Preliminary Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory in Pakistan

Structural patriarchy primarily manifests itself through gender inequalities, yet validated tools to measure sexist attitudes in culturally diverse settings are limited. Although the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory has been used globally, its factor structure has never been validated in Pakistan, which is the second-lowest country on the Global Gender Gap Index. To address this gap, the current study aimed to confirm the factor structure of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory on a heterogeneous sample of Pakistani adults. Following a non-probability, convenient sampling strategy, 2017 adults were recruited through a hybrid data collection approach involving both in-person and online formats. Results from confirmatory factor analysis showed that a 17-item modified version, after deleting five culturally irrelevant items, demonstrated superior fit indices (CFI=.95, RMSEA=.03). Findings were discussed in the sociocultural context of Pakistani society that highlighted the underlying gender dynamics, hence implicating the indigenous sociocultural notions of sexism. This study provides researchers and policymakers with a culturally appropriate tool to assess indigenous patterns of sexism in Pakistan that further contributes to a better understanding of local gender dynamics.

Gender inequality is pervasive globally, and Pakistan is no exception (Camou et al., 2017). According to the findings of the Global Gender Gap Report 2022 (World Economic Forum, 2022), Pakistan is positioned as the second worst on the gender gap index after Afghanistan. This indicates the widespread prevalence of structural patriarchy, both caused and strengthened by predominant sexist notions about existing gender dynamics. Latest research highlights that localised manifestations of sexism significantly impair women's psychological well-being and restrict their socioeconomic mobility (Shahid et al., 2025). Most women are confined to their homes with little to no power or agency to even decide on matters that directly affect them (Rabia et al., 2019). Research specifies that by assigning a subjugating role to women, the sexist forces at work harm their lives; however, the same patriarchal notions grant men comparative freedom and access to opportunities in their personal, professional, and public lives (Ali et al., 2022). Considered an attitude towards others based on their biological sex, sexism involves cognitive, affective, and behavioural components. It is the result of beliefs about how men and women should behave in certain situations (Expósito et al., 1998; Moya & Expósito, 2008).

Sexism is ambivalent because it can take two different forms that coexist inside one person, hostile and benevolent (Glick & Fiske, 1996). These criteria are based on factors that characterise the interaction between genders in terms of biology, society, and culture (Fernández et al., 2001). Both hostile and benevolent sexism work together to maintain women's subordination to men (Glick & Fiske, 2011). Hostile sexism provokes women's anger due to its overt exclusion, while men may experience greater anxiety about rejection.  However, benevolent sexism reduces women's resistance to patriarchy because the women who fulfil roles that are historically viewed as proper for them are protected, loved, or held in high regard, whereas women who do not do so are the target of criticism and negative views (Gonçalves et al., 2015).

According to the foremost theory of ambivalent sexism (AS), gender inequality and women's subordination are maintained using two factors that act as a carrot and stick (Glick & Fiske, 1996). The stick is used to reprimand those women who deviate from their traditional gender roles and is regarded as hostile sexism (HS), also defined as animosity towards women. However, the carrot is the reward bestowed upon those women who adopt traditional feminine roles and is termed benevolent sexism (BS).

Glick and Fiske (1996) argued that most people would agree that HS fits the description of prejudice towards women, as it has the potential to display hostile acts towards women, unlike BS, which uses positive reinforcement, like associating honour and esteem as primary tools to influence women in keeping up the gender binary, limiting their role to household chores and portraying them as kind yet helpless. Further highlighting the components of HS, Glick and Fiske (1999) elaborated on the intimacy between heterosexuals (or rather, in the case of HS, heterosexual hostility), gender differentiation, and power dynamics (both dominant and protective; the notion that men should govern) as the various forms of paternalism. They believed that because of this intimacy, straight men and women find themselves in a peculiar situation where they are dependent on one another, forming a heteronormative alliance. On one hand, HS plays a big part in maintaining the status quo of the gender binary, yet straight men still have to rely on women for sexual intimacy, which creates a conflict situation challenging their all-encompassing power and autonomy; so they just cannot have bad attitudes about women and hence indulge in a variety of sexism to go about it.

Even though HS is blatantly hostile and BS initially appears to be supportive, they represent the "two sides of a sexist coin" (Glick & Fiske, 2011, p. 5) and give sustenance to gender hierarchy alike. Glick and Fiske (1996) further argued that to uphold the status quo of gender, the BS encourages prosocial or intimacy-seeking behaviours in addition to subservient, powerless behaviour. This bounds the potential of women by keeping them in a low or secondary position in both their personal and professional lives. The way in romantic cultural scripts, knightly men are depicted as being in love with adoring women; they are idealised likewise (Glick et al., 1997; Viki et al., 2003).

Previous studies have investigated AS across diverse settings that shed significant light on its underlying dynamics and interrelations with other variables. For example, women who reported experiencing more HS regularly also reported experiencing BS in a similar vein (Salomon et al., 2020). However, because HS and BS show gender stereotypes in different ways, there are important distinctions in how they are viewed and perceived. In a study, women participants reported experiencing more BS than HS in their lifetime, while they maintained that HS was less frequently accepted and expressed (Salomon et al., 2020). However, the warmth that BS conveyed might make HS seem acceptable when expressed by the same person (Doyle et al., 2019). Studies also revealed that because it seemed to help women, BS was seen as less objectionable than HS. Similarly, men who showed BS were regarded favourably because they shield women from harm (Leone et al., 2020).

Recent cross-cultural studies broaden the understanding of these dynamics. For example, Akova et al. (2026) examined ambivalent sexism and gender awareness levels of medical students and found a high positive correlation between traditional gender-role ideologies and both dimensions of ambivalent sexism. These findings highlight how these biases persist even within highly professional, scientific educational tracks. Furthermore, Shahid et al. (2025) demonstrated that hostile and benevolent sexism play profoundly distinct roles in shaping explicit prejudices against working women when comparing Eastern contexts like Pakistan to Western societies. Also, qualitative and content-driven studies within Pakistan have shown that media narratives actively perpetuate these dimensions, where women face extreme hostile sexism if they violate socio-cultural norms, while benevolent sexism is operationalised only when they conform or express repentance (Khan et al., 2026).

It is pertinent to note that the behaviours of both men and women are influenced by HS and BS as they support the status quo (Kahn et al., 2021). By ostensibly granting women a domain of authority (inside the home rather than outside), AS tempts women to take part in their submission. Maternal gatekeeping that delegates women to share an enormously larger proportion of investing in childcare than men is associated with mothers' HS, as they restrict or exclude fathers from the responsibilities of the children (Gaunt & Pinho, 2017). Additionally, women's (but not men's) intentions to help their male partners with stereotypically feminine home activities (such as preparing food, doing the laundry, etc.) are linked to BS, as it allows men to avoid household labour in the long run (Bareket et al., 2021). Hence, AS encourages greater socioeconomic gender disparities since it deters women from seeking education and jobs in favour of taking on the majority of caregiving duties in relationships and family life (Overall & Hammond, 2017), which is unpaid labour. Data on sexism by age show that men experienced the highest levels of HS while women experienced the highest levels of both HS and BS during adolescence and young adulthood. While it takes a dip during middle adulthood and eventually increases again in older age, men's BS increases as they get older (Ferragut et al., 2016).

Moreover, taking other sociodemographic factors into account, a study conducted on a multi-racial sample indicated that Black American women were more likely than White American women to support BS (Davis et al., 2022). Similarly, cisgender men showed higher HS ratings than other gender groups, while cisgender women and gender-diverse people who were assigned female at birth scored lower on BS (Schiralli et al., 2022). Although AS is supported by people of all sexual orientations, several studies showed that heterosexual romantic partners reported more hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes than sexual minority respondents (López-Sáez et al., 2020; Pistella et al., 2017). Also, it was determined that the connection between gender and sexual identity was significant for BS but not for HS, as lesbian and bisexual women experienced less BS than straight women (Cowie et al., 2019).

The relationship between religion and sexism is highly relevant in Pakistan, where Islam shapes sociocultural and institutional frameworks as well as gender expectations. It is important to note that some religious scholars argue that monotheistic religions, including Islam and Christianity, fundamentally promote human rights and gender equality (Wadud, 2006). However, the empirical evidence demonstrates that the perceived pressure for complete religious conformity becomes a key factor that promotes both hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes when organised religion is confused with strict cultural patriarchies. Mastari et al. (2021) found that perceived pressure to adhere to religious standards governing women's status and behaviour motivated ambivalent sexism in both Christian and Muslim adolescent girls. This suggests that religious socialisation may drive sexist attitudes. This aligns with findings from Pakistan, where interpretations of Islamic teachings frequently emphasised women's roles as mothers and wives while limiting their public participation (Ali et al., 2022). Likewise, education level and sexism were also found to be related to one another, as a study reported that the participants with lower levels of education frequently scored high on both HS and BS (Schaffner et al., 2018).

Measures of Ambivalent Sexism

Over time, several assessment measures have been developed to investigate sexism or ambivalent sexism, some of which further inquired about benevolent and hostile forms of sexism. The Attitudes Towards Women Scale (AWS; Spence & Helmreich, 1972) is one of the foremost and most widely used scale to measure sexist attitudes to date, as through its 55 items, it gauges views toward women's rights and duties concerning the concept of AS. The AWS may also indirectly measure BS, but it concentrates more on the roles of women and tends to focus on the hostile aspects of sexism. In 1973, a 25-item version by Spence, Helmreich and Stapp while later a 15-item version (Spence & Helmreich, 1978) appeared, which was found to be strongly associated with the original form for both men and women.  Moreover, taking the context of experiences of hostile and benevolent sexism into account, the Schedule of Sexist Events (Klonoff & Landrine, 1995) was developed, which included 13 items on intimate/personal sexist incidents, unfair treatment at work or school, and unfair treatment in relationships, with instances that occur due to a person's gender. Similarly, Swim et al. (1995) developed two scales for assessing sexism. While the Modern Sexism Scale (MSS) measured participants’ ambivalent sexist attitudes towards women, the 5-item Old-Fashioned Sexism Scale (OFSS) evaluated their overt/hostile sexist attitudes. In contrast to previous scales, Glick and Fiske (1999) developed the 20-item Ambivalence towards Males Inventory (AMI) to measure hostile and benevolent attitudes towards men. Rollero et al. (2014) further developed its short form for both adolescents and adults. Lately, the Experiences with Benevolent Sexism Scale (EBSS; Oswald et al., 2019), the Experiences with Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (EASI; Salomon et al., 2020) and Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace (BSW; Warren et al., 2023) were also developed to assess forms of sexism across various contexts.

Rationale

Due to its wide use and easy accessibility, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Friske, 1996) has been used across the globe, and several adaptation and linguistic validation studies have been carried out on samples from Spain (Expósito et al., 1998), Argentina (Rudman & Glick, 2012) and Portugal, where, unlike the original form, the translated version did not contain items with negative comments and hence were revised positively. However, so far, even though it has been used in quite a few indigenous studies in Pakistan (Banaris, 2022; Nisar et al., 2021; Shahzad et al., 2015), no rigorous psychometric validation using SEM has been conducted in Pakistan. Since Pakistan ranks near the lowest levels of global gender equality rankings, it is crucial to verify the indigenously validated structure of ASI to ensure precise measurement in local social research. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the factor structure of ASI on a heterogeneous sample of Pakistani adults. The broader aim of the current study is to establish the construct validity of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory in a sample of Pakistani adults. In addition, to determine group differences in Ambivalent Sexism Inventory factor scores (i.e., hostile sexism, protective paternalism, complementary gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy) across sociodemographic groups.

Method

Participants

A convenience sample of 2017 adults with an age range of 19-50 years (M = 22.60, SD = 4.42) was recruited from various metropolitan cities of Pakistan, after taking their prior consent. Table 1 indicates the sociodemographic characteristics of the study sample. While initially, 2133 responses were collected, following the data cleaning process, 2017 responses were retained for the analysis. The average age of the participants was 22.60 years (SD = 4.42); they had an average of 14.63 years (SD = 1.87) of educational experience, with an average monthly family income of 128828.85 PKR (SD = 294986.76).

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample N = 2017)

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

The 22-item Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) was used to measure participants' attitudes toward women. Participants answered the questions on a 6-point scale with the following options: strongly disagree (0), somewhat disagree (1), slightly disagree (2), slightly agree (3), somewhat agree (4), and strongly agree (5). It consisted of two sub-scales of 11 items each: hostile sexism (HS), which evaluates chauvinist opposition towards women, and benevolent sexism (BS), which measures personally positive but condescending attitudes towards women. Additionally, BS was further divided into three subscales, namely protective paternalism (PP), complementary gender differentiation (CGD), and heterosexual intimacy (HI), with four, three, and four items, respectively. The participants’ HS and BS scores were calculated using the average score for each subscale. A high score indicated greater hostile or benevolent attitudes. HS, PP, CGD, and HI had Cronbach's alphas of .69, .51, .67, and .67, respectively.

Procedure

After obtaining approval from the Office of Research, Innovation and Commercialization (ORIC), University of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan (Ref. No. D/695/ORIC, Dated: 23-12-22) and following APA-mandated ethical considerations, data were collected from various metropolitan cities of Pakistan, including Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi, and Islamabad. We approached only adults who showed interest in the study and completed the consent form. Results were analyzed through SPSS and AMOS version 21, and the findings were interpreted while keeping the anonymity and confidentiality of each participant.

Results

The factor structure of the ASI was analyzed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as shown in Figure 1. Items 1-11 represented hostile sexism HS, whereas protective paternalism included items 12, 13, 14, and 15 (labelled as PP1, PP2, PP3, and PP4 for analysis); complementary gender differentiation (CGD) included items 16, 17 and 18 (named CGD 1, CGD 2 and CGD 3), heterosexual intimacy (HI) included items 19, 20, 21, 22 (labelled as HI 1, HI 2, HI 3and HI 4 for analysis). Research indicates that RMSEA indices between .08 and .05, comparative fit index (CFI) and incremental fit index (IFI) of .95 or higher and goodness of fit index (GFI) of .9 or higher are considered a good fit, and Figure 1 indicates that Model 1 duly showed that the current findings are within the acceptable range. The fit indices for absolute fit (Chi-square, df, and p-level) were significant, yet the relative fit for Model 1 (GFI, RMSEA) was only within the range of a good-fit model.

However, this model 1 went through a modification process to aid in a better-fitted and hence Model 2 emerged by removing the items with lesser loadings. As per the criteria of the factor loading, any value less than .3 was removed due to their potential low competence in explaining the factor structure. Therefore, items 6 and 7 from HS, item 15 from PP, and items 20 and 22 from HI were removed, respectively, one after another. Moreover, a covariance was drawn between the error variances of items 1 and 2 to enhance the modification indices, prompting the model to be a better fit. However, item 9, with a factor loading of .29 (rounded off to .30) was retained because its potential deletion was found to reduce the model fit. 

Figure 1: Factor Structure of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory before Model Modification (N = 2017)

The change in Chi-square values suggested a significant difference between Model 1 and 2 after modifications (Kline, 1998, 2015), while the X2/df ratio also exhibited a decrease; both of which are indicative of Model 2 explaining a better factor structure of the ASI. Therefore, our hypothesis was supported as Model 2 confirmed a better construct validity for the ASI in a Pakistani sample.

Table 2: Model Fit Indices for Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (N = 2017)

Note. Structural equation modeling was used for the analysis; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; GFI = goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation. In Model 1, 22 items of Ambivalent Sexism Inventory were loaded onto four different factors while in Model 2, 17 items of Ambivalent Sexism Inventory.
***p<.001

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Findings further revealed the convergent validity for the ASI as all the regression coefficients/estimates (B) of items in the measurement model (items loaded on latent variables) were statistically significant. Moreover, inter-item correlations greater than .85 indicate multicollinearity, and to attain discriminant validity for a scale, all correlations between items should be less than .85. In the present study, discriminant validity was established as correlations between all items were less than .85 which is adequate.
The reliability indices for HS, PP, and CGD showed acceptable reliabilities but HI of BS showed a poor reliability index that can be attributed to the fact that items were removed from this subscale during CFA to get a better fit for factor structure, which decreased the number of items in this subscale. Moreover, the removed items demonstrated that indigenous sociocultural context as they statistically appeared irrelevant to the Pakistani adults.

Figure 2: Final Factor Structure of Ambivalent Sexism Inventory After Modification (N = 2017)

Table 3: Reliability Coefficients of the Subscales (N = 2017)

Also, the inter-correlations among the subscales of the ASI shown in Table 4, clearly indicate that the HS, PP, and CGD had a positive association with one another while HI had a negative relationship with all of these subscales.

Table 4: Inter-correlations Among Subscales of ASI (N = 2017)

***p < .001

Furthermore, Table 5 revealed significant gender differences in HS, PP, CGD, and HI, with men showing higher scores on HS, PP and HI while women scored higher on CGD. Similarly, differences were also found based on the geographical affiliation of the participants as those belonging to rural backgrounds showed comparatively higher HS and PP than individuals from urban areas.

Table 5: Gender and Geographical Affiliation Differences Across the Subscales of ASI (N = 2017)

Note.  HS = Hostile Sexism; PP = Protective Paternalism; CGD = Complementary Gender Differentiation; HI = Heterosexual Intimacy.

Additionally, Table 6 highlights significant differences across the marital status of the study participants. Findings exposed that participants particularly differed on PP with divorced individuals reporting the highest scores on PP among others.

Table 6: Marital Status Differences Across Subscales of ASI (N = 2017)

Other than gender, geographical location and marital status, the study did not find any significant gender differences across other sociodemographic characteristics of the study sample. Therefore, our findings only proved our hypothesis for these three demographic variables. 

Discussion

This study purported to look into the factor structure of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) in a convenience sample of Pakistani adults. To investigate its construct validity, we ran a CFA to look into the indigenous factor structure of the ASI and found that after removing a total of five items from three of its subscales (HS, PP and HI) and allowing covariance between items 1 and 2, we were able to discover a better-fitting model (Model 2) that explained the factor structure of the ASI in Pakistan.  

A closer look at the items deleted gives a better insight into the indigenous sociocultural context of Pakistan. From HS, items 6 (Feminists are making reasonable demands) and 7 (Feminists not seeking more power than men) were deleted. Both of these items pertained to the comprehension of feminism, which is a highly polarising construct in Pakistan. Looked upon as a Western innovation to tear apart the traditional fabric of religion and morality, it is frequently considered synonymous with misandry (Tauqeer, 2019). Hence, the low factor loadings on these items can be attributed to these prevalent misconceptions and the lack of uniformity across participants’ experiences. Similarly, item 15 (In tragedy, women need not be rescued first) of the PP subscale was removed. It can be inferred that the word “disaster” varies vastly depending upon its context, range, severity and impact, which could have created ambiguity at the participants’ end, as they had tried to respond to it according to their respective comprehension. Furthermore, in traditional nations like Pakistan, due to gender-based hierarchies and power imbalances, women are considered helpless and in need of rescue, while their civil liberties of mobility and agency are restrained or supervised, as they are more susceptible to receiving violence, exploitation, and abuse (Younas et al., 2021). Even in the aftermath of a crisis or disaster situation, women’s access to economic opportunities, essential healthcare, and education is hampered due to actual and potential threats of sexual victimisation (Soomar et al., 2023). Likewise, items 20 (Men are complete without women) and 22 (People are often happy without heterosexual romance) from HI were deleted to get a better factor structure for the ASI in the current sample. In conventional countries like Pakistan, where the institution of religion primarily directs one’s life, it has been observed that men rely more on women for emotional and physical intimacy and support (Shahzad et al., 2015); consequently, keeping aside the individual differences involved, the low factor loadings of both items 20 and 22 are a demonstration of this existence, where people believe in essentialist heterosexuality.

The structural arrangements of these subscales align with recent findings of Akova et al. (2026), which showed that basic gender role ideologies are influenced by how both hostile and protective/benevolent attitudes manifest in youth. When compared with monotheist religious frameworks, the findings of our research are consistent with the dual pathways of Mastari et al. (2021). While historical and theological text evaluations argue that monotheistic structures originally codified robust human rights and gender protections, the socio-psychological reality among contemporary populations reveals that active conformist pressures frequently reinforce protective paternalism and gender differentiation as mandatory moral traits rather than egalitarian constructs. Therefore, the 22-item ASI (Glick & Fiske, 1996) was reduced to a 17-item ASI based on the construct validation study conducted on a Pakistani sample. Moreover, our findings also suggested that men experienced more sexism or ambivalent sexism than women. This finding is congruent with previous literature that also found that men from traditional gender cultures reported experiencing more sexism, including the HS, PP, HI, and BS, than women (Schiralli et al., 2022). It has been argued that the reason men frequently scored higher on the HS, HI, and PP scales is that such attitudes gave them benefits like a dominant position within their private and public lives (Cowie et al., 2019). However, our findings also revealed that women scored significantly higher on the CGD subscale of BS, which found support from a study by Trut et al. (2022), who reported that women might be hesitant to take positions or responsibilities traditionally held or perceived to belong to men. However, this only serves to maintain gender inequality because women are discouraged from completing tasks that are necessary for gaining respect, earning a living, and moving through the ranks more quickly  (Heinecken, 2017). Furthermore, our findings showed that participants from rural backgrounds exhibited more HS and PP than those from urban centres. This seemed to be consistent with the findings of Banaris (2022), who discovered that individuals born or raised in rural areas had more hostile sexist beliefs. Another study found an association between rural upbringing and religion-based traditional conceptualisation of gender roles (Trut et al., 2022). Moreover, Shahzad et al. (2015) also discovered that teachers living in rural Pakistan had higher levels of HS and PP than those living in urban areas.

Lastly, it was also discovered that PP was more prevalent in divorced individuals than in married and unmarried participants. Saud (2017) argued that according to Islamic law, women cannot be left financially, even if they are divorced, as they are entitled to support from their former spouse. Inferring from this study, the current finding can be justified since Pakistan is a predominantly Islamic country and people, in general, adhere to its teachings; hence, divorced participants responded about their religious beliefs. Previous findings also maintained significant differences across sexual orientation, with heterosexuals primarily showing more HS, PP, CGD, and HI (Pistella et al., 2017; Schiralli et al., 2022), which is why we included sexual orientation in our sociodemographic information sheet, but did not receive substantial responses that could be empirically verified through statistical analysis. This is due to the dominant heteronormative culture in Pakistan, as people strictly adhered to traditionally mandated gender roles and sexualities.

Limitations and Suggestions

Though the current study undertook the arduous task of recruiting an expansive sample to confirm the factor structure of the ASI (Glick & Fiske, 1996), it still has certain limitations that can be taken into account in future studies. As we discovered that all deleted items from the ASI were reverse-coded, future studies can address this by translating and adapting it or even by pursuing another methodological approach. Enhancing the socio-demographics of the participants, or by taking a purposive sample, especially involving diverse sexualities and gender expressions, can also lead to new directions and possibilities. Future research could investigate whether religious orientation (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), religious fundamentalism, or perceived religious conformity pressure differentially predict hostile versus benevolent sexism. Future researchers are strongly encouraged to integrate advanced methodology, such as utilizing textual parameter analysis, natural language processing (NLP), and cognitive-linguistic frameworks to capture implicit sexist attitudes within natural discourse, as established in recent experimental psychometric literature (Uludag, 2024).

Implications

Our findings have significant implications for the academic and research fields directly involved with issues related to gender and women. Other than making a significant contribution to the research scholarship, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), non-profit organizations (NPOs), and state representatives and policymakers can also draw inferences from current findings, as fighting back against sexism is related to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which demand gender equality across the globe.  Furthermore, certain textual analysis methods, as mentioned in the previous study (Uludag, 2024), can be implemented to measure the level of sexism.

Conclusion

This study provides the first empirical validation of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) in Pakistan, addressing a critical gap in gender research within a country ranked among the lowest globally on gender parity indices. It indicates that the 17-item modified measure of ASI fits the Pakistani population better than the original 22-item scale. This improvement likely reflects Pakistan's traditional and religiously conservative gender norms. Significant sociodemographic differences further validate the scale's sensitivity, confirming that the modified ASI effectively captures the complex, contextualised dynamics of structural patriarchy in a traditional society. While these findings align with previous literature, they must be interpreted through the nuanced lens of Pakistan's unique sociocultural context.

References

Akova, İ., Fincan, E., & Cankı, C. (2026). Examining ambivalent sexism and gender awareness among medical students. Cumhuriyet Medical Journal, 48(2), 110-121.

Ali, T. S., Ali, S. S., Nadeem, S., Memon, Z., Soofi, S., Madhani, F., Karim, Y., Mohammad, S., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2022). Perpetuation of gender discrimination in Pakistani society: Results from a scoping review and qualitative study conducted in three provinces of Pakistan. BMC Women’s Health, 22(1), Article 540. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-02011-6

Banaris, B. (2022). Understanding honour-based abuse: The role of sexism and scripting amongst Pakistani adults living in rural Pakistan administered Kashmir, Pakistan and England (Publication No. 624877) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wolverhampton]. Wlv Open Repository.

Bareket, O., Shnabel, N., Kende, A., Knab, N., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2021). Need some help, honey? Dependency-oriented helping relations between women and men in the domestic sphere. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1175-1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000292

Camou, M. M., Maubrigades, S., & Thorp, R. (2017). Gender inequalities and development in Latin America during the twentieth century. Routledge.

Cowie, L. J., Greaves, L. M., & Sibley, C. G. (2019). Sexuality and sexism: Differences in ambivalent sexism across gender and sexual identity. Personality and Individual Differences, 148, 85-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.023

Davis, T. M., Settles, I. H., & Jones, M. K. (2022). Standpoints and situatedness: Examining the perception of benevolent sexism in black and white undergraduate women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 46(1), 8-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211043108

Doyle, A. H., Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & Calogero, R. M. (2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 167-192. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135

Expósito, F., Moya, M. C., & Glick, P. (1998). Ambivalent sexism: Measurement and correlates. International Journal of Social Psychology, 13(2), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347498760350641

Fernández, F. I. S., Poeschl, G., Glick, P., Rovira, D. P., & Morales, M. C. M. (2001). Sexism, masculinity-femininity, and cultural factors. Electronic Journal of Emotions and Motivation, 4(8-9), 1-22.

Ferragut, M., Blanca, M. J., Ortiz-Tallo, M., & Bendayan, R. (2016). Sexist attitudes and beliefs during adolescence: A longitudinal study of gender differences. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(1), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1144508

Gaunt, R., & Pinho, M. (2017). Do sexist mothers change more diapers? Ambivalent sexism, maternal gatekeeping, and the division of childcare. Sex Roles, 79(3-4), 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0864-6

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Ambivalent sexism revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(3), 530-535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311414832

Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(12), 1323-1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972312009

Gonçalves, G., Orgambídez-Ramos, A., Giger, J.-C., Santos, J., & Gomes, A. (2015). Validity evidence of the Portuguese adaptation of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Revista de Psicología Social, 30(1), 152-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2014.991518

Heinecken, L. (2017). Conceptualizing the tensions evoked by gender integration in the military. Armed Forces & Society, 43(2), 202-220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X16670692

Kahn, K. B., van Breen, J. A., Barreto, M., & Kaiser, C. R. (2021). When is women’s benevolent sexism associated with support for other women’s agentic responses to gender‐based threat? British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(3), 786-807. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12441

Khan, N., Das, F. C., & Siddique, Z. (2026). Ambivalent sexism: Hostile and benevolent sexism in mere pas tum ho (ARY Digital HD, 2019-2020). Regional Lens, 5(1), 190-202. https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3837-2229

Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1995). The schedule of sexist events: A measure of lifetime and recent sexist discrimination in women’s lives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(4), 439-472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00086.x

Leone, R. M., Schipani-McLaughlin, A. M., Haikalis, M., & Parrott, D. J. (2020). The “white knight” effect: Benevolent sexism accounts for bystander intervention in party situations among high status men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(4), 704-709. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000314

López-Sáez, M. Á., García-Dauder, D., & Montero, I. (2020). Correlate attitudes toward LGBT and sexism in Spanish psychology students. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 2063. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02063

Mastari, L., Droogenbroeck, F. V., Spruyt, B., & Keppens, G. (2021). Ambivalent sexism among Christian and Muslim youth: The gendered pathway of perceived pressure for religious conformity. European Societies, 24(2), 154-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2021.2012219

Moya, M., & Expósito, F. (2008). Sexism: The harmful effects of an ambivalent ideology. In J. F. Morales, C. Huici, A. Gómez, & E. Gaviria (Eds.), Método, teoría e investigación en psicología social [Methods, theory, and research in social psychology] (pp. 538-557). Pearson.

Nisar, S., Zafar, K., Batool, I., Ishfaq, M., Fatima, H., Fatima, K., & Arshad, R. (2021). Ambivalent sexism towards women and acceptance of rape myths among university students. Saudi Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(2), 90-95. https://doi.org/10.36348/sjhss.2021.v06i02.007

Oswald, D., Baalbaki, M., & Kirkman, M. (2019). Experiences with Benevolent Sexism: Scale development and associations with women’s well-being. Sex Roles, 80(5-6), 362-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0933-5

Overall, N. C., & Hammond, M. D. (2017). How intimate relationships contribute to gender inequality: Sexist attitudes encourage women to trade off career success for relationship security. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217745096

Pistella, J., Tanzilli, A., Ioverno, S., Lingiardi, V., & Baiocco, R. (2017). Sexism and attitudes toward same-sex parenting in a sample of heterosexuals and sexual minorities: The mediation effect of sexual stigma. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15(2), 139-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0284-y

Rabia, M., Tanveer, F., Gillani, M., Naeem, H., & Akbar, S. (2019). Gender inequality: A case study in Pakistan. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(3), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.73031

Rollero, C., Glick, P., & Tartaglia, S. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(2), 149-159.

Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2012). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. Guilford Press.

Salomon, K., Bosson, J. K., El-Hout, M., Kiebel, E., Kuchynka, S. L., & Shepard, S. L. (2020). The experiences with Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (EASI). Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(4), 235-253.

Saud, S. K. (2017, August 22). The impact of divorce on women in Pakistan. Courting the Law. https://courtingthelaw.com/2017/08/22/commentary/the-impact-of-divorce-on-women-in-pakistan/

Schaffner, B. F., Macwilliams, M., & Nteta, T. (2018). Understanding white polarization in the 2016 vote for president: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Political Science Quarterly, 133(1), 9-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12737

Schiralli, J. E., Peragine, D. E., Chasteen, A. L., & Einstein, G. (2022). Explicit and implicit gender-related stereotyping in transgender, gender expansive, and cisgender adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(4), 2065-2076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02339-y

Shahid, S., Noguchi, K., Bishop, R., & Stepanova, E. V. (2025). Role of hostile and benevolent sexism in shaping prejudice against working women in the United States and Pakistan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 56(5), 511-527.

Shahzad, A., Shafiq, S., & Sajid, M. R. (2015). Dimensions of religiosity as predictor of ambivalent sexism among university faculty in central-northern Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Gender & Women’s Studies, 3(2), 171-189. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijgws.v3n2a15

Soomar, S. M., Arefin, A., & Soomar, S. M. (2023). “Women are again unsafe”: Preventing violence and poor maternal outcomes during current floods in Pakistan. Journal of Global Health, 13, Article 03005. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.13.03005

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1972). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. American Psychological Association.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Comparison of masculine and feminine personality attributes and sex-role attitudes across age groups. Developmental Psychology, 15(5), 583-584. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078091

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

Tauqeer, S. (2019). Feminism and the practical vs. legal state of women in Pakistan. RISL Law Review, 1, 11-32.

Trut, V., Sinovčić, P., & Milavić, B. (2022). Initial validation of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory in a military setting. Social Sciences, 11(4), Article 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11040176

Uludag, K. (2024). Exploring the association between textual parameters and psychological and cognitive factors. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 17, 1139-1150.

Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49(9/10), 533-537. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025888824749

Wadud, A. (2006). Inside the gender jihad: Women’s reform in Islam. Oneworld Publications.

Warren, C., Wax, A., Brush, O. T., Magalona, J., & Galvez, G. (2023). Development and validation of the Benevolent Sexism in the Workplace Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 96(4),
1-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12435

World Economic Forum, (2022). Global Gender Gap Report 2022. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2022/

Younas, F., Akhtar, D. N., & Solomon, D. V. (2021). What Makes Women Social Cynics? An Exploratory Study. Journal of Professional & Applied Psychology, 2(2), 218-234. https://doi.org/10.52053/jpap.v2i2.58

                                                 
Received 12 July 2023
Revision received 12 July 2026