Financial (In)Security is Tied to Personal Well-Being for Men and Relationship Well-Being for Women When Women Endorse Sexist Attitudes

Benevolent sexism undermines gender equality by ascribing men and women to traditional gender roles, with women as warm caregivers and men as protectors and financial providers. The appeal of these beliefs for women lay in the security and financial provision that men provide. However, if partners do not live up to these ideals (i.e., men violate the expectations of providing financial security), both men and women could experience poorer well-being. Specifically, men could experience lower personal well-being (anxiety) and women could experience lower relational well-being (lower relationship satisfaction). We examined how men and women’s benevolent sexism moderated the association between men’s reports of financial security and men and women’s well-being. In the current study, we followed 171 mixed-gender couples (who were tracked weekly and over several months), during a time of heightened financial insecurity, the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that when women were higher (compared to lower) in benevolent sexism, men’s anxiety was negatively associated with their financial security, such that they felt more anxiety when they reported lower financial security. When women endorsed benevolent sexism, and had a partner who reported lower financial security, women experienced lower relationship satisfaction. The findings support a key tenet of Ambivalent Sexism Theory — men’s role as the financial provider — and demonstrate that when women hold gendered expectations that are violated, there are negative outcomes for both men and women’s well-being. Implications, including how gendered expectations in relationships can undermine well-being in the face of challenges, are discussed.