Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS; Spence & Helmreich, 1972)—focused almost exclusively on explicit, overt, or “old-fashioned” gender bias. These classic tools evaluated overt subordination, such as whether women possess the intellectual capability to handle demanding careers or whether wives should strictly obey their husbands. However, changing social norms and anti-discrimination legislation produced floor effects on such measures; individuals became aware of the social disapproval associated with overtly misogynistic assertions, leading to socially desirable responding that masked ongoing antipathy.

Drawing an explicit conceptual bridge to modern racism theory (e.g., McConahay, 1986; Sears, 1988), Swim and colleagues (1995) designed the Modern Sexism Scale to identify individuals who genuinely perceive themselves as non-prejudiced yet harbor implicit or indirect resistance to gender equality. The primary purpose of the MSS is to quantify the cognitive rationalizations that justify the societal status quo. Specifically, individuals scoring high on modern sexism do not necessarily proclaim that women are inherently inferior; rather, they dispute empirical evidence of discrimination, perceive feminist activism as aggressive or unnecessary, and regard institutional remedies (e.g., gender quotas, parental leave policies, pay equity mandates) as unfair preferential treatment.

In applied and empirical contexts, the scale serves several critical functions:

• Empirical Research in Social Cognition and Intergroup Dynamics: It provides researchers with a sensitive measure to predict subtle interpersonal behaviors, such as hiring evaluations, wage allocation decisions, judgments of female political candidates, and minimization of sexual harassment claims.
• Organizational and Diversity Assessments: Human resource professionals and organizational psychologists utilize the MSS to assess institutional climate, pinpoint subterranean resistance to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and design effective workplace bias interventions.
• Educational and Sociological Investigations: The instrument is employed to examine ideological socialization among adolescents and young adults, tracking longitudinal changes in egalitarian beliefs across generations and cultural contexts.
• Policy and Legal Contexts: Psychometric data derived from the MSS have been cited to elucidate the psychological underpinnings of public opposition to progressive gender legislation, illustrating that resistance is frequently grounded not in traditional religious dogma, but in the cognitive denial that structural barriers continue to impede female advancement.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the Modern Sexism Scale is rooted in multidimensional models of prejudice. Swim et al. (1995) differentiated Old-Fashioned Sexism (OFS) from Modern Sexism (MS). While both constructs represent ideological hostility toward female parity, their manifestations, psychological mechanisms, and social acceptability diverge markedly.

1. Old-Fashioned Sexism (OFS)

Old-Fashioned Sexism represents traditional, explicit, and institutionalized patriarchy. It encompasses three core operational features:

• Endorsement of Rigid Traditional Gender Roles: The belief that biological sex dictates natural domestic and vocational spheres (e.g., asserting that primary domestic tasks and child care belong exclusively to women, while public leadership belongs to men).
• Differential and Overt Unequal Treatment: The explicit conviction that boys and men should receive priority over girls and women in competitive domains, educational resource allocation, or athletic participation.
• Stereotypes of Women’s Lesser Competence: The assertion that women are biologically, intellectually, or logically inferior to men in reasoning, leadership, and crisis management.

2. Modern Sexism (MS)

Modern Sexism captures an insidious ideological framework wherein negative affect toward women is mediated through cognitive denial and resentment. Rather than endorsing overt biological determinism, modern sexists adopt an ideological stance characterized by three interrelated components:

• Denial of Continued Discrimination: Proponents of modern sexism firmly believe that civil rights battles have been completely won and that systemic bias is a historical relic. They perceive society as a completely open meritocracy where women experience no institutional glass ceilings, wage gaps, or systemic prejudice. When women encounter career stagnation, high modern sexists attribute these disparities strictly to individual lifestyle choices, lack of ambition, or personal inadequacies rather than structural inequity.
• Antagonism Toward Women’s Demands: Because high modern sexists believe equality has already been achieved, they interpret ongoing feminist advocacy, political lobbying, and collective organizing not as legitimate quests for justice, but as self-serving, unnecessary, and aggressive power grabs. Consequently, they express anger or irritation at women’s rights organizations and label gender advocacy as divisive or oversensitive.
• Resentment Toward Special Favors or Targeted Policies: High scorers express marked antagonism toward affirmative action programs, pay-equity reviews, and female-specific leadership grants. Because discrimination is perceived as non-existent, any institutional effort designed to elevate female representation is viewed as reverse discrimination against men, violating fundamental norms of procedural fairness and individual meritocracy.

Importantly, modern sexism operates covertly because individuals can vehemently reject old-fashioned, biological misogyny while simultaneously opposing institutional equity. This duality allows individuals to maintain an internal self-concept of fairness and egalitarianism while systematically obstructing systemic progress for women.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Modern Sexism Scale draws primarily upon Symbolic and Modern Prejudice Theory, originally pioneered by David O. Sears, Donald R. Kinder, and John B. McConahay within the context of American race relations. When civil rights legislation in the 1960s rendered overt expressions of anti-Black prejudice socially unacceptable, symbolic racism emerged as a hybrid ideology combining anti-Black affect with traditional conservative values like individualism and self-reliance. Swim and colleagues (1995) reasoned that the feminist movement and related legal shifts generated an identical sociopolitical transition regarding gender.

1. The Shift from Blatant to Subtle Prejudice

As overt sexism fell under social opprobrium, individuals did not immediately abandon underlying prejudice, ambivalence, or systemic privileges. Instead, gender bias transformed into an indirect, cognitive belief system. As Swim and Cohen (1997) later articulated, prejudice operates across a spectrum ranging from overt (explicit hostility and biological inferiority assertions), to covert (intentional yet concealed discrimination), to subtle (internalized norms and assumptions that perpetuate inequality without conscious malicious intent). Modern sexism represents covert and subtle mechanisms: individuals resist egalitarian change while denying that they harbor any personal bias.

2. System Justification Theory

Modern sexism aligns directly with System Justification Theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994). According to this perspective, people are psychologically motivated to defend, bolster, and rationalize the prevailing sociopolitical order, even when that order generates inequality. By asserting that discrimination is non-existent (“Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the United States”), individuals defend institutional legitimacy and alleviate cognitive dissonance associated with observed economic and political disparities between men and women.

3. Relationship to Ambivalent Sexism Theory

Concurrently with Swim’s work, Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske (1996) formulated Ambivalent Sexism Theory, dividing bias into Hostile Sexism (overtly antipathetic views toward non-traditional women) and Benevolent Sexism (subjectively positive yet patronizing attitudes that position women as pure, fragile beings needing male protection). Modern sexism overlaps conceptually with hostile sexism in its antagonism toward feminist demands, but uniquely emphasizes the cognitive denial of structural oppression. While Ambivalent Sexism evaluates interpersonal and chivalric dynamics, the Modern Sexism Scale directly measures sociopolitical beliefs, perceptions of systemic opportunity, and attitudes toward institutional remediation.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established robust evidence for the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Modern Sexism Scale across college student cohorts, working adults, and cross-national populations.

1. Construct and Convergent Validity

In the seminal validation studies conducted by Swim et al. (1995, Study 1 and Study 2), Modern Sexism correlated significantly with established measures of gender ideology and social prejudice:

• Old-Fashioned Sexism: MSS scores demonstrated moderate-to-strong positive correlations with the Old-Fashioned Sexism Scale (typically r = .50 to .65). This indicates that while they share common variance as manifestations of gender bias, they represent distinct constructs.
• Attitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS): Modern Sexism exhibited substantial negative correlations with the AWS (r = -.55 to -.70), reflecting that high modern sexists routinely oppose non-traditional roles for women.
• Modern and Old-Fashioned Racism: Reflecting a generalized ideological propensity toward subtle intergroup bias, Modern Sexism correlated moderately with the Modern Racism Scale (r = .40 to .55), aligning with theoretical predictions regarding shared underlying belief systems (Swim et al., 1995).
• Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO): Subsequent investigations (e.g., Sibley et al., 2007) confirmed positive associations with both RWA and SDO, demonstrating that modern sexism is tied to broader hierarchy-enhancing ideologies.

2. Discriminant Validity

To confirm that Modern Sexism is not merely a manifestation of generalized political conservatism or social desirability bias, Swim et al. (1995) performed partial correlation and multiple regression analyses:

• Political Conservatism: While Modern Sexism correlates with conservative political affiliation, multiple regression demonstrated that Modern Sexism uniquely predicted discriminatory judgments and attitudes toward female candidates even when controlling statistically for political conservatism.
• Social Desirability: Correlations between the MSS and the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale were negligible (consistently r < .15, non-significant in most samples), verifying that respondents do not view endorsing modern sexist items as socially undesirable to the same extent as old-fashioned items.

3. Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The predictive power of the Modern Sexism Scale has been demonstrated across diverse behavioral and perceptual paradigms:

• Evaluations of Political Leaders: Swim et al. (1995) found that higher scores on Modern Sexism significantly predicted lower likelihood of voting for female political candidates, accompanied by heightened scrutiny and skepticism toward female leadership capabilities.
• Attributions of Sexual Harassment: Swim and Cohen (1997) observed that individuals with high MSS scores were significantly more prone to blame female victims of sexual harassment in workplace scenarios, minimize the severity of harassment claims, and label victims as hypersensitive or vindictive.
• Perceptions of Occupational Segregation: High modern sexists consistently underestimate the extent of occupational segregation and wage disparities, attributing statistical pay differentials to voluntary lifestyle selections rather than systemic bias (Swim et al., 1995).

Reliability

The Modern Sexism Scale demonstrates strong, replicable internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse administrative formats, age demographics, and cultural environments.

1. Internal Consistency

In the initial development samples reported by Swim et al. (1995):

• Initial Undergraduate Cohort (Study 1, N = 205): The Modern Sexism items yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .84. In contrast, the concurrent Old-Fashioned Sexism items yielded an alpha of α = .66.
• Replication Sample (Study 2, N = 296): Internal consistency remained robust, with Modern Sexism achieving α = .75 to .82 across male and female sub-samples.
• Independent Evaluations: Subsequent literature (e.g., Swim & Cohen, 1997; Campbell et al., 2002; Morrison et al., 2008) has documented Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the full Modern Sexism Scale typically clustering between .78 and .86, indicating high internal coherence among the latent indicators of denial, antagonism, and resentment.

2. Test-Retest Reliability

Swim et al. (1995) evaluated the stability of the instrument over a 2- to 3-week test-retest window among university participants. The resulting stability coefficient was r = .83 (p < .001), demonstrating that individual differences in modern sexist beliefs are relatively stable dispositional attitudes rather than fluctuating emotional states.

3. Cross-Sample Reliability and Generalizability

The scale has demonstrated cross-demographic reliability. While men systematically score higher on Modern Sexism than women (a medium-to-large effect size, typically d = 0.45 to 0.70), internal consistency coefficients remain comparable across both gender groups (alphas consistently ≥ .75 for both men and women). Furthermore, research examining adolescent populations (e.g., CDC/NIOSH adolescent safety and workplace culture studies) shows that when simplified instructions are applied, the scale maintains adequate reliability (α ≥ .72).

Factor Analysis

The psychometric differentiation of modern sexism from old-fashioned sexism was rigorously tested via Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) during the scale’s original validation.

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In Study 1 of Swim et al. (1995), an exploratory principal components analysis with varimax rotation was performed on a pooled set of items comprising modern sexism, old-fashioned sexism, and contemporary racial attitudes. The factor extraction clearly supported two distinct gender prejudice dimensions:

• Factor 1: Modern Sexism: Accounted for the largest proportion of common variance, with items reflecting the denial of discrimination and hostility toward feminist policies loading substantially (loadings ranging from .45 to .78).
• Factor 2: Old-Fashioned Sexism: A distinct secondary factor emerged, defined exclusively by items assessing intellectual competence, physical/athletic priorities, and strict domestic role allocation (loadings ranging from .42 to .72).

Cross-loadings between modern and old-fashioned items were minimal (rarely exceeding .25), demonstrating empirical separation between the cognitive denial of inequality and the explicit endorsement of biological inferiority.

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Swim and colleagues substantiated the two-factor solution via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in an independent sample (Study 2). A two-factor model specifying separate but correlated latent variables for Modern Sexism and Old-Fashioned Sexism demonstrated superior model fit over an alternative single-factor unidimensional model:

• Two-Factor Model Fit: The two-factor model exhibited favorable fit indices: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .90, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) > .92, and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) < .05.
• Single-Factor Model Comparison: When all items were constrained to load onto a single general “sexism” latent factor, the chi-square difference test was highly significant (Δχ² test, p < .001), and fit indices deteriorated substantially (CFI < .80), confirming that contemporary gender bias cannot be reduced to a single monolithic dimension.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations (e.g., Morrison et al., 2008) have replicated this factor structure using contemporary structural equation modeling (SEM), confirming that modern sexism forms a coherent higher-order construct encompassing the three cognitive sub-dimensions of denial, antagonism, and policy resentment.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Modern Sexism Scale (frequently administered alongside the Old-Fashioned Sexism Scale).
• Acronym: MSS (and OFSS).
• Original Authors: Janet K. Swim, Kathryn J. Aikin, Wayne S. Hall, and Barbara A. Hunter (1995).
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire; socio-cognitive attitude inventory.
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents (post-secondary students, working adults, and general community populations).
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; paper-and-pencil, online survey platforms, or computer-assisted testing.
• Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes for completion.
• Item Count: 8 verified core items in the standard combined research protocol (comprising classic Modern Sexism and Old-Fashioned Sexism anchor items).
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
• Scoring and Directionality:
  • Items are scored such that higher numerical values reflect greater levels of sexist attitudes.
  • Reverse-Scoring: Items denoting egalitarian or non-sexist beliefs (marked with an asterisk *) must be reverse-scored prior to calculating scale aggregates (e.g., 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1).
  • Scale Aggregation: Mean scores are computed across the items, yielding an index ranging from 1.0 to 5.0. Alternatively, subscale means can be computed independently for Old-Fashioned Sexism and Modern Sexism to permit comparative trajectory analyses.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Initial Publication Year: 1995.

Copyright and Ownership: The Modern Sexism Scale was published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Swim et al., 1995). Copyright is held by the American Psychological Association and the original authors.

Licensing and Research Availability: The instrument is accessible without monetary fee for academic, non-commercial research, institutional evaluation, and instructional purposes. Educational institutions and individual investigators may reproduce and administer the items provided that proper scholarly citation is given to Swim et al. (1995). Commercial organizations, proprietary assessment batteries, or for-profit consulting applications require formal copyright permission from the American Psychological Association or the lead author (Janet K. Swim).

References

• Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as mutually reinforcing ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1191–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1191
• Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
• McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). Academic Press.
• Morrison, M. A., Morrison, T. G., Pope, G. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Modern and old-fashioned sexism: An investigation of factor structure and validity among Canadian university women and men. Social Indicators Research, 87(2), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9171-8
• Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007). When sexism causes misbehavior: Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and attitudes toward female leaders. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(6), 1251–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.03.003
• Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66–67.
• Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199
• Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism Scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.x
• Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), 842–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218007

Items of the Scale