Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Social Psychology›Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
Process / pipelineSocial cognition

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) · Also known as: ASI

The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) is a 22-item self-report measure developed by Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske in 1996 to assess both hostile and benevolent sexism toward women. The scale captures the dual nature of sexism: overtly antagonistic attitudes and paternalistic but ultimately restrictive attitudes that present themselves as protective. It has become widely used in gender studies and organizational research.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 1 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
Cultural Values ScaleModern Racism ScaleRight-Wing Authoritarian…Social Dominance Orienta…Sexual Experiences Survey

When to use it

Use the ASI in research on gender attitudes, workplace discrimination, intimate relationships, and organizational culture. Suitable for college student samples, general adult populations, and employees. The scale is particularly useful when examining how both overt and subtle sexism affect policy support, hiring decisions, and intergroup relations.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Distinguishes hostile from benevolent sexism, revealing how protective attitudes can reinforce inequality
  • Excellent reliability and validity across cultures and decades of research
  • Relatively brief (22 items) for capturing a multidimensional construct
  • Extensively validated across international samples, making cross-cultural research feasible
Limitations
  • The 6-point Likert scale may limit sensitivity at the lower end for low-sexism respondents
  • Items may be somewhat transparent, inviting social desirability bias
  • Benevolent sexism may not translate uniformly across cultures with different gender norms

Frequently asked

Can men and women score differently on the ASI?

Yes, research typically shows that men score higher on both hostile and benevolent sexism. However, women can and do endorse both forms, though often at lower levels. The scale is designed to measure attitudes regardless of respondent gender.

What is the practical difference between hostile and benevolent sexism?

Hostile sexism reflects overt antagonism—resentment of women's success or power. Benevolent sexism reflects a protective, paternalistic stance—seeing women as needing care and idealization but unsuited for leadership. Benevolent sexism may feel positive but maintains unequal power dynamics.

How has the ASI been adapted for use with other groups?

The ambivalent prejudice framework has been extended to create parallel instruments measuring attitudes toward other groups, including gay men and lesbians, the elderly, and people with disabilities, each with hostile and benevolent dimensions.

Can I use subscale scores separately or should I combine them?

The subscales are designed to be used separately to distinguish hostile from benevolent sexism. However, some research uses a combined score to measure overall ambivalent sexism. Always specify which approach you used in your reporting.

Sources

  1. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/social-psychology/ambivalent-sexism-inventory

Related methods

Cultural Values ScaleModern Racism ScaleRight-Wing Authoritarianism ScaleSocial Dominance Orientation Scale

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Cultural Values ScaleSocial Psychology↔ compare
  • Modern Racism ScaleSocial Psychology↔ compare
  • Right-Wing Authoritarianism ScaleSocial Psychology↔ compare
  • Social Dominance Orientation ScaleSocial Psychology↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Modern Racism ScaleRight-Wing Authoritarianism ScaleSexual Experiences SurveySocial Dominance Orientation Scale

Similar methods

Attitudes Toward Women ScaleModern Sexism ScaleGender Role Attitudes ScaleGender Attitude SurveyBem Sex-Role InventoryModern Racism ScaleSexual Harassment Experiences QuestionnaireSocial Dominance Orientation Scale

Related reference concepts

Sex & Gender RolesAttitude MeasuresPersonality Scales & InventoriesConsumer Opinion & Attitude TestingAttitude Measurement and the Matched-Guise TechniqueHegemonic Masculinity

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI)). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/social-psychology/ambivalent-sexism-inventory · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske
Subfamily
Social cognition
Year
1996
Type
Self-report Likert scale
Related methods
Cultural Values ScaleModern Racism ScaleRight-Wing Authoritarianism ScaleSocial Dominance Orientation Scale
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account