Source: Hamilton and DeHart (2020) | Course: PSYC 303, Social Psychology (NYU)
Difficulty: Introductory to Intermediate | Prerequisites: Basic understanding of research methods (variables, validity, generalisability).
This topic sits at the intersection of social psychology and health behaviour. The study by Hamilton and DeHart (2020) examines whether exposure to sexist material influences women's alcohol consumption, a question that ties together research on prejudice, coping behaviour, and substance use.
If you are familiar with the basics of experimental design (independent vs. dependent variables, control groups, manipulation checks), you have what you need. The paper also raises important methodological points about internal validity, confounding variables, and generalisability, so it doubles as a case study in evaluating research.
Hamilton and DeHart (2020) tested whether reading sexist articles causes college women to drink more alcohol. Women in both hostile and benevolent sexism conditions reported higher alcohol consumption than the control group. However, the causal link is weak because sexism exposure did not predict drinking expectations, and the sample lacked demographic diversity.
Hostile sexism
Overtly negative attitudes toward women, rooted in beliefs about female inferiority or incompetence. Think of it as the openly antagonistic form of gender prejudice.
Benevolent sexism
Seemingly positive but patronising attitudes toward women (e.g. "women need to be protected"). In simple terms, it looks like a compliment but reinforces traditional gender roles and limits women's autonomy.
Independent variable (IV)
The variable the researcher manipulates. In this study, the type of sexism exposure (hostile, benevolent, or control/neutral articles).
Dependent variable (DV)
The variable the researcher measures as an outcome. Here, the amount of alcohol the participants consumed.
Manipulation check
A measure used to verify that the experimental manipulation (here, reading sexist vs. neutral articles) worked as intended. Participants who failed these checks were excluded.
Confounding variable
An uncontrolled third variable that may explain the observed relationship between the IV and DV. In simple terms, something else that could be driving the result without the researchers realising.
Extraneous variable
Any variable other than the IV that could influence the DV. The researchers tried to manage these by asking about barriers to drinking that night.
Internal validity
The degree to which a study establishes a genuine causal relationship between the IV and DV, free from confounds. Think of it as how confident you can be that X caused Y.
Generalisability (external validity)
The extent to which findings from one sample can be applied to a broader population. This study's mostly white, freshman sample limits how far the results travel.
Aim: Test whether exposure to sexist material increases alcohol consumption in college women.
IV: Type of article read (hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, or neutral/control).
DV: Number of standard alcoholic drinks consumed that evening.
Method: Experimental lab session followed by a next-day follow-up survey.
Participants read articles and answered four open-ended questions about them.
They rated articles on intuitiveness, reasonableness, believability, persuasiveness, and significance (9-point scale).
They reported their likelihood of drinking that night (7-point scale) and their actual consumption.
Women in both the hostile and benevolent sexism conditions consumed more alcohol than the control group.
Neither sexism condition predicted drinking expectations, which complicates the causal story: the women did not report planning to drink more, yet they did.
Manipulation checks: Participants who failed were excluded, strengthening confidence that the IV worked.
Eligibility criteria: Only women who had consumed alcohol in the past two weeks could participate, removing non-drinkers from the sample.
Extraneous variable control: Participants were asked whether anything prevented them from drinking that night.
Confidentiality protections: Participant identities were kept confidential, particularly important given that some were below the legal drinking age.
Weak causal evidence: Sexism exposure did not predict drinking expectations. This means the mechanism linking the IV to the DV is unclear, and confounding variables may account for the result.
Recommended fix: tighter control over extraneous variables to isolate the causal pathway.
Limited sample diversity: Participants were mostly white, freshmen, aged 18 to 29, and non-Greek-affiliated. This restricts generalisability.
Recommended fix: recruit participants from a wider range of racial, cultural, and age backgrounds.
Overall implication: The study supports an association between sexism exposure and alcohol consumption, but falls short of establishing a clean causal relationship.
This research speaks to university wellbeing programmes and public health campaigns. If everyday exposure to sexist content contributes to higher alcohol use among young women, then interventions targeting sexism literacy on campuses could have downstream effects on harmful drinking behaviour.
Students often think benevolent sexism is harmless because it sounds positive. It is not. Benevolent sexism still reinforces unequal power dynamics and, as this study suggests, can have measurable behavioural consequences.
Students sometimes assume that because the study used an experiment, the results automatically prove causation. The design is experimental, but the weak link between the IV and drinking expectations means confounds have not been ruled out.
It is easy to conflate correlation with causation here. The women drank more, but the study does not clearly show why. Saying "sexism causes drinking" overstates what the evidence supports.
Some students overlook the importance of sample diversity. A study can have strong internal controls and still produce findings that do not generalise beyond its narrow sample.
⚠️ Be ready to distinguish hostile from benevolent sexism with examples. Exams frequently test whether you can identify each type in a scenario.
⚠️ Know the difference between an experimental design and a confirmed causal relationship. This study is a good example of where one does not guarantee the other.
⚠️ Expect a question on threats to internal validity. The failure of sexism conditions to predict drinking expectations is a textbook weak point.
⚠️ Generalisability is almost always worth a mention when evaluating any study. Here, the homogeneous sample is the obvious flag.
True or False: Benevolent sexism involves openly hostile attitudes toward women.
False. Benevolent sexism involves seemingly positive but patronising attitudes.
Fill in the blank: The independent variable in this study was ______.
The type of sexism exposure (hostile, benevolent, or control).
True or False: The study found that sexism conditions predicted participants' expectations about drinking that night.
False. Neither condition predicted drinking expectations, which weakened the causal argument.
Fill in the blank: The participants were mostly ______, ______, and ______, which limited the study's ______.
White, freshmen, non-Greek-affiliated; generalisability.
True or False: Excluding participants who failed manipulation checks strengthened the study's internal validity.
True.
Q: What were the independent and dependent variables in Hamilton and DeHart (2020)?
A: The IV was the type of sexism exposure (hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, or neutral control articles). The DV was the number of standard alcoholic drinks consumed that evening.
Q: Why does the failure of sexism conditions to predict drinking expectations weaken the study's conclusions?
A: If exposure to sexism were directly causing increased drinking, you would expect participants in the sexism conditions to also report higher intentions to drink. They did not, which suggests the mechanism is unclear and confounding variables may be at play.
Q: Identify two methodological strengths of the study and explain how each protects validity.
A: First, participants who failed manipulation checks were excluded, ensuring the IV was properly received. Second, only women who had consumed alcohol in the past two weeks were eligible, which removed non-drinkers and made the DV measure more meaningful.
Q: How does the sample composition limit the generalisability of the findings?
A: The sample was mostly white, freshman-aged, and non-Greek-affiliated. This narrow demographic means the results may not apply to women of different racial backgrounds, ages, or cultural contexts, all of whom may respond differently to sexism.
Q: What would you recommend the researchers do differently to strengthen the causal claim?
A: They should control for more extraneous variables (e.g. pre-existing stress, relationship status, prior experiences with sexism) and recruit a more demographically diverse sample to improve both internal and external validity.
This material connects to broader discussions of ambivalent sexism theory (Glick and Fiske, 1996), which distinguishes hostile and benevolent sexism as two sides of the same coin. It also ties into stress-coping models of substance use: the idea that experiencing prejudice or discrimination acts as a stressor, and alcohol is used as a coping mechanism. If your course covers minority stress or microaggressions, those frameworks apply here as well.
Hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, ambivalent sexism, Glick and Fiske, alcohol consumption, coping behaviour, substance use, stress-coping model, college women, gender prejudice, discrimination, internal validity, external validity, generalisability, confounding variables, extraneous variables, manipulation check, experimental design, PSYC 303, social psychology, Hamilton and DeHart 2020