Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Sex Roles
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-023-01399-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Benevolent andHostile Sexism inEndorsement ofHeterosexist
Marriage Traditions Among Adolescents andAdults
RoseBrett1 · AifeHopkins‑Doyle1· RachaelRobnett2· NilaWatson1· HarrietR.Tenenbaum1
Accepted: 23 June 2023 / Published online: 25 July 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
Within most western countries, gendered proposal, surname, and wedding traditions remain widely endorsed. A previous
study indicated that endorsement of proposal and surname traditions is associated with higher levels of benevolent sexism
(BS) in university students in the USA. Three studies (N = 367) extended research to adolescents (dating age) and 30-year-olds
(typical first-time marriage age). For the first time, these studies examined gendered wedding traditions (e.g., father walking
a bride down the aisle). Different combinations of ambivalent sexism predicted participants’ opinions about surname change
after marriage and the choice of children’s surnames. In younger adolescents (11–18years; 56 boys, 88 girls, 68.1% White),
hostile sexism (HS) predicted endorsement of surname change, whereas benevolent sexism predicted endorsement in 16- to
18-year-olds (58 boys, 84 girls, 76.8% White) and 30-year-olds (37 men, 44 women, 74.1% White). In adolescent samples,
both BS and HS predicted endorsement of patronymic traditions for children, whereas only BS did in the adult sample. The
findings suggest that different types of sexism predict traditional beliefs in specific age groups.
Keywords Benevolent sexism· Gender· Heterosexual relationships· Proposals· Surname decisions· Marriage traditions
Recent movements such as #metoo and support for clos-
ing the gender pay gap indicate that some people are aware
of sexism and want to eliminate it (Jaffe, 2018). However,
gender-typed traditions remain entrenched in heterosexual
relationships and marriage practices (Leaper & Robnett,
2018). Seemingly innocuous traditions around proposals,
weddings, and surname changes are symbolic of wider
gender inequality (Boxer & Gritsenko, 2005; Fairchild,
2014). Many heterosexual rituals (e.g., the father giving his
daughter away) put men in a position of power because they
are reminiscent of times where paternalism was normative
(Fairchild, 2014; Otnes & Pleck, 2003). Research shows a
link between the endorsement of these rituals and sexism
in US university students (Robnett & Leaper, 2013). The
current studies extend investigation of these heterosexual
relationship traditions to adolescence (when interest in
romantic relationships emerges; Rudman & Glick, 2021) and
in 30-year-olds (when marriage is being considered and first
marriages typically occur; Mehta etal., 2020). Exploring
attitudes at stages on either side of the emerging adulthood
period allows us to understand the origins and maintenance
of marriage tradition endorsement.
Endorsement ofMarriage Traditions
Relationship milestones in heterosexual relationships are
more frequently led by men than women (Sassler & Miller,
2011). For example, men initiate marriage proposals more
than women do. The most widespread proposal archetype
constitutes a man kneeling and presenting a ring to the
woman (Schweingruber etal., 2004). Indeed, a recent sur-
vey in the US reported that 97% of grooms proposed to their
brides (Fetters, 2019). Moreover, participants are more likely
to rate proposals by men than women as leading to a success-
ful, strong marriage (Schweingruber etal., 2008). As a result,
couples likely feel normative pressures to follow traditions.
A potential consequence of such normative pressure is
women’s relationship dissatisfaction. Specifically, women
* Rose Brett
r.brett@surrey.ac.uk
Harriet R. Tenenbaum
h.tenenbaum@surrey.ac.uk
1 School ofPsychology, University ofSurrey, Surrey, UK
2 Department ofPsychology, University ofNevada, LasVegas,
USA
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
202 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
may be reluctant to take an active role in leading a proposal,
which means that they are often put in the position of pas-
sively waiting for the man to propose (Robnett & Leaper,
2013; Sassler & Miller, 2011). Baker and Elizabeth (2013)
examined the transition from cohabitation to marriage and
found that often women were not satisfied with long-term
cohabitation. However, women were reluctant to be pro-
active in formalizing the relationship and waited for their
partner’s proposal. When women proposed, their partners
often felt obligated to propose before publicly announcing
the engagement. Thus, there seems to be a social require-
ment for men to propose. Likewise, men’s input is prioritized
over women’s in deciding to get married (i.e., the groom
asking the bride’s father for permission). In this case, two
men make the decision before the woman (Fairchild, 2014).
These gendered traditions around proposing prevent women
from taking an agentic role in moving the relationship for-
ward (Robnett & Leaper, 2013).
Another male-dominated tradition in heterosexual rela-
tionships is women adopting the man’s surname after mar-
riage. In the nineteenth century, surname change was a legal
requirement for women because they were viewed as their
husband’s property (Boxer & Gritsenko, 2005). Despite the
removal of this obligation, many women in the US and UK
uphold this tradition (Robnett etal., 2018a; Scheuble etal.,
2012). In the UK, 85% of married heterosexual women,
between 18 and 30 adopt their husband’s surname (Savage,
2020). Although laws may not require surname change any-
more, legal procedures continue to encourage the traditional
practice of the woman adopting her husband’s surname.
For example, in England and Wales, it is free for a woman
to change her name at institutions (e.g., banks) using her
marriage certificate. For men wanting to take their wife’s
surname, the UK Deed Poll website says that government
departments such as the Passport Office will accept the mar-
riage certificate but many companies such as financial insti-
tutions will not so men often need to follow the “deed poll”
option (Peters, 2018; UK Deed Poll, 2021). The UK deed
poll website states “Traditionally, a man does not change his
surname upon marriage” (UK Deed Poll, 2021). This direct
acknowledgement of tradition as well as the greater efforts
required by men to change their name may discourage a
couple from adopting the woman’s name and persuade them
to follow the status quo.
The elevation of men’s over women’s surnames often
continues when couples decide which name to give their
children. Fathers’ names tend to be given more than moth-
ers’ names: a patronymic naming trend. For example, from
a sample of 600 female university employees, 90% gave
their first-born child their father’s surname (Johnson &
Scheuble, 2002). If women retained their surname, they
were more likely to give their surname to their child; how-
ever, the father’s name was often included. Like proposals,
it seems that women’s surnames alone are not viewed as
enough (Baker & Elizabeth, 2013). Men taking their wives’
surnames may also be subjected to social scrutiny. Hamilton
etal. (2011) found in a sample of 800 Americans that almost
half (46.5%) of respondents disagreed that it was ok for men
to change their name after marriage.
Patronymic naming traditions reflect societal power
imbalances between women and men (Boxer & Gritsenko,
2005), which is evidenced in research demonstrating that
surname decisions influence how people are perceived along
a variety of power-related dimensions. Forbes etal. (2002)
found that a woman with a hyphenated surname was viewed
as more career-focused and educated than the average mar-
ried woman. Furthermore, women who retain their surnames
are perceived as holding more power-related traits and being
less committed to a successful marriage than women who
take their husbands’ names. The latter are described as hav-
ing more affiliative, loving traits (Kelley, 2023; Robnett
etal., 2016; Shafer, 2017). Research exploring views of men
corroborate this finding. Specifically, men whose wives kept
their surname tend to be viewed as holding less power in the
relationship than their partner, particularly by those higher
in hostile sexism (Robnett etal., 2018a,b). These men are
also perceived to be worse romantic partners than traditional
men (Kelley, 2023). Together, these findings illustrate that
marital surname choices are a feminist issue: These choices
are rooted in gendered power dynamics and highlight a dou-
ble-bind wherein women must balance the need to preserve
autonomy and identity with the need to appear committed to
family life (Boxer & Gritsenko, 2005; Nugent, 2010).
The Role ofAmbivalent Sexism
inHeterosexual Relationships
Theoretical perspectives on heterosexual gender relations
suggest marriage traditions are likely influenced by sexist
ideology. According to ambivalent sexism theory (Glick &
Fiske, 1996), gendered power dynamics are maintained by
two associated forms of sexist ideology: benevolent sexism
(BS) and hostile sexism (HS). BS is characterized by seem-
ingly positive beliefs about women as the more moral and
kinder gender group, who should be cherished, protected,
and provided for by men (Glick & Fiske, 2001). In contrast,
HS is an overtly negative view of women as manipulative
and deceitful. Although divergent in evaluative tone, BS and
HS are positively correlated (Glick etal., 2000; Hammond
& Overall, 2017). This confluence of BS and HS results in
the maintenance of existing gender relations. Women who
conform to traditional roles are rewarded with adoration and
preferential treatment prescribed by BS, and women who
violate such expectations are derogated, as prescribed by HS
(Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
203Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
BS is central in guiding expectations and behaviors in
intimate heterosexual relationships (Fairchild, 2014; Overall
& Hammond, 2018). In dating, actions reflecting BS (e.g.,
men paying for women on the first date, holding the door
open for women) are viewed as desirable in men (Paynter &
Leaper, 2016). Later in relationships, BS encourages women
to focus on attaining a committed marriage, having children,
and foregoing the pursuit of personal power including status
and education (Lee etal., 2010; Rudman & Heppen, 2003).
Consequently, BS not only impacts behavior in romantic
relationships, but also steers men and women into separate
gendered roles in wider society.
Despite research into both ambivalent sexist attitudes and
the endorsement of marriage traditions, little research has
been conducted to explore their association. Notably, Rob-
nett and Leaper (2013) conducted a survey with undergradu-
ate students examining their views of marriage proposals and
surname changes. Participants strongly endorsed proposal
and surname traditions. After controlling for demographic
factors, BS was the only significant predictor of endorsing
these traditions. When asked to explain why they endorsed
the surname tradition, many women reported a desire to
unite the family under the same surname. This reasoning is
representative of the heterosexual intimacy and protective
paternalism facets of BS in the sense that women valuing
family unity reflects traditional gender roles of warm, sup-
portive caregivers (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Along a similar
vein, Robnett and Leaper (2013) found that some women
were reluctant to propose due to fear of rejection, whereas
some men were motivated to propose because they valued
the agency attached with being the one to initiate the pro-
posal. The pattern of men being in control of relationship
progression reflects paternalistic chivalry, which is closely
related to BS (Hammond & Overall, 2015; Viki etal., 2003).
Although participants in Robnett and Leaper (2013) spoke
positively about marriage traditions, the association with
BS suggests such traditions contribute to the maintenance of
gender inequality more broadly through casting traditional
roles and preferences prescribed by BS as positive and harm-
less (Hopkins-Doyle etal., 2019).
Even less is known about endorsement of wedding day
traditions. However, the few studies investigating these tradi-
tions show that an unequal division of labor between bride
and groom in wedding day preparation is also seen positively
(Ellingsaeter, 2022). Related research shows that when talk-
ing about their wedding ceremonies, grooms were viewed
favourably and seen as acting benevolently by leaving most
wedding tasks to the bride (Froschauer & Durrheim, 2019).
Instead of being recognised as an unfair division, grooms
were seen as acting selflessly. Although these studies sug-
gest that wedding day traditions symbolise BS, there is a
dearth of empirical evidence linking traditions and BS. Using
quantitative analyses, we investigate whether BS beliefs are
associated with endorsement of gendered wedding traditions
for the first time.
Although the endorsement of hostile sexism has also been
found to play a role in both adult and adolescent relation-
ships in terms of relationship problems (Cross & Overall,
2019; de Lemus etal, 2010; Martinez-Pecino & Durán,
2019), we decided to focus on the role of BS in relation to
the endorsement of marriage traditions. The romantic and
chivalrous notions attached to marriage traditions can be
seen as an extension of the favourable views often held about
earlier heterosexist dating behaviour such as men initiating
first dates. In addition, Viki etal. (2003) found that such
behaviours were significantly positively correlated with
BS but not HS. Men choosing when the couple becomes
engaged is an example of this in a more established rela-
tionship (e.g., Sassler & Miller, 2011). For these reasons,
we focus on BS rather than HS in the context of endorsing
marriage traditions.
Developmental Course ofSexism
Both BS and HS have roots in childhood. Awareness of tradi-
tional gendered roles and traits begins in childhood (Robnett
etal., 2018a, b). From as young as six years, children are aware
of occupational roles typically held by men versus women
(Liben etal., 2001). Children are also exposed to BS ideals from
an early age through media, such as Disney films and imagi-
native play. Girls learn the gender roles of women as helpless
princesses needing to be rescued by heroic princes (Casad etal.,
2015; Rudman & Glick, 2021). Further, children are aware of
and endorse BS and HS, and levels of sexism endorsement have
been linked to how they view themselves in relation to traits
such as warmth and competence (Hammond & Cimpian, 2021).
In adolescence, the own-gender preferences and segregated
relationships (i.e., characteristic of HS) displayed in childhood
are replaced by interdependence as heterosexual adolescents
take a romantic interest in each other (Dunham etal., 2016).
The numbers of adolescents having romantic relationships
increases sharply at this stage—from 25% at 12-years to 70%
at 18-years old (Carver etal., 2003). In early relationships,
BS ideals prescribe the expectation that boys play a more
dominant role than girls. For example, boys should initiate
romantic involvement, pay for dates, and ensure girls’ get
home safely (Rudman & Glick, 2021). Boys who meet these
expectations are rated as attractive by girls, which increases
with greater relationship experience (Montañés etal., 2013;
Viejo etal., 2015). Overall, adolescence marks the emergence
of ambivalent sexism with rising peaks in HS and BS in 14-
to18-year-olds (Glick & Hilt, 2000).
Although sexism might increase in adolescence, there are
gender differences in this pattern across the life span. Men
consistently score higher on HS from adolescence to adulthood
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
204 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
compared to women (Ferragut etal., 2017). Over time, wom-
en’s BS and HS as well as men’s HS follow a U-shaped trajec-
tory: sexism is relatively high in late adolescence, decreases
in middle adulthood (i.e., post typical age for marriage, repro-
duction), and increases again in later adulthood. In contrast,
men’s BS increases linearly over time (Hammond etal., 2018).
Men’s enduring endorsement of BS is consistent with evidence
showing there are social and status benefits to be gained. Adult
women prefer men who espouse BS over men who do not as
romantic partners (Gul & Kupfer, 2019). These findings sug-
gest that BS continues to hold appeal for women and men espe-
cially early in romantic life, but this is maintained through to
married life and beyond for men.
The Present Studies
The present studies extend previous investigations with under-
graduate students by examining the views of younger and
older populations in three studies. This extension allows us to
gain insight into the role of BS in influencing views on mar-
riage traditions in those who are just starting to take an interest
in heterosexual romantic relationships through to those who
are considering making these relationships legally recognized.
Further, to gain a more complete understanding of hetero-
sexist marriage traditions, we expanded our investigation to
include wedding day preferences, in addition to proposal and
surname decisions. The consistent encouragement of women
to get married and popular wedding day rituals reinforce a
gender power imbalance (Fairchild, 2014; Ingraham, 2009).
For this reason, we focused on the role of adolescents’
(11–18years old) and young adults’ (early to mid-30s) BS
(and HS) in explaining ongoing preference for heterosexist
marriage traditions. As BS emerges and remains a predictor
of relationship behaviors in both adolescence and adulthood
(Glick & Hilt, 2000; Viki etal., 2003), it is plausible to pre-
dict that BS would be associated with beliefs and preferences
around marriage. We used open-ended questions in the stud-
ies with adolescents to avoid presuming the views of this
never-before-studied participant group. In addition, given
that wedding traditions had not been studied previously, we
also used open-ended questions to develop closed-ended
questions about this topic in Study 3. The codes emerging
from the first two studies informed the development of the
closed-ended questions answered by young adults.
Study 1
Study 1 explored adolescents’ (aged 11 to 18 years)
views of heterosexual marriage traditions. Adolescence
marks a shift from the gender-segregated relationships of
childhood toward interdependence for heterosexual adoles-
cents (Dunham etal., 2016). This transition coincides with
the emergence of an awareness of power and status differ-
ences between genders and the introduction of ambivalent
sexist attitudes, with both BS and HS peaking in adoles-
cence (Glick & Hilt, 2000; Hammond etal., 2018). Given
that studies have linked BS to differential gender roles in
adolescent dating and partner preferences (Montañés etal.,
2013), we expect an association between BS and endorse-
ment of marriage traditions in adolescents.
Based on prior theory and research (e.g., Glick & Fiske,
1996; Robnett & Leaper, 2013) and higher mean levels of
sexist attitudes in boys than girls (Ferragut etal., 2017), we
predicted that gender identity and BS levels would play a
role in views towards marriage traditions. Specifically, we
hypothesized that reporting that a couple should have a
man’s surname and that children should have the father’s
surname would be predicted by greater benevolent sexism
and being a boy (Hypothesis 1a). Second, we predicted that
wanting men to initiate the proposal and supporting gen-
dered traditions in their wedding day would be predicted by
greater BS and being a boy (Hypothesis 1b). Finally, we con-
ducted exploratory analyses where we repeated the analyses
related to Hypotheses 1a and 1b with HS incorporated as an
exploratory predictor. We explored HS because of its posi-
tive correlation with BS (Hopkins-Doyle etal., 2019) and
because both peak in adolescence (Hammond etal., 2018).
Method
Transparency andOpenness
We report how we determined our sample size, data exclu-
sions and all measures in the study in this section. All data
was analysed using IBM SPSS (Version 27). This study was
pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF):https://
osf. io/ fumdn/? view_ only= 5fdac 7f180 c544e 9aa1b fa07a 2f56c
e1. The data, code and study materials are available follow-
ing the anonymised link: https:// osf. io/ vs95k/? view_ only=
00d53 969b7 7643b 6a5f1 d6ccd 6841e 6f. The predictions and
analysis plan were pre-registered after data had been collected
but before the data had been viewed by the authors.
Participants
Participants were 144 secondary school students in south-
east England aged between 11 and 18years old (M = 14.72
SD = 1.95). This included 11 11-year-olds, 11 12-year-olds,
17 13-year-olds, 20 14-year-olds, 32 15-year-olds, 29 16-year-
olds, 11 17-year-olds and 13 18-year-olds. There were 56
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
205Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
boys (38.9%), and 88 girls (61.1%). Participants identified
as White (n = 98, 68.1%), Mixed (n = 7, 4.9%), Black (n = 3,
2.1%), Asian (n = 34, 23.7%), and two (1.4%) participants
did not disclose their ethnicity. With a power of 0.80 and an
alpha of .05, G*Power (version 3.1) returned a sample of 158
participants to run a logistic regression (Faul etal., 2009).
Our posited odds-ratio was 1.89, although with 144 partici-
pants we would have needed an odds-ratio of 1.95 to reach
statistical significance. We recruited 158 participants, but we
dropped participants because of interviewer error and those
who did not report their gender identity as man or woman.
Measures
Benevolent Sexism
Participants completed the English translation of the ambiv-
alent sexism inventory for adolescents (ISA; de Lemus
etal., 2010). Item 15 (“In a disaster, girls ought not neces-
sarily to be rescued before boys”) was removed from analy-
ses due to participants finding the wording difficult to inter-
pret. Consequently, the scale contained 19 items (⍺ = .79)
divided into two subscales: 9 measured BS (⍺ = .64) and 10
measured HS (⍺ = .78). Participants rated the extent of their
agreement with each statement on an adapted scale from
1 (disagree a lot) to 5 (agree a lot). Mean scores for BS
and HS subscales were calculated separately. Higher mean
scores indicated higher levels of BS and HS.
Heterosexual Marriage Traditions andPreferences
Participants answered closed- and open-ended questions,
some adapted from Robnett and Leaper (2013), to inves-
tigate beliefs and preferences about heterosexual mar-
riage traditions. Below, we list the questions included
in the analyses.
Beliefs Questions
Participants were asked about their beliefs on marital sur-
name decisions: “Whose surname should they [the couple]
have?” and “What do you think they should do if they decide
to have children?”.
Preferences Questions
Participants were asked about their preferences: “If you
were to get married, what would you like your proposal to
be like?” and “If you were to get married, what would you
like your wedding to be like?”. Regarding proposal prefer-
ences, as participants’ sexual orientations were unknown,
responses were only coded as “man proposes” if the gender
of the proposer was clearly male (i.e., a boy saying, “I want
to propose” or a girl saying, “I want the man to propose”). If
participants said, “I want them to propose” and they do not
mention the gender of their future partner at any point in the
interview, we did not assume heterosexuality.
Procedure
The study received ethical approval from the University of
Surrey Reference 1329-PSY-17). Before taking part, partici-
pants over 16years provided written consent. Parents pro-
vided written consent for participants under 16, and children
provided assent. Participants reported their date of birth,
gender identity, and ethnicity. Next, we interviewed partici-
pants about marriage traditions and helped them complete
the ISA. Task order was counterbalanced. We conducted
interviews in person in schools and university before the
COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, interviews were
conducted via Microsoft Teams. Interviews were recorded
and transcribed.
Coding Open‑Ended Responses
Responses to the interview questions were coded using con-
tent analysis (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997; Tenebaum etal.,
2016). First, two researchers read the transcripts in search
of common themes in participants’ responses and the cod-
ing scheme was further modified by the first author. Codes
were not mutually exclusive, but if participants gave both
a traditional and a non-traditional response, their response
was coded as traditional only. To obtain intercoder reliability
(i.e., kappa values > .75; Fleiss, 1981), the first author and
research assistant coded 52 (36.1%) transcripts for “Whose
surname should they have?” (ĸ = .73), “What do you think
they should do if they decide to have children? (ĸ = .79),
and “If you were to get married –what would you like your
proposal to be like?” (ĸ = .76). On “If you were to get mar-
ried – what would you like your wedding to be like?” coders
reached inter-rater reliability on a sample of 32 participants
(22.2%) with ĸ = .90.
Disagreements were resolved through discussion. For
example, in response to the “Whose surname should they
have?”, a participant gave the response “technically it’s the
man’s name but it doesn’t, preferably it would be the man’s,
but does it really matter, probably, but you know”. One
coder coded this as “either, doesn’t matter, it’s their choice”
and the other coded it as “man’s name” and “either doesn’t
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
206 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
matter, it’s their choice.” Upon discussion, coders agreed to
code the response as both “man’s name” and “either doesn’t
matter, it’s their choice.” Although the participant implies
that they feel it does not matter, coders agreed the word
“preferably” warranted being coded. In another example of
a disagreement, one participant gave the response, “if they
both agree on it then the man’s but …well it doesn’t have to
be 100%, but that’s what it normally is.” One coder coded
this as “other” and the other coded it is “man’s name” and
“either doesn’t matter, it’s their choice.” Upon discussion,
coders agreed to code the response as both “man’s name”
and “either doesn’t matter, it’s their choice” because coders
agreed that the participant appeared to endorse the man’s
surname being adopted but also suggests that this is depend-
ent on both partners’ agreement and that other surname deci-
sions are possible. After coding, we also categorised answers
as traditional or non-traditional codes (Table1 displays all
codes).
Results
To test our hypotheses, we first ran one-sample chi-square
tests followed by logistic regression analyses for each of
the four dependent variables (two beliefs, two preferences).
For one-sample chi-square tests, we examined whether par-
ticipants gave traditional answers above chance levels. We
followed these analyses by examining whether BS and par-
ticipant gender were associated with the likelihood of giv-
ing traditional beliefs and preferences. Before conducting
logistic regression analyses, assumptions were checked and
were met. In each logistic regression, BS and gender identity
were entered as predictors. Beliefs and preferences questions
were enteredas the criterion variables in separate analyses.
Traditional answers were scored as one, and non-traditional
as zero. A further exploratory model with HS added as an
independent variable was also tested.
Surname Traditions
Table2 displays proportions of traditional and non-traditional
answers given for each dependent variable. Table3 shows
logistic regression model statistics. Tables4 and 5 display
exploratory analyses.
Whose Surname Should People Have After
Marriage?
Fifty-one participants (35.4%) gave a traditional answer
(i.e., mentioned taking the man’s surname), 85 partici-
pants (59.0%) gave a non-traditional answer, and eight
participants (5.6%) did not answer. Fewer participants gave
traditional responses than expected by chance, χ2(1) = 8.50,
p = .004. The logistic regression model was not significant,
χ2(2) = 2.77,p = .250, neither gender identity nor BS pre-
dicted participants beliefs about whose surname a couple
should chose after marriage. When HS was added to the
model, it was significant, χ2(3) = 9.63, p = .022, and HS
was the only significant predictor (see Table4 for model
statistics). Inconsistent with predictions, the likelihood of
participants endorsing couples’ taking the man’s surname
was predicted by greater HS, but not BS or participant gen-
der identity.
Which Surname Should Their Children Take?
Fifty-seven participants (39.6%) gave a traditional answer
(i.e., taking the father’s name), 86 participants (59.7%) gave
a non-traditional answer, and one participant (0.7%) did
not answer. Fewer participants gave traditional responses
than chance, χ2(1) = 5.88, p = .015. The logistic regression
model was statistically significant, χ2(2) = 6.20, p = .045.
Only BS was a significant positive predictor of believing
children should have the father’s name. When HS was added,
the model remained significant, χ2(3) = 11.89,p = .008. In
this model, only HS was a significant predictor of believing
children should have the father’s name.
Proposal andWedding Preferences
Table2 displays proportions of traditional and non-traditional
answers given for each dependent variable. Table3 shows
logistic regression model statistics.
If You Were toGet Married, What Would You Want
Your Proposal toBe Like?
Forty-seven participants (32.6%) gave a traditional answer
(i.e., man leads proposal, getting down on one knee etc.)
and 97 participants (67.4%) gave a non-traditional answer.
A one-way chi-square test indicated that fewer partici-
pants gave traditional responses than expected by chance
χ2(1) = 17.36, p < .001. The logistic regression model was
statistically significant, χ2(2) = 15.70,p < .001. Consistent
with H1b, both gender identity and BS were significant pre-
dictors of wanting a traditional proposal. Boys were more
likely than girls to want a traditional proposal, and greater
BS increased likelihood of wanting a traditional proposal.
When HS was added, the model remained significant,
χ2(3) = 15.92,p = .001. However, consistent with predic-
tions, only gender identity and BS were significant predic-
tors of wanting a traditional proposal.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
207Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
Table 1 Coding Scheme Used for Coding of Open-Ended Questions in Studies 1 and 2
Section Question Traditional Codes Criteria Non-traditional codes Criteria
Belief Whose surname should they have? Man’s name Reference to a couple taking the
man’s surname
Keeping their own Reference to both partners keeping
their own surnames
Either name, doesn’t matter or
choice
Saying “it’s up to them”, or saying
that it can be either partners’
surname
Double-barrelled surnames Referencing both partners having
their individual surnames within
their shared surname
Other Any other response
What do you think they should do
if they have children? In relation
to parental surname choices
Man’s name or father’s name Reference to children adopting the
father’s name
Same as parents Reference to child having the same
surname as their parents
Either or parents’ choice Saying “it’s up to them”, or say-
ing that it can be either parents’
surname
Both or double-barrelled Referencing to parents having both
their individual surnames within
their shared surname
Other Any other response
Preferences If you were to get married—what
would you want your proposal to
be like?
Gendered Traditions Referencing aspects of a traditional
proposal (e.g., ring or getting
down on one knee or explicitly
says they want a “traditional”,
“typical” or “normal” proposal.)
Either proposes Saying “I don’t mind who proposes”
or not making the gender identity
of the proposer clear
Man proposes Female participant uses gendered
words such as “man”, “he”, or
“him” proposing or a male partic-
ipant says “I want to propose” or
makes it clear he is the proposer
Positive emotion Happy, meaningful, “right person”,
love, memorable, special, romantic
Location Reference to the place where they
envision their proposal to take
place
Private Reference to there being a small
number of people present, intimate
Other Any other response
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
208 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
If You Were toGet Married, What Would You Want
Your Wedding toBe Like?
Twenty-one participants (14.6%) gave a traditional
answer (i.e., gendered rituals or roles associated with
weddings – white wedding dress, being given away by
father), 122 participants (84.7%) gave a non-traditional
answer, and one participant (0.7%) did not answer. A
one-way chi-square test showed that fewer participants
gave traditional responses than chance, χ2(1) = 71.34,
p < .001. The logistic regression model was signifi-
cant, χ2(2) = 11.18, p = .004. Inconsistent with pre-
dictions, BS did not predict participants’ preference
for a traditional wedding. Likewise inconsistent with
predictions, boys were less likely to endorse tradi-
tional preferences in their future weddings compared to
girls. When HS was added, the model was significant,
χ2(3) = 13.71,p = .003, but only gender identity pre-
dicted preference for a traditional wedding.
Discussion
Study 1 investigated whether gender identity, BS, and HS
were associated with heterosexual marriage traditions in
British adolescents. Partially supporting H1a, higher BS
scores predicted adolescents’ endorsement of children hav-
ing their father’s surname. However, when HS was added
to the model, only HS predicted participants’ reporting that
children should have their fathers’ surname. Thus, in this
age group, HS may be more predictive of this belief than
BS. As expected, (H1b), and consistent with Robnett and
Leaper (2013), BS and being a boy predicted preference for
a traditional proposal: either wanting the man to propose,
wanting gendered traditions within the proposal or both.
This association remained consistent when HS was added
to the model. Finally, in contrast to our prediction (H1b),
being a girl predicted wanting a traditional wedding.
The findings for gender identity were mixed. Boys
reported that they wanted to be the ones to propose more
than girls did. This finding extends the literature describ-
ing cultural pressures on boys, prescribed by BS, for them
to take a more dominant role in relationships (Rudman &
Glick, 2021). Boys may be aware of pressures to be proac-
tive at the engagement stage. This finding is consistent with
research on children’s media that shows active boys and pas-
sive girls (Spinner etal., 2022).
In contrast, however, girls were more likely to endorse
wedding traditions than boys. This difference may reflect
the greater socialization received by girls from an early age,
in which they become well acquainted with bridal culture in
media (Ingraham, 2009). Boys do not typically receive such
Table 1 (continued)
Section Question Traditional Codes Criteria Non-traditional codes Criteria
If you were to get married – what
would you want your wedding to
be like?
Gendered
traditions
Referencing traditional gendered
wedding roles or rituals for the
participant’s culture: “white wed-
ding”, the bride doing most of the
planning, the bride walked down
the aisle by her father, brides-
maids, focus on bride’s beauty or
physical appearance,
traditional bridal outfit (e.g., dress)
Other Referencing any answer other than
gendered wedding traditions
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
209Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
socialization. The novel addition of asking about wedding
day traditions expands on the previous literature on girls’
socialization by suggesting that it leads to not just awareness
of these norms but also acceptance of them.
The present study also extended previous research by
examining a new age group. Although we replicated find-
ings that BS predicted traditional proposal preferences, we
also found that children’s surname choice was predicted by
HS once it was in the model. At this age, young people’s
beliefs about surnames seem to be driven more by HS than
BS. Children display own-gender preferences and tend to
gravitate towards more segregated relationships (Dunham
etal., 2016). Combative interactions and hostile relations
between genders in childhood and early adolescence is nor-
malised because of a lack of interdependence between the
boys and girls (Rudman & Glick, 2021). As heterosexual
adolescents begin to engage romantically with the other
gender, there may be greater interdependence and interac-
tion between the genders.
Nonetheless, in contrast to older ages (Robnett &
Leaper, 2013), our sample was more likely to support
non-traditional than traditional practices. This finding
suggests that young people may be less supportive of
heterosexist norms than previous generations or that
there is an age-related change. Given that this finding
contrasts with previous literature, it requires replication
before accepting that there is a difference between adults
and adolescents. Because we did not have large numbers
of young people in some age groups, we did not explore
whether there was an age-related effect, which is a limi-
tation of Study 1. Future research should examine age-
related changes in support of non-traditional practices.
Study 2
In Study 1, we found that when HS and BS were added
together to models, HS alone predicted surname deci-
sions. We suspect that part of the reason may be that BS
becomes more central once young people reach dating
age (de Lemus etal., 2010). To test whether BS is indeed
influential in older adolescents’ decisions, we focused
on a narrow age range of 16- to 18-year-olds’ views of
heterosexual marriage traditions in Study 2. While ado-
lescents may start dating before this age, they are most
likely to have had a recent romantic relationship from
16 to 18years old (Carver etal., 2003). Moreover, there
are positive associations between BS levels and involve-
ment in romantic relationships in older adolescents (de
Lemus etal., 2010; Viejo etal., 2015). These findings
suggest that BS plays a role in older adolescents’ evalua-
tion of marriage preferences and beliefs around traditions
(Ramiro-Sánchez etal., 2018).
Based on ambivalent sexism theory and in line with
findings from Robnett and Leaper (2013), we made pre-
dictions about beliefs and preferences for traditional
marriages. For beliefs, we expected that having the
man’s surname and believing children should have the
father’s surname would be predicted by greater benevo-
lent sexism and being a boy (H1a). For preferences, we
predicted that wanting a traditional proposal initiated
by a man and supporting gendered traditions as part of
a wedding day would be predicted by greater BS and
being a boy (H1b). Again, traditionality of responses
relative to chance were reported, and HS was included
in exploratory analyses.
Table 2 Study 1 Participants’ Responses to the Belief Questions
Note.n = 8 (5.6%) responses were missing for whose surname should the couple have and n = 1 (0.7%) response was missing for what about if
they have children (whose surname should the children have) and what would you like your wedding to be like respectively. Each response was
treated as binary; mentioned or not mentioned. Percentages here referred to the portion of participants who mentioned each response. Partici-
pants sometimes gave multiple different responses, so percentages do not total 100%.
Code Type Questions
Whose surname should they have? What about if they have children?
(whose surname should they have?)
If you were to get married—
what would you want your
proposal to be like?
If you were to get
married—what
would you want
your wedding to
be like?
Traditional Man’s 35.4% Father’s 39.6% Traditional 20.8% Gendered 14.6%
Man proposes 22.2%
Non-traditional Keep their own 17.4% Same as parents 26.4% Either proposes 10.4% Other 84.7%
Either name, doesn’t
matter, it’s their choice
60.4% Either name, doesn’t
matter, parent’s choice
29.2% Positive 42.4%
Double-barrel surname 10.4% Double-barrel surname 25.7% Location 25.0%
Other 2.1% Other 10.4% Private 17.4%
Other 21.5%
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
210 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
Table 3 Logistic Regression Analyses for Adolescents’ Endorsement of Surname, Proposal, and Wedding Traditions (Study 1)
Note.aR2 = .03 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 63.2% of cases in comparison to 62.5% correctly classified by the constant only model.
b R2 = .06 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 60.1% which matched the constant only model (60.1%).
c R2 = .14 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 68.8% of cases in comparison to 67.4% correctly classified by the constant only model.
d R2 = .13 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 85.3% of cases which matches the constant only model (85.3%).
e Male was treated as the reference category in the analysis.
Variables Belief Questions
A couple should take a man’s surnameaA child should have the father’s surnameb
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for Exp
(B)
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for Exp (B)
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Gender
Iden-
tity e
-0.08 0.37 0.05 1 .831 0.92 0.45 1.92 -0.00 0.36 0.00 1 .991 1.00 0.49 2.02
BS 0.54 0.33 2.66 1 .103 1.72 0.90 3.31 0.77 0.32 5.70 1 .017 2.15 1.15 4.04
Con-
stant
-1.94 0.92 4.50 1 .034 0.14 -2.48 0.89 7.80 1 .005 0.08
Preference Questions
Wanting a traditional proposalcWanting gendered wedding traditionsd
B SE Wald df p Exp (B) 95% CI for Exp
(B)
B SE Wald df p Exp (B) 95% CI for Exp (B)
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Genera
Iden-
tity
-0.14 0.38 0.13 1 .720 0.87 0.41 1.85 -0.04 0.37 0.01 1 .915 0.96 0.47 1.98
BS 0.11 0.38 0.09 1 .769 1.12 0.53 2.34 0.48 0.35 1.89 1 .169 1.61 0.82 3.18
HS 0.84 0.33 6.38 1 .012 2.31 1.21 4.43 0.69 0.30 5.42 1 .020 2.00 1.12 3.58
Con-
stant
-3.00 1.04 8.39 1 .004 0.05 -3.51 1.03 11.71 1 < .001 0.03
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
211Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
Method
Transparency andOpenness
We report how we determined our sample size, data exclu-
sions and all measures in the study in this section. All data
was analysed using IBM SPSS (Version 27). This study was
pre-registered on the OSF https:// osf. io/ c3dwn/? view_ only=
cb34c ba84f 054ae fbb63 ff405 d064d f7. The data, code and study
materials are available following the anonymised link: https:// osf.
io/ vs95k/? view_ only= 00d53 969b7 7643b 6a5f1 d6ccd 6841e 6f.
Participants
Participants were 142 students from two secondary schools
and colleges in the UK. Sample size calculations were the
same as in Study 1 (see Study 1 for details) and suggested
a sample of 158 participants with a posited odds-ratio of
1.89. Sensitivity analyses with 142 participants suggested
we would have needed an odds-ratio of 1.96 to reach sta-
tistical significance. This figure was calculated as an indi-
vidual odds ratio; the odds ratio for a multivariate model
will differ slightly due to shared variance. Participants were
aged between 16 and 18years (M = 16.87, SD = .61). This
included 36 16-year-olds, 88 17-year-olds, and 18 18-year-
olds. Fifty-eight were boys (40.8%) and 84 were girls
(59.2%). Participants identified as White (n = 109, 76.8%),
Black African (n = 2, 1.4%), Indian (n = 4, 2.8%), Pakistani
(n = 6, 4.2%), Chinese (n = 3, 2.1%), Middle Eastern (n = 2,
1.4%), Mixed (n = 8, 5.6%), Other (n = 6, 4.2%), and two did
not disclose this information (1.4%). Only participants who
reported their gender identity, identified as heterosexual and
completed the survey fully and accurately were included in
analyses. Participants who did not fit these criteria were
excluded and so the sample size was lower than planned.
Table 4 Exploratory Logistic Regression Analyses for Adolescents’ Endorsement of Surname Traditions (Study 1)
Note.aR2 =.09 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 66.2% of cases in comparison to 62.5% correctly classified by the constant only model
b R2 = .11 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 69.2% of cases in comparison to 60.1% correctly classified by the constant only model.
c Male was treated as the reference category in the analysis.
Variables Belief Questions
A couple should take a man’s surnameaA child should have the father’s surnameb
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for Exp
(B)
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for Exp
(B)
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Gender Identityc-0.14 0.38 0.13 1 .720 0.87 0.41 1.85 -0.04 0.37 0.01 1 .915 0.96 0.47 1.98
BS 0.11 0.38 0.09 1 .769 1.12 0.53 2.34 0.48 0.35 1.89 1 .1691.61 0.82 3.18
HS 0.84 0.33 6.38 1 .012 2.31 1.21 4.43 0.69 0.30 5.42 1 .020 2.00 1.12 3.58
Constant -3.00 1.04 8.39 1 .004 0.05 -3.51 1.03 11.71 1 < .001 0.03
Table 5 Exploratory Logistic Regression Analyses for Adolescents’ Endorsement of Proposal and Wedding Traditions (Study 1)
Note.aR2 = .15 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 69.4% of cases in comparison to 67.4% correctly classified by the constant only model.
b R2 = .16 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 85.3% of cases which matches the constant only model (85.3%).
c Male was treated as the reference category in the analysis.
Variables Preference Questions
Wanting a traditional proposalaWanting gendered wedding traditionsb
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for Exp
(B)
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for
Exp (B)
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Gender Identity c1.11 0.38 8.57 1 .003 3.03 1.44 6.35 -2.13 0.78 7.46 1 .006 0.12 0.03 0.55
BS 0.84 0.37 5.27 1 .022 2.32 1.13 4.77 0.08 0.51 0.02 1 .882 1.08 0.40 2.94
HS -0.14 0.30 0.22 1 .641 0.87 0.48 1.58 0.70 0.45 2.40 1 .121 2.02 0.83 4.91
Constant -3.11 1.04 9.00 1 .003 0.04 -3.35 1.44 5.39 1 .020 0.04
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
212 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
Measures
Benevolent Sexism andHostile Sexism
To measure endorsement of BS, participants completed the
ambivalent sexism inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Partici-
pants indicated their agreement with 22 items (⍺ = .84) on a
six-point Likert scale (0 = disagree strongly, 5 = agree strongly).
Eleven items each measured BS (e.g., “Women should be cher-
ished and protected by men”) and HS (“Women are too easily
offended”). Six items were reverse scored. Mean scores were
created for BS (⍺ = .76) and HS (⍺ = .87) sub-scales. Higher
mean scores indicated higher levels of BS and HS.
Heterosexual Marriage Traditions Beliefs
andPreferences
Participants in Study 2 answered the same questions as in
Study 1. Before typing their answers, participants were
instructed that “All the questions refer to marriage between
men and women” to clarify that these questions were refer-
ring to heterosexual relationships and marriage practices only.
Procedure
This study received ethical approval from the University of Sur-
rey (FHMS 21–22 082 EGA). Participants completed the study
online. Before taking part, participants watched a video intro-
ducing the study and the consent procedure before opening the
Qualtrics page. After providing informed consent, participants
provided demographic information (age, gender identity, ethnic
group, country they were staying in, and sexual orientation).
Next, participants completed the ASI and heterosexual mar-
riage traditions beliefs and preferences questions. Task order
was counterbalanced. Finally, participants watched a debrief
video and were thanked.
Coding Open‑Ended Responses
Participants’ responses to the survey questions were coded with
a sample of 30 transcripts (21.1%). Intercoder reliability was
achieved on all criterion variables: surname of couple (κ = .91),
surname of children (κ = .87), proposal (κ = .93), and wedding
(κ = 1.00). Participants’ typed responses were often shorter and
clearer than the transcribed answers given in Study 1 possibly
because of including older adolescents only, which led to more
consistency between coders. Participants’ answers were also
classified as traditional (scored as 1) and non-traditional (scored
as 0). See Table1 for details of coding scheme.
Results
As in Study 1, we report proportions of traditional and non-tra-
ditional answers, one-sample chi-square tests (against chance),
and logistic regression analyses for each criterion variable. In
all cases, the assumptions of logistic regression were checked
and met before conducting analyses. There were no order effects
based on whether participants completed the ASI or the open-
ended questions first. Therefore, it is not included in our models.
Surname Beliefs
Table6 shows proportions of traditional and non-traditional
answers. Table7 displays logistic regression model statis-
tics. Table8 shows exploratory analyses.
Table 6 Study 2 Participants’ Responses to the Belief Questions
Note.Each response was treated as binary; mentioned or not mentioned. Percentages here referred to the portion of participants who mentioned
each response. Participants sometimes gave multiple different responses, so percentages do not total 100%.
Code Type Questions
Whose surname should they have? What about if they have children?
(whose surname should they have?)
If you were to get married
—what would you want
your proposal to be like?
If you were to get
married—what
would you want
your wedding to
be like?
Traditional Man’s 37.3% Father’s 43.7% Traditional 11.3% Gendered 9.2%
Man proposes 24.6%
Non-traditional Keep their own 9.2% Same as parents 27.5% Either proposes 4.2% Other 90.8%
Either name, doesn’t
matter, it’s their choice
64.1% Either name, doesn’t
matter, parent’s choice
45.1% Positive 62.7%
Double-barrel surname 4.2% Double-barrel surname 16.9% Location 30.3%
Other 1.4% Other 4.9% Private 17.6%
Other 14.1%
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
213Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
Whose Surname Should They Have?
Fifty-three participants (37.3%) gave a traditional
answer (i.e., mentioning the man’s name being taken)
and 89 participants (62.7%) gave a non-traditional
answer. Fewer participants gave traditional responses
than expected by chance, χ2(1) = 9.13, p = .003. The
logistic regression model was statistically significant,
χ2(2) = 33.88,p < .001. Inconsistent with predictions,
gender identity was not a significant predictor of adoles-
cents’ surname choice. However, in line with predictions,
BS did predict surname choice. As BS increased so did
participants saying a couple should take the man’s sur-
name. When HS was added, the model remained statisti-
cally significant, χ2(3) = 37.10, p < .001. Only BS was
a significant predictor of giving a traditional surname
choice (p < .001).
Which Surname Should Their Children Take?
Sixty-two participants (43.7%) gave a traditional answer
(i.e., mentioning the father’s name being taken) and 80 par-
ticipants (56.3%) gave a non-traditional answer. Participants
were as likely to give traditional as a non-traditional answer,
χ2(1) = 2.28, p = .131. The logistic regression model was
statistically significant, χ2(2) = 14.84, p < .001. Inconsist-
ent with expectations, gender identity did not predict beliefs
about child surnames. However, in line with the hypothesis,
BS was a significant predictor. As BS increased so did the
likelihood of participants saying a child should be given their
father’s surname. When HSwas added, the model was also sta-
tistically significant, χ2(3) = 24.61,p < .001. The same pattern
was found for BS, but HS and gender identity also predicted
child surnames. Increases in HS, likewise, increased the like-
lihood of giving a traditional answer. However, inconsistent
Table 7 Logistic Regression Analyses for Adolescents’ Endorsement of Surname Traditions (Study 2)
Note.aR2 = .29 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 73.9% of cases in comparison to 62.7% correctly classified by the constant only model.
b R2 = .13 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 62.0% which matched the constant only model (56.3%).
c Male was treated as the reference category in the analysis.
Variables Belief Questions
A couple should take a man’s surnameaA child should have the father’s surnameb
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for
Exp (B)
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for
Exp (B)
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Gender Identityc-0.10 0.40 0.07 1 .798 0.90 0.41 1.99 -0.43 0.37 1.38 1 .240 0.65 0.32 1.33
BS 1.55 0.32 23.99 1 < .001 4.72 2.54 8.78 0.86 0.25 11.88 1 < .001 2.36 1.45 3.84
Constant -3.78 0.74 26.26 1 < .001 0.02 -1.86 0.56 10.94 1 < .001 0.16
Table 8 Logistic Regression Analyses for Adolescents’ Endorsement of Surname Traditions (Study 2)
Note. aR2 =.31 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 76.1% of cases in comparison to 62.7% correctly classified by the constant only model.
b R2 = .21 (Nagelkerke) this model correctly classified 66.2% of cases in comparison to 56.3% correctly classified by the constant only model.
c Male was treated as the reference category in the analysis.
Belief Questions
A couple should take a man’s surnameaA child should have the father’s surnameb
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for
Exp (B)
B SE Wald df p Exp(B) 95% CI for Exp
(B)
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Gender Identityc-0.35 0.43 0.64 1 .423 0.71 0.30 1.65 -0.84 0.41 4.27 1 .039 0.43 0.19 0.96
BS 1.43 0.32 20.30 1 < .001 4.18 2.24 7.80 0.68 0.26 7.12 1 .008 1.98 1.20 3.28
HS 0.42 0.23 3.17 1 .075 1.52 0.96 2.41 0.67 0.22 9.07 1 .003 1.95 1.26 3.01
Constant -4.24 0.80 27.87 1 < .001 0.01 -2.60 0.65 16.23 1 < .001 0.07
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
214 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
with predictions, girls rather than boys were more likely to
endorse patronymic naming traditions.
Proposal andWedding Preferences
If You Were toGet Married, What Would You Want Your
Proposal toBe Like?
Forty-two participants (29.6%) gave a traditional answer,
and 100 participants (70.4%) gave a non-traditional answer.
Fewer participants gave a traditional response than expected
by chance, χ2(1) = 23.69, p < .001. The logistic regres-
sion model was non-significant, χ2(2) = 1.14, p = .566.
The model remained non-significant when HS was added,
χ2(3) = 1.41,p = .704.
If You Were toGet Married, What Would You Want Your
Wedding toBe Like?
Thirteen participants (9.2%) gave a traditional answer, and
129 participants (90.8%) gave a non-traditional answer.
Fewer participants gave traditional responses than expected
by chance, χ2(1) = 94.76, p < .001. The logistic regres-
sion model was non-significant, χ2(2) = 4.73, p = .094.
When HS was added, the model remained non-significant,
χ2(3) = 4.92,p = .178.
Discussion
Study 2 examined heterosexual marriage traditions in older
adolescents between the ages 16 to 18years, which is the
age when they are most likely beginning serious romantic
relationships (Carver etal., 2003). Consistent with Study 1
and our prediction (H1a), BS predicted beliefs that women
should take the man’s name and patronymic name traditions
for children. Unlike Study 1, however, this effect held even
after HS was added to the models. Patronymic name tradi-
tions were predicted by BS, HS, as well as being a girl. In
contrast with our prediction (H1b), BS and gender identity
did not predict proposal or wedding preferences.
That BS remained a predictor after HS was added to mod-
els suggests that, in this constrained age group, BS may be
more influential than HS. As young people enter hetero-
sexual romantic relationships, BS becomes central to their
understanding of how relationships should be conducted
and what is expected of women and men (de Lemus etal.,
2010; Viejo etal., 2015). HS was a significant predictor of
patronymic naming traditions for children but not in couples.
This distinction might reflect nuances in how BS and HS
influence heterosexual relations in distinct ways. In respect
of couples’ surnames, and specifically a woman changing
her name to her husbands, BS might be a more proximal
predictor. BS prescribes women’s subordination to men,
especially in heterosexual relationships, as positive and nec-
essary for relationship success (Overall & Hammond, 2018).
But when it comes to patronymic surnaming for children,
HS which reflects preference for male dominance, may be
more proximal. However, these findings are limited by the
small sample which reduced predictive power, particularly
for HS. Further replication is needed with a larger sample
of young adults to investigate the role of HS in endorsement
of patronymic surnaming for children.
Unexpectedly, the influence of BS was not found for pro-
posal and wedding preferences. This finding is inconsistent
with Study 1 and with Robnett and Leaper (2013). Although
there is good evidence to suggest that late adolescence is
an important stage for the development of romantic rela-
tionships, perhaps proposals and marriage are quite abstract
for people as young as 16 to 18years old. Further research
is needed to investigate what might predict preferences for
marriage traditions at this age.
In addition, we replicated findings from Study 1 show-
ing that participants provided less traditional responses than
chance about whose name to take after marriage, who pro-
poses, and wedding traditions. Participants were at chance
levels for patronymic naming traditions, which seems
more impervious to change than other traditions (Johnson
& Scheuble, 2002). Nonetheless, the pattern suggests that
young people are less traditional, which indicates this age
group may be more open to challenging gender norms.
Study 3
To gain an understanding of how those about to enter mar-
riage think about heterosexual norms, Study 3 focused on
people in their 30s. In the UK, the average age to marry
for the first time is 31.5years for women and 33.4years
for men (Office for National Statistics, 2019). By focus-
ing on an age group for whom marriage is a relevant
heterosexual milestone, we could better understand how
preferences for marriage traditions might be influenced
by sexism. Participants answered closed-ended questions
about their endorsement of marriage traditions. We used
a different method to triangulate the findings. Instead of
asking about endorsement of surname, proposal, and wed-
ding traditions, we measured participants’ overall endorse-
ment of traditional beliefs about marriage (including sur-
names and proposals) and their overall preferences for
these traditions in the future. Based on previous research
linking higher BS and higher endorsement of heterosexual
marriage traditions, as well as findings reporting more
consistent endorsement of BS in men (Hammond etal.,
2018; Robnett & Leaper, 2013), we expected that higher
BS scores and being a man would predict endorsement of
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
215Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
traditional beliefs (H1a) as well as endorsing these tradi-
tional preferences for their own future marriages (H1b).
HS was included in exploratory analyses for the same rea-
sons as in Studies 1 and 2. In addition, addressing previous
assertions about the possible influence of political values
(see Robnett & Leaper, 2013), we controlled for political
orientation in the analyses.
Method
Transparency andOpenness
We report how we determined our sample size, data exclu-
sions and all measures in the study in this section. All data
was analysed using IBM SPSS (Version 27). The hypotheses
and analysis plan were pre-registered before data analysis
on the OSF: https:// osf. io/ qwvfk/? view_ only= 54c37 b7888
314df db455 e4c27 a2478 e5. The data, code and study materi-
als are available following the anonymised link: https:// osf. io/
vs95k/? view_ only= 00d53 969b7 7643b 6a5f1 d6ccd 6841e 6f.
Participants
Participants were 81 adults living in the UK. We posited
a medium effect size f2 of .15. G*Power (version 3.1) cal-
culation with 0.85 power, and an alpha of .05 returned a
sample of 86 participants for linear regression.A sensitivity
analysis calculation indicates that we reached an effect size
of 0.16 and a power of 0.82. Participants were aged between
30 and 36years old (M = 32.26, SD = 1.84). There were 44
women (54.3%) and 37 men (45.7%). Participants identified
as White (n = 60, 74.1%), Black Caribbean (n = 3, 3.7%),
Black African (n = 6, 7.4%), Indian (n = 2, 2.5%), Pakistani
(n = 3, 3.7%), Chinese (n = 2, 2.5%), Mixed (n = 2, 2.5%),
Turkish (n = 1, 1.2%), Vietnamese (n = 1, 1.2%), and one
participant preferred not to say (1.2%). Participants were
paid £2.25 for participation through Prolific. Because of the
study aims, only participants who had never been married,
were heterosexual, and identified as men or women were
recruited, resulting in a lower sample size than calculated.
Measures
Ambivalent Sexism
BS and HS were measured using the short form ASI (Rollero
etal., 2014). Participants indicated their agreement with 12
items (⍺ = .86; 6 each for HS and BS) on a six-point Likert scale
from disagree strongly (0) to agree strongly (5). A mean score
was created for the BS (⍺ = .82) and HS (⍺ = .87) sub-scales.
Higher mean scores indicated higher levels of BS and HS.
Heterosexual Marriage Tradition Beliefs andPreferences
Participants answered close-ended questions by completing
Likert scales about their beliefs and future preferences for het-
erosexual marriage traditions around surnames and proposals.
Beliefs
Participants’ beliefs about heterosexual marriage traditions
were assessed using three items (⍺ = .69). Items assessed
endorsement of beliefs about taking the man’s surname (i.e.,
“Whose surname do you think they should take?”; 1 = defi-
nitely take the man’s surname, 5 = definitely take the woman’s
surname); children having father’s surname (i.e., “If a mar-
ried couple have children, whose surname do you think they
should have?”; 1 = definitely take father’s surname, 5 = defi-
nitely take mother’s surname); and proposal (i.e., “To what
extent do you believe that the man should propose to the
woman?”; 1 = not at all, 5 = very much). Depending on par-
ticipant gender, responses were reverse scored so that higher
scores indicated more traditional beliefs (i.e., taking man’s
name, man proposing), and a mean score was computed.
Preferences
Participants’ preferences for marriage traditions in the future
was measured using 3 items (⍺ = .69). These items assessed
preference for surnames (i.e., If you were to get married,
whose surname would you want to take?”; 1 = definitely
take my partner’s name, 5 = definitely want my partner to
take my name); child’s surname (i.e., “If you were to have
children, whose surname would you want them to have?”;
1 = definitely want my surname, 5 = definitely want my
partner’s surname); and proposal (i.e., “If you were to get
engaged, who would you want to propose?”; 1 = I definitely
want to propose, 5 = definitely want my partner to propose).
Depending on participant gender identity, some items were
reverse scored before a mean was created. Specifically, for
surnames, women’s responses were reverse scored, and for
child’s surname and proposal, men’s responses were reverse
scored. Higher scores indicated more traditional preferences
(i.e., taking man’s name, man proposing).
Procedure
This study received ethical approval from the University of
Surrey (Reference Number 1329-PSY-17 Amendment 1).
Participants reported their demographic information (e.g.,
age, gender identity, ethnic group, sexual orientation, rela-
tionship status, marital status, occupation, highest level of
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
216 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
education completed, political orientation), and then com-
pleted the ASI and criterion measures in a randomised order.
Results
First, we ran one-sample t-tests to examine endorsement of
traditional marriage beliefs and preferences (relative to mid-
point). Next, we ran separate multiple regression analyses
for traditional marriage beliefs and preferences (criterion
variables). BS and gender identity were predictors. Politi-
cal orientation was controlled for in the analyses. HS was
added as an exploratory predictor in two additional regres-
sion models. Before conducting analyses, we checked that
assumptions were met.
Marriage Tradition Beliefs
Table9 shows that participants’ mean scores for mar-
riage beliefs were above the midpoint and were traditional
in absolute terms. Multiple regression analyses showed
that the model was significant, F(3, 77) = 13.62, p < .001,
R2 = .35. Table10 shows that consistent with H1a, BS was
the only significant predictor of traditional marriage beliefs.
Likewise, when HS was added to the model, BS remained
the only significant predictor of traditional marriage beliefs,
F(4, 76) = 10.09, p < .001, R2 = .35. Inconsistent with H1a,
gender identity was unrelated to traditional marriage beliefs.
Similarly, political orientation was not associated with
beliefs. See Table11 for exploratory analyses with HS.
Marriage Tradition Preferences
Table9 shows participants’ marriage preferences were tra-
ditional in absolute terms (i.e., above mid-point). Multiple
regression analyses showed that our predicted model was not
statistically significant, F(3, 77) = 1.06, p = .370, R2 = .04.
When HS was added to the model, it remained statistically
non-significant, F(4, 76) = 1.89, p = .120, R2 = .09.
Discussion
Study 3 examined the influence of gender identity, BS, and
HS on traditional marriage beliefs and preference among
participants who are most likely to be considering marriage
i.e., 30-year-olds (Office for National Statistics, 2019). BS
predicted holding traditional beliefs about upholding pro-
posal and surname traditions. However, unlike Studies 1 and
Table 9 Adults’ Beliefs Toward and Preferences for Heterosexual Marriage Traditions (Study 3)
Note.Higher scores indicate more traditional beliefs and more traditional preferences.
a Eleven participants did not answer the question “To what extent do you think a man should propose to a woman?” and were excluded from this
analysis. Degrees of freedom were 69.
b For the participants with missing data Overall Traditional Beliefs scale was an average two items (i.e., “Whose surname do you think they
should take?”; “If a married couple have children, whose surname do you think they should have?”).
Criterion variable M SD t(80) p d 95% CI
To what extent do you believe a man should propose to the woman?a3.36 1.19 2.51 .015 0.30 [0.06, 0.54]
Whose surname do you think they should take? 3.40 0.68 5.20 < .001 0.58 [0.34, 0.81]
If a married couple have children, whose surname do you think they
should have?
3.57 0.89 5.72 < .001 0.64 [0.39, 0.87]
Overall Traditional Beliefsb3.43 0.72 5.39 < .001 0.60 [0.36, 0.83]
Who would you want to propose? 3.99 1.08 8.24 < .001 0.92 [0.65, 1.17]
Whose surname would you take? 3.33 0.96 3.12 .003 0.35 [0.12, 0.57]
Whose surname would you want your children to have? 3.53 1.08 4.40 < .001 0.49 [0.26, 0.72]
Overall Traditional Preferences 3.62 0.82 6.77 < .001 0.75 [0.50, 1.00]
Table 10 Multiple Regression
Analyses Assessing Predictors
of Traditional Beliefs (Study 3)
Note. *p < .001.
Variables B95% CI for B SE B βsr2
Lower Upper
Constant 2.16 1.62 2.70 0.27
Gender Identity 0.21 -0.07 0.49 0.14 0.15 .02
Benevolent Sexism 0.32* 0.21 0.44 0.06 0.51*.25
Political Orientation 0.09 -0.03 0.21 0.06 0.14 .02
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
217Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
2, neither HS nor gender identity were associated with levels
of traditional beliefs. Inconsistent with predictions but in
line with Study 2, there were no significant predictors of
holding traditional preferences for participants’ own mar-
riages in the future.
That BS predicted traditional beliefs in this age group
highlights BS as a consistent influence from late adolescence
to adulthood. This finding provides support for and expands
on Robnett and Leaper’s (2013) link between BS and the
endorsement of heterosexual marriage traditions, by showing
that BS also serves to impact how adults judge others’ mar-
riage related preferences. That HS was not a predictor in either
of the exploratory analyses in this age group suggests that BS
may be a more proximal influence than HS. Generally, HS
tends to be lower in this age group – following a U-shaped
trajectory over the life course (Hammond etal., 2018).
Nevertheless, this age group scored above the midpoint
in endorsement of traditional beliefs and preferences. This is
consistent with similar work examining undergraduate stu-
dents’ traditional beliefs and preferences (Robnett & Leaper,
2013). This finding suggests that when people are at typical
marriages age, they may be more traditional than at earlier
stages of life.
General Discussion
The present studies examined people’s beliefs and prefer-
ences for heterosexual marriage traditions by incorporating
different methods (open-ended interviews and closed-ended
questionnaires). We extended the previous investigations by
incorporating patronymic naming traditions and wedding
preferences. In addition, we included adolescent samples
and an adult sample to explore the views of those at the start
of their dating lives as well as those who are more likely to
be considering marriage. Different ambivalent sexist ideolo-
gies predicted beliefs about naming traditions. Some gender
differences were found in the adolescent samples, but not the
adult sample. Below, we interpret these findings in relation
to BS and HS.
The Influence ofBS andHS Ideologies
Across studies, BS and HS functioned differently as predic-
tors. Specifically, in early to middle adolescents (aged 11
to 18years), HS predicted beliefs that women should have
men’s surnames after marriage. With a restricted age group of
older adolescents (aged 16 to 18years) and in an adult sam-
ple (mid-30s), BS predicted beliefs that women should have
men’s surnames. These patterns are consistent with research
on undergraduate students, where BS also predicted these pre-
scriptions (Robnett & Leaper, 2013). For men, BS increases
from late adolescence into adulthood, whereas for women it
tends to follow a U-shaped trajectory with a decrease after
late adolescence with a later increase (Hammond etal., 2018).
Nevertheless, our study suggests that BS seems to function
similarly for women and men, and for undergraduate students
as for adults in their 30s.
Our studies further extended research pertaining to nam-
ing beliefs by examining patronymic naming traditions.
Although BS predicted patronymic naming traditions in the
younger adolescent sample in Study 1, only HS remained
a predictor when entered into the models. In Study 2, with
older adolescents, both BS and HS predicted naming tradi-
tions, whereas in the adult sample (Study 3), only BS was a
predictor. Across these samples, our findings indicate that HS
is replaced by BS as a predictor of traditional beliefs about
naming traditions, for women’s and children’s surnames.
It is possible that HS being a stronger influence than
BS over beliefs about surnaming practices at younger ages
may be representative of high levels of HS in adolescence
(Hammond etal., 2018) due to segregated relationships. The
waning of HS as a predictor may be the result of increased
interaction between the genders later in life. Children display
own-gender preferences and tend to gravitate towards more
segregated relationships (Dunham etal., 2016). However,
as heterosexual adolescents begin to engage romantically
with the other gender, there may be greater interdependence
and interaction between the genders, which may lead to BS
having a greater influence on beliefs (de Lemus etal., 2010;
Glick & Hilt, 2000; Rudman & Glick, 2021).
Table 11 Exploratory Multiple
Regression Analyses Assessing
Predictors of Traditional
Beliefs (Study 3)
Note. *p < .001.
Variables B95% CI for B SE B βsr2
Lower Upper
Constant 2.17 1.62 2.73 0.28
Gender Identity 0.20 -.0.09 0.50 0.15 0.14 .02
Benevolent Sexism 0.32* 0.19 0.45 0.06 0.50*.22
Hostile Sexism 0.01 -0.13 0.15 0.07 0.02 .00
Political Orientation 0.08 -0.05 0.21 0.07 0.13 .01
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
218 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
The greater influence of BS as people grow older reflects the
core purpose of BS: To temper men’s HS and allow them to fulfil
heterosexual intimacy needs with women, including emotional,
relational, and sexual needs. Our findings point to the fundamen-
tal nature of BS and HS as working together to maintain existing
gendered traditions in beliefs, and preferences. Perhaps adoles-
cents who endorsed surname traditions were involved in more
segregated relationships and so the influence of BS was limited.
In addition, adolescents’ sexist attitudes have been linked to a
variety of other social characteristics such as parent’s beliefs and
education (Mastari etal., 2019). Future research could explore
a wider variety of social characteristics to see how they relate to
endorsement of marriage traditions and in turn, sexist attitudes.
Although seemingly harmless and endorsed by many,
these gendered traditions mask hidden power in heterosexual
romantic relationships (see Robnett & Leaper, 2013; Zipp
etal., 2004). Greater endorsement of BS leads girls and
women to focus on relational goals (including partner’s needs)
and success in feminine-typed domains (i.e., getting married,
being a good mother, etc.), and eschew goals considered self-
orientated or masculine (del Prado etal., 2007; Hammond &
Overall, 2015; Montañés etal., 2012). Recent research with
US girls shows those high in paternalistic attitudes (a subcom-
ponent of BS) have higher family hopes, lower aspirations for
masculine-stereotyped careers (e.g., in STEM), and greater
desire for aesthetic orientated careers (e.g., fashion model;
Farkas & Leaper, 2016). Endorsement of traditional gendered
beliefs may predict a suite of actions within relationships that
hide power while preventing gender equality.
Traditionality ofBeliefs
Another difference between studies was the degree to which
participants endorsed heterosexual marriage traditions. The
youngest sample of 11- to 18-year-olds were below chance
in endorsing traditional beliefs and preferences. Likewise, the
restricted sample of older adolescents were below chance in
endorsing naming traditions after marriage and preferences, but
they were at chance in following patronymic naming traditions.
In contrast, the adults were above the midpoint in endorsement
for all marriage traditions, and this is consistent with previous
research among undergraduate students (Robnett & Leaper,
2013). Moreover, children’s gender stereotypes are more simi-
lar to parents’ stereotypes in children over 18years than in 6-to
17-year-olds (Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002). This pivot toward
traditionality and their parents’ views may explain why women
do not propose (Baker & Elizabeth, 2013) and continue to
change their names after marriage (Savage, 2020).
Gender Differences
Finally, gender effects were mixed across the samples. In the
youngest age group of adolescents (Study 1), boys were more
likely than girls to want a traditional proposal, whereas girls
were more likely than boys to mention traditional aspects of
weddings. These differences may stem from BS prescriptions
in which boys are active heroes (Hammond & Cimpian, 2021)
and girls are passive princesses (Casad etal., 2015). Girls
and boys may have focused on different aspects of proposals
and weddings. Given that these effects were not replicated
across studies, further investigation with young adolescents
is needed. If the gender effect remains, we need to probe why
girls and boys endorse different marriage traditions. Results
where sexism and gender together predicted endorsement
of marriage traditions suggest that sexism levels could be
a potential mediator of gender differences. Future research
should explore the direction of this relationship.
Limitations andFuture Research Discussions
One limitation of the current investigation is that these stud-
ies are cross-sectional in design. Therefore, we cannot ascer-
tain whether our findings reflect a cohort or a developmen-
tal effect. Moreover, we were slightly underpowered in our
studies because of having to exclude participants. Although
sensitivity analyses suggested that we were adequately pow-
ered to find effects, we may have uncovered additional small
effects with larger samples. Future research should try to
disentangle these effects using longitudinal designs with
large samples.
Additionally, a limitation of Studies 1 and 2 was that we
did not examine beliefs and preferences for all naming, pro-
posal, and wedding traditions. Results showed less tradition-
alism in adolescents’ proposal and wedding preferences than
in their beliefs about surname traditions. However, this pat-
tern might not hold when adolescents are asked about their
preferences and beliefs for all traditions. Future research
should explore how beliefs and preferences differ for these
traditions and are related to each other.
Although the mixed-methods approach is a strength in
some respects, the open-ended questions used in Study 1
and 2 might account for part of the reason that the non-
traditional responses were greater than traditional
responses. In open-ended responses, participants may have
focused their answers on things that come to mind first
such as location or presence of family. For this reason,
non-traditional factors may have been described more fre-
quently even if adolescents also pictured traditional wed-
ding practices. As a result, participants responses may
appear more non-traditional using open-ended rather than
closed-ended measures. To explore age and generational
differences in the endorsement of marriage traditions
across age groups, future research should use closed-ended
and open-ended questions with a variety of age groups to
compare whether the method influences responses.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
219Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
Moreover, the inclusion criteria utilised and lack of
diversity within each of the samples makes generalisabil-
ity of our findings uncertain. For example, because we
excluded non-binary and sexual minority participants, we
cannot ascertain the extent to which the link between BS
and endorsement of traditional beliefs reflects the attitudes
of these communities. Most participants were White, so
our present studies are not well positioned to account for
the role of ethnic-racial or cultural variation in attitudes
towards gendered marriage traditions. Moreover, there
may be pertinent ethnic-racial differences in endorsement
of BS (Davis etal., 2022) that could impact our findings.
That being said, the ethnicity of our sample generally
reflects the population of England and Wales (i.e., 86%
of the population identify as White; Office for National
Statistics, 2018). Future research should include a wider
population to explore the role of different sociodemo-
graphic backgrounds on views towards heteronormative
marriage traditions.
Finally, a limitation that we need to consider is that
heterosexual marriage rates are on the decline. Indeed,
in the UK, rates decreased by 6.5% to from 2018 to 2019
with 213,122 other-gender registered marriages in the
UK (Office for National Statistics, 2022). About 22% of
couples who lived together were cohabiting rather than
being married, but these couples may marry in the future
(UK Parliament, 2022). Comparisons with the US suggest
that the decline in the UK is steeper than in the US from
2018 to 2019. In comparison, in the US, the marriage rate
increased from 2020 to 2021 (Center for Disease Control,
2023). Future research needs to examine why this hetero-
sexual tradition is on the decline in the UK. Cross-cultural
work conducted between the US and the UK might help
us understand how cultural values influence these deci-
sions. Nonetheless, given the numbers of marriages in the
UK and the US and the number of couples who follow
traditional naming practices (Savage, 2020), why sexist
practices persist for so many needs to be understood.
Practice Implications
The present findings suggest that heterosexual mar-
riage traditions mask unequal power in gender relations.
Across a varied age range, both BS and HS were related
to endorsement of these traditions. These associations
indicate the problematic nature of marriage traditions
in maintaining the gender status quo. Future work is
needed to demystify these associations. Studies have
shown that acceptance of BS ideals is decreased once
people are aware and educated about the negative conse-
quences of BS (Becker & Swim, 2011; de Lemus etal.,
2014). Educating adolescents and adults about how BS is
linked to heterosexual relationship traditions, which may
impact power imbalances in relationships, could encour-
age transformative conversations between partners and
among peers.
The low levels of traditionalism in adolescents’ responses
suggest that the next generation may be faced with the
consequences of breaking traditions. Robnett etal. (2016)
indicate that this could provoke family conflict if family
and friends are strong endorsers of tradition. Indeed, men
have proposed before announcing their engagement when
their partners had proposed previously (Baker & Elizabeth,
2013). Women have reported taking their partner’s surname
to legitimise their relationship (Schweingruber etal., 2004).
These actions suggest that couples are both aware of the
norms, and the threat of social scrutiny, should they choose
not to conform to them. Exploring the consequences of
breaking traditions need to be further studied to help cou-
ples make choices without negative consequences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, findings across three studies fill a gap in
the literature by examining the role of ambivalent sexism
and gender identity in the views of those who are at the
start of their dating lives as well as those close to marital
age, both key developmental milestones in heterosexual
relationships. Our findings suggest that HS and BS may
impact surname beliefs differently based on age or cohort
(e.g., see Glick & Hilt, 2000). Future research may explore
the role of relationship status in the endorsement of het-
erosexual marriage preferences, as well as expand on the
research linking sexism to views of couple’s surname deci-
sions and related power dynamics.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all participating
schools and colleges. Additionally, a special thank you goes to Cherie
Cheung and Anastasia Child for their assistance on the inter-rater reli-
ability and coding process.
Author Contributions Conceptualization: Harriet Tenenbaum lead,
Nila Watson, Rachael Robnett, Rose Brett and Aife Hopkins-Doyle
supported; Data curation: Rose Brett; Formal analysis: Rose Brett;
Investigation: Rose Brett led, Nila Watson, and Harriet Tenenbaum
supported; Methodology: Harriet Tenenbaum lead, Rose Brett, Nila
Watson, Rachael Robnett, and Aife Hopkins-Doyle supported; Pro-
ject administration: Rose Brett led, Harriet Tenenbaum supported;
Supervision: Aife Hopkins-Doyle, Harriet Tenenbaum, Rachael
Robnett supported; Validation: Aife Hopkins-Doyle; Visualisation:
Rose Brett; Writing-original draft: Rose Brett; Writing—review
and editing: Aife Hopkins-Doyle and Harriet Tenenbaum lead and
Rachael Robnett supported.
Data, Materials, and Code Availability For each of the three studies
included in this paper, the data, code and study materials are avail-
able on the Open Science Framework using the following anonymised
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
220 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
links: https:// osf. io/ vs95k/? view_ only= 00d53 969b7 7643b 6a5f1 d6ccd
6841e 6f.
The hypotheses and analysis plans for each study were pre-registered
on the OSF:
Study 1 https:// osf. io/ fumdn/? view_ only= 5fdac 7f180 c544e 9aa1b
fa07a 2f56c e1.
Study 2 https:// osf. io/ c3dwn/? view_ only= cb34c ba84f 054ae fbb63
ff405 d064d f7.
Study 3 https:// osf. io/ qwvfk/? view_ only= 7dca0 c9f96 094da 19447
f0db4 3d160 47.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethics Approval and Consent All studies received ethical approval.
Please see main manuscript for details. For all participants under the
age of 16, parental informed consent was obtained, and participants
gave assent after a description of the study was given. All participants
over the age of 16 read an information sheet about the study and gave
informed consent to take part in the study.
Competing Interests The authors have no competing interests to report
with regard to the content of this article.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Baker, M., & Elizabeth, V. (2013). 'Did you just ask me to marry you?':
The gendered nature of heterosexual relationship progressions.
Women's Studies Journal, 27(2), 32. https:// www. wsanz. org. nz/
journ al/ docs/ WSJNZ 272Ba kerEl izabe th32- 43. pdf
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An intro-
duction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ cbo97 80511 527685
Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention
to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 227–242. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 03616 84310 397509
Boxer, D., & Gritsenko, E. (2005). Women and surnames across cultures:
Reconstituting identity in marriage*: WL.Women and Language,28(2),
1–11. https:// www. proqu est. com/ schol arly- journ als/ women- surna mes-
across- cultu res- recon stitu ting/ docvi ew/ 19888 1480/ se-2
Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of ado-
lescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.),Adolescent
romantic relations and sexual behavior(pp. 37–70). Psychology
Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97814 10607 782
Casad, B. J., Salazar, M. M., & Macina, V. (2015). The real versus
the ideal: Predicting relationship satisfaction and well-being
from endorsement of marriage myths and benevolent sexism.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39(1), 119–129. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 03616 84314 528304
Center for Disease Control. (2023). Retrieved on April 5, 2023 from-
https:// www. cdc. gov/ nchs/ data/ dvs/ marri age- divor ce/ natio nal-
marri age- divor ce- rates- 00- 21. pdf
Cross, E. J., & Overall, N. C. (2019). Women experience more serious
relationship problems when male partners endorse hostile sex-
ism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(5), 1022–1041.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 2560
Davis, T. M., Settles, I. H., & Jones, M. K. (2022). Standpoints and situ-
atedness: 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/ 03616 84321 10431 08
de Lemus, S., Moya, M., & Glick, P. (2010). When contact corre-
lates with prejudice: Adolescents’ romantic relationship expe-
rience predicts greater benevolent sexism in boys and hostile
sexism in girls. Sex Roles, 63, 214–225. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11199- 010- 9786-2
de Lemus, S., Navarro, L., Velásquez, M. J., Ryan, E., & Megías, J. L.
(2014). From sex to gender: A university intervention to reduce
sexism in Argentina, Spain, and El Salvador. Journal of Social
Issues, 70(4), 741–762. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ josi. 12089
del Prado Silván-Ferrero, M. D. P., & Bustillos López, A. (2007). Benev-
olent Sexism toward men and women: Justification of the traditional
system and conventional gender roles in Spain. Sex Roles, 57(7),
607–614. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11199- 007- 9271-8
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2016). The development of
implicit gender attitudes. Developmental Science, 19(5), 781–789.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ desc. 12321
Ellingsæter, A. L. (2022). Resisting or maintaining gender inequality?
Wedding traditions among Norwegian millennials. Acta Sociolog-
ica., 66(1), 44–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00016 99322 10748 26
Fairchild, E. (2014). Examining wedding rituals through a multidi-
mensional gender lens: The analytic importance of attending to
(in) consistency. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43(3),
361–389. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08912 41613 497750
Farkas, T., & Leaper, C. (2016). Chivalry’s double-edged sword: How
girls’ and boys’ paternalistic attitudes relate to their possible fam-
ily and work selves. Sex Roles, 74(5), 220–230. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s11199- 015- 0556-z
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical
power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and
regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–
1160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ BRM. 41.4. 1149
Ferragut, M., Blanca, M. J., Ortiz-Tallo, M., & Bendayan, R. (2017).
Sexist attitudes and beliefs during adolescence: A longitudinal
study of gender differences. European Journal of Developmen-
tal Psychology, 14(1), 32–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17405 629.
2016. 11445 08
Fetters, A. (2019, July 29).‘He said yes’. The Atlantic. https:// www.
theat lantic. com/ family/ archi ve/ 2019/ 07/ women- propo sing- to-
men/ 594214/
Fleiss, J. L. (1981).Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd
ed.). John Wiley.
Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L. E., White, K. B., & Hamm, N. R.
(2002). Perceptions of married women and married men with
hyphenated surnames. Sex Roles, 46(5–6), 167–175. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1023/A: 10196 13819 247
Froschauer, U., & Durrheim, K. (2019). “It’s the bride’s day”: The par-
adox of women’s emancipation. Feminism & Psychology, 29(1),
58–75. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09593 53518 803975
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Dif-
ferentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
0022- 3514. 70.3. 491
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
221Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and
benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender
inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X. 56.2. 109
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B.,
... & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy:
Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures.Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology,79(5), 763. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
0022- 3514. 79.5. 763
Glick, P., & Hilt, L. (2000). From combative children to ambivalent
adults: The development of gender prejudice.In T. Eckes & H. M.
Trautner (Eds.). The Developmental Social Psychology of Gen-
der, 243–272. Psychology Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97814
10605 245
Gul, P., & Kupfer, T. R. (2019). Benevolent sexism and mate preferences:
Why do women prefer benevolent men despite recognizing that they
can be undermining? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
45(1), 146–161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67218 781000
Hamilton, L., Geist, C., & Powell, B. (2011). Marital name change as a
window into gender attitudes. Gender & Society, 25(2), 145–175.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08912 43211 398653
Hammond, M. D., & Cimpian, A. (2021). “Wonderful but weak”: Chil-
dren’s ambivalent attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 84(1–2),
76–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11199- 020- 01150-0
Hammond, M. D., Milojev, P., Huang, Y., & Sibley, C. G. (2018).
Benevolent sexism and hostile sexism across the ages. Social Psy-
chological and Personality Science, 9(7), 863–874. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 19485 50617 727588
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Benevolent sexism and
support of romantic partner’s goals: Undermining women’s com-
petence while fulfilling men’s intimacy needs. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1180–1194. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 01461 67215 593492
Hammond, M. D., & Overall, N. C. (2017). Dynamics within intimate
relationships and the causes, consequences, and functions of sex-
ist attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2),
120–125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09637 21416 686213
Hopkins-Doyle, A., 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/ pspa0 000135
Ingraham, C. (2009). White weddings: Romancing heterosexuality in
popular culture. Routledge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97802 03931 028
Jaffe, S. (2018). The collective power of #metoo. Dissent, 65(2), 80–87.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1353/ dss. 2018. 0031
Johnson, D. R., & Scheuble, L. K. (2002). What should we call our
kids? Choosing children’s surnames when parents’ last names dif-
fer.The Social Science Journal,39(3), 419–429. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/ S0362- 3319(02) 00203-3
Kelley, K. (2023). The effect of marital surname choices on hetero-
sexual women’s and men’s perceived quality as romantic partners.
Socius, 9, 1–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 23780 23122 114853
Leaper, C., & Robnett, R. D. (2018). Sexism. In R. J. R. Levesque
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (2nd ed., pp. 3502–3511).
Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-1- 4419- 1695-2
Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P., & Chen, Z. (2010). Ambivalent
sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent)
romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62(7), 583–601.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11199- 010- 9770-x
Liben, L. S., Bigler, R. S., & Krogh, H. R. (2001). Pink and blue collar
jobs: Children’s judgments of job status and job aspirations in
relation to sex of worker. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 79(4), 346–363. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jecp. 2000. 2611
Martinez-Pecino, R., & Durán, M. (2019). I love you but I cyberbully
you: The role of hostile sexism.Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence,34(4), 812–825. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08862 60516 645817
Mastari, L., Spruyt, B., & Siongers, J. (2019). Benevolent and hos-
tile sexism in social spheres: The impact of parents, school and
romance on Belgian adolescents’ sexist attitudes. Frontiers in
Sociology, 4(47), 1–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsoc. 2019. 00047
Mehta, C. M., Arnett, J. J., Palmer, C. G., & Nelson, L. J. (2020).
Established adulthood: A new conception of ages 30 to 45. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 75(4), 431. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ amp00 00600
Montañés, P., De Lemus, S., Bohner, G., Megías, J. L., Moya, M.,
& Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Intergenerational transmission
of benevolent sexism from mothers to daughters and its relation
to daughters’ academic performance and goals. Sex Roles, 66,
468–478. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11199- 011- 0116-0
Montañés, P., De Lemus, S., Moya, M., Bohner, G., & Megías, J. L.
(2013). How attractive are sexist intimates to adolescents? The
influence of sexist beliefs and relationship experience. Psychol-
ogy of Women Quarterly, 37(4), 494–506. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
03616 84313 475998
Nugent, C. (2010). Children’s surnames, moral dilemmas: Accounting
for the predominance of fathers’ surnames for children. Gender &
Society, 24(4), 499–525. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 11 77/ 08912 43210 376380
Office for National Statistics. (2018). Population of England and Wales.
https:// www. ethni city- facts- figur es. servi ce. gov. uk/ uk - popul ation-
by- ethni city/ natio nal- and- regio nal- popul ations/ popul ation- of-
engla nd- and- wales/ latest
Office for National Statistics. (2019). Marriages in England and Wales:
2016. https:// www. ons. gov. uk/ peopl epopu latio nandc ommun ity/
birth sdeat hsand marri ages/ mar ri ageco habit ation andci vilpa rtner
ships/ bulle tins/ marri agesi nengl andan dwale sprov ision al/ 2016
Office for National Statistics. (2022). Marriage in England and Wales:
2019. https:// www. ons. gov. uk/ peopl epopu latio nandc ommun ity/
birth sdeat hsand marri ages/ mar ri ageco habit ation andci vilpa rtner
ships/ bulle tins/ marri agesi nengl andan dwale sprov ision al/ 2019
Otnes, C. C., & Pleck, E. (2003). Cinderella dreams: The allure of the
lavish wedding. University of California Press.
Overall, N. C., & Hammond, M. D. (2018). 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/ 23727 32217 745096
Paynter, A., & Leaper, C. (2016). Heterosexual dating double standards
in undergraduate women and men.Sex Roles,75(7–8), 393–406.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11199- 016- 0628-8
Peters, E. (2018). The influence of choice feminism on women’s and
men’s attitudes towards name changing at marriage: an analysis
of online comments on UK social media.Names,66(3), 176–185.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00277 738. 2017. 14155 40
Ramiro-Sánchez, T., Ramiro, M. T., Bermúdez, M. P., & Buela-Casal,
G. (2018). Sexism in adolescent relationships: A systematic
review.Psychosocial Intervention,27(3), 123–132. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 5093/ pi201 8a19
Robnett, R. D., Daniels, E. A., & Leaper, C. (2018a). Growing up
gendered: Feminist perspectives on development. In C. B.
Travis, & J. W. White (Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology
of women: History, theory, and battlegrounds (pp. 437–454).
American Psychology Association. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
00000 59- 022
Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2013). “Girls don’t propose! Ew.”: A mixed-
methods examination of marriage tradition preferences and benevo-
lent sexism in emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research,
28(1), 96–121. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07435 58412 447871
Robnett, R. D., Underwood, C. R., Nelson, P. A., & Anderson,
K. J. (2016). “She might be afraid of commitment”: Percep-
tions of women who retain their surname after marriage.
Sex Roles, 75(9–10), 500–513. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11199- 016- 0634-x
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
222 Sex Roles (2023) 89:201–222
1 3
Robnett, R. D., Wertheimer, M., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2018b). Does
a woman’s marital surname choice influence perceptions of her
husband? An analysis focusing on gender-typed traits and relation-
ship power dynamics.Sex Roles,79(1–2), 59–71. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ s11199- 017- 0856-6
Rollero, C., Glick, P., & Tartaglia, S. (2014). Psychometric proper-
ties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and
Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM-Testing, Psychomet-
rics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(2), 149–159. https://
doi. org/ 10. 4473/ TPM21.2.3
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2021).The social psychology of gender:
How power and intimacy shape gender relations. The Guilford
Press.
Rudman, L. A., & Heppen, J. B. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies
and women’s interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11), 1357–1370.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67203 256906
Sassler, S., & Miller, A. J. (2011). Waiting to be asked: Gender, power, and
relationship progression among cohabiting couples. Journal of Family
Issues, 32(4), 482–506. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925 13X10 391045
Savage, M. (2020). Taking a husband’s name emerged from patriarchal
history. So why do so many young western couples still follow the
tradition. https:// www. bbc. com/ workl ife/ artic le/ 20200 921- why-
do- women- still- change- their- names#: ~: text= In% 20the% 20US%
2C% 20most% 20wom en,they% 20sti ll% 20fol low% 20the% 20pra ctice
Scheuble, L. K., Johnson, D. R., & Johnson, K. M. (2012). Marital
name changing attitudes and plans of college students: Comparing
change over time and across regions. Sex Roles, 66(3–4), 282–292.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11199- 011- 0089-z
Schweingruber, D., Anahita, S., & Berns, N. (2004). “Popping the
question” when the answer is known: The engagement proposal
as performance. Sociological Focus, 37(2), 143–161. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 00380 237. 2004. 10571 239
Schweingruber, D., Cast, A. D., & Anahita, S. (2008). “A story
and a ring”: Audience judgments about engagement propos-
als. Sex Roles, 58(3–4), 165–178. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11199- 007- 9330-1
Shafer, E. F. (2017). Hillary Rodham versus Hillary Clinton: Con-
sequences of surname change in marriage. Gender Issues, 34,
316–332. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12147- 016- 9182-5
Spinner, L., Cameron, L., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2022). Gender ste-
reotypes in young children’s magazines. Mass Communication
and Society, 26(1), 147–170. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15205 436.
2022. 20529 02
Tenenbaum, H., Leman, P., Aznar, A., & To, C. (2016). Researching
children’s conversations. In J. Prior & J. Van Herwegen (Eds.),
Practical research with children (pp. 89–106). Routledge. https://
doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97813 15676 067
Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents’ gender schemas
related to their children’s gender-related cognitions? A Meta-Anal-
ysis. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 615–630. https:// doi. org/
10. 1037/ 0012- 1649. 38.4. 615
UK Deed Poll. (2021, April 23). A man’s name change rights and
options upon marriage. Retrieved April 4, 2023, from https://
www. deedp oll. org. uk/a- mans- rights- upon- marri age/
UK Parliament. (2022, November 03). “Common law marriage” and
cohabitation. https:// commo nslib rary. parli ament. uk/ resea rch-
brief ings/ sn033 72/
Viejo, C., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Sánchez, V. (2015). Adolescent love
and wellbeing: The role of dating relationships for psychological
adjustment. Journal of Youth Studies, 18(9), 1219–1236. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13676 261. 2015. 10399 67
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: 10258 88824 749
Zipp, J. F., Prohaska, A., & Bemiller, M. (2004). Wives, husbands,
and hidden power in marriage. Journal of Family Issues, 25(7),
923–948. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01925 13X04 267151
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
