I said this on another post (probably the one you were reading) but my sentiments about it are the same, and I posted a mighty wall of text, so it bears repeating. (I modified it a bit to make sense out of the context of that thread.)

The author goes to the trouble to tell us about hostile and benevolent sexism, but never what is sexist, exactly. It's important to define what is, and is not sexist behavior in a study because sometimes something being sexist comes down to opinion and circumstance. For example, holding a door open for a woman. Is it sexist to hold a door open for a woman? Is it only sexist to open a door for a woman if you're assuming she can't open the door for herself? How then do we know the intention is sexist, or if someone is just holding a door for a person behind them out of personal kindness? The door problem in itself is the prime example of why what is "sexist" must be defined in any paper or study focusing on it. And even then the study should definitely phrase it something like "if holding the door is considered sexist, then X statistic are engaging in sexist behavior." That study is pretty bad, and makes lots of leaps and assumptions about the intention of a video game maker's decision to put things in their game. (" Even in the rare occurrence when the game’s lead role is a woman (e.g., Lara Croft in Tomb Raider), she is still treated as an object of men’s fantasies" being the cream of the crop here on that one. The author of the study links to another study which also never provides any implication that Lara Croft is created with the intention to be the object of male fantasy, instead of more innocently as an action hero.)

The study never really says whether or not they asked someone if they felt they needed to protect a woman in peril because she's a woman, or because it's just another person in peril. Or, maybe as this other study claims a player is simply more morally sensitive at the moment because they were playing a game in which they themselves were committing an act they would consider "bad."