Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification

Are Gender Identities and Gender Ideologies Associated with the Variety and Type of Owned Sex Toys? Evidence from a Large Italian Sample of Cisgender Individuals

Research on the use of sex toys has been primarily performed from a medical perspective, while there is still limited research from a psychosocial perspective. To bridge this gap, in this study we examined whether some psychosocial variables might be linked to sex toy ownership in a sample of 3960 Italian (cisgender men and women) sex toy buyers. More specifically, we investigated the association between gender identities and ideologies and the variety and types of sex toys owned. Based on the data, we detected two dimensions underlying the ownership of sex toys: (1) orientation to owning kinky sex toys and (2) orientation to owning clit-oriented sex toys. Results showed that benevolent sexism and gender system justification were negatively correlated with owning clit-oriented toys. Moreover, strongly gender-identified participants owned a small variety of different toys and preferred toys that were designed to stimulate the vagina or clitoris over less commonly-used toys. No significant correlation between feminist identification and sex toy type owned was found when gender identification was taken into account. These results suggest that the owning of sex toys might be associated with traditional gender ideology and the strength of gender identification.

The queen bee phenomenon in Canadian surgical subspecialties: An evaluation of gender biases in the resident training environment

BACKGROUND

The queen bee phenomenon (QBP) describes the behavioural response that occurs when women achieve success in a male-dominated environment, and in this position of authority, treat their female subordinates more critically. It has been demonstrated in business, academia, the military, and police force. The goal of this study was to determine whether the QBP occurs in surgical specialties. We hypothesized that female surgeons, fellows, and senior surgical residents would be more critical in their assessment of junior female residents than their male counterparts.

METHODS

A scenario-based survey was distributed via email to all Canadian surgical programs between February and March 2021. Scenarios were designed to assess either female or male learners. Centers distributed surveys to attending surgeons, surgical fellows, resident physicians, and affiliate surgeons. Respondents average Likert score for female-based and male-based questions were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed based on gender, age, seniority, and surgical specialty.

RESULTS

716 survey responses were collected, with 387 respondents identifying as male (54%) and 321 identifying as female (45%). 385 attending surgeons (54%), 66 fellows (9%), and 263 residents (37%) responded. The mean Likert scores for female respondents assessing female learners was significantly lower than male learners (p = 0·008, CI = 95%). During subgroup analysis, some specialties demonstrated significant scoring differences.

DISCUSSION

The QBP was shown to be present among surgical specialties. Female respondents assessed female learners more critically than their male counterparts.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight the importance of tackling organizational biases to create more equitable educational and work environment in surgery.

"Cat Ladies" and "Mama's Boys": A Mixed-Methods Analysis of the Gendered Discrimination and Stereotypes of Single Women and Single Men

Do single women and single men differ in their experiences of "singlism"? This mixed-methods research examined whether single women and single men report quantitative differences in amounts of singlehood-based discrimination and explored qualitative reports of stereotypic traits associated with single women and single men. We recruited Canadian and American single adults across two Prolific studies (total N = 286). The results demonstrated that single female and male participants did not differ in their personal discrimination, but female participants perceived single women to experience more discrimination than single men. Furthermore, qualitative analyses revealed four overlapping "archetypes" of single women and men including: Professional ("independent," "hard-working"), Carefree ("free," "fun"), Heartless ("selfish," "promiscuous"), and Loner ("lonely," "antisocial"). Overall, single women and men may experience similar stereotypes and discrimination, but there are also important nuances that highlight the need for more research at the intersection of gender and singlehood.

Defend, Deny, Distance, and Dismantle: A New Measure of Advantaged Identity Management

The experience of privilege can trigger psychological conflict among advantaged group members. Nonetheless, little work has explored strategies that advantaged group members use to manage their identities as privileged actors. Building on Knowles et al.'s framework and theories of intergroup relations, we address the conceptualization and measurement of advantaged group identity-management strategies. We aim to refine theorizing and validate a measure of these strategies across three contexts (U.S.'s White-Black relations, Israel's Jewish-Arab/Palestinian relations, and U.S.'s gender relations). This process yielded two novel conceptual and empirical contributions. First, we add a strategy-defend-in which advantaged-group members overtly justify inequality. Second, we discover that distancing has two facets (distancing from inequality and from identity). Across six studies, we find support for our proposed factor structure, measurement invariance, and construct validity. We discuss how advantaged groups contend with privilege and offer a tool for studying these strategies across domains and contexts.

Turning ingroup wounds into bonds: perceptions of gender inequalities predict attitudes toward other minorities

Despite significant strides in reducing gender disparities over the past decades, women still face disparities in several domains. While extensive research has explored the various consequences of gender inequalities for women, this study (N = 493 participants) delves into a less-explored dimension, investigating whether and how perceiving gender inequalities is associated with attitudes toward minorities. Drawing on relative deprivation theory and intra-minority solidarity research, we examined the relationship between women's perceptions of gender inequalities-spanning workplace inequality, domestic inequality, sexual harassment, and social expectations-and attitudes toward gays and lesbians, transgender women, and immigrants. We also explored whether indignation, arising from recognizing unjust circumstances, mediated these relationships, and the moderating role of perceived friends' support for gender equality. The results of the path analyses unveiled a nuanced relationship. While women who were more aware of gender inequalities exhibited more positive attitudes toward gays and lesbians and transgender women, no such relationship was observed regarding immigrants. Indignation and perceived friends' support for gender equality were key factors in fostering positive intergroup attitudes. Regarding their moderating role, perceived social norms only influenced the relationship between indignation and attitudes toward gays and lesbians. These findings shed light on the intricate interplay between gender inequalities and minority group attitudes. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of gender inequality and its emotional impact can catalyze promoting coalitional attitudes and collective action among disadvantaged groups. The study also underscores the potential of close groups' norms in promoting positive intergroup attitudes, warranting further exploration.

Himpathy and status: Attitudes to social hierarchy predict reactions to sexual harassment

In three studies, we tested whether hierarchical preferences could explain differences in punishment recommendations for sexual harassment. Building on research that suggests punishment is used to regulate social hierarchies, we argue that individuals who are motivated to maintain existing hierarchies will treat male perpetrators of sexual harassment with greater leniency, especially when judging perpetrators of high social status. Conversely, we predict that egalitarians-who are motivated to reduce group-based hierarchies-will judge male perpetrators more harshly, especially those of high social status. Given competing theories in the existing literature, we make no predictions about how perpetrator status will affect punishment recommendations overall. Supporting our hypotheses, we found that individuals high on gender system justification and social dominance orientation recommended more lenient punishments to perpetrators. Moreover, an integrative data analysis uncovered an interaction between social dominance orientation and perpetrator status. This interaction was primarily driven by egalitarians, who provided more lenient punishment recommendations to low status perpetrators when compared to high status perpetrators. Contrary to our predictions, we did not find strong evidence that individuals high on social dominance orientation provided harsher judgements to low status perpetrators. Nor did we find strong evidence for a main effect of perpetrator status on punishment recommendations. Taken together, these findings suggest that people punish sexual harassment to bolster or attenuate power structures. This is particularly true of egalitarians, whose emphasis on social equality leads them to judge high status perpetrators of sexual harassment with particular severity.

Are you advocating for me? Social penalties toward teachers that (dis)confirm gender stereotypes during the COVID-19 pandemic

We investigated the effects of gender stereotype violations within the context of teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as whether social penalties for violating gender stereotypes in this domain are moderated by trait levels of gender system justification. Participants (N = 254) rated four hypothetical teaching scenarios where target sex (male or female teacher) and reason for refusal to return to in-person teaching (advocating for one's self vs. advocating for others) were manipulated. Results showed that as predicted, participants with high levels of gender system justification rated self-advocating female teachers least favorably. Unexpectedly, participants with low levels of gender system justification rated self-advocating male teachers least favorably. Implications for gender stereotype violation are discussed as well as implications for those teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Expectations about system justification predict the ideological gap in attitudes towards immigrants

In the U.S. political conservatives hold less favorable attitudes than liberals about immigration and immigrant groups. We hypothesized that one reason for this ideological gap is that conservatives are more likely to believe that immigrants are not as justifying of the American system as they should be. This hypothesis was tested in an online study (N = 404) with respect to four immigrant groups: Europeans, East Asians, Middle Easterners, and Latin Americans. Results revealed that conservatism was positively associated with (a) prescriptive beliefs that immigrants should engage in high levels of system justification, and (b) descriptive beliefs that immigrants-except for Middle Eastern immigrants-generally do endorse high levels of system justification. Importantly, conservatives perceived a bigger difference than liberals between prescriptive and descriptive beliefs about immigrants' system justification levels, and this difference mediated the association between conservatism and attitudes and feelings about non-European (but not European) immigrants. These findings support a new "Perceived System Justification Deficit Model of Prejudice" in which expectations about others' degree of ideological support for the societal status quo may contribute to out-group bias and perhaps even discrimination.

Gender-based in-group social influence can lead women to view a hostile sexist attitude as less prejudiced and more true

Social influence processes by which women come to judge a hostile sexist attitude as relatively true and unprejudiced were examined. Based upon status characteristics theory, women's judgments were expected to be more strongly influenced by a man's than a woman's interpretation of the sexist attitude as true or prejudiced. Based upon self-categorization theory, women's judgments were expected to be more strongly influenced by a woman's than a man's interpretation. Support was primarily observed for the self-categorization theory prediction. This effect, however, was initially suppressed by participants' acceptance of the legitimacy of gender status differences. A post-hoc mediational analysis revealed two pathways by which in-group social influence affected women's acceptance the relative veracity of negative claims about their own group: a direct path from shared in-group membership with the influencing agent, and an indirect path through their acceptance of the legitimacy of gender status differences. The research highlights how women's endorsement of sexist views can have the capacity to minimize other women's challenges of these views as prejudice.

Gender differences in perceived legitimacy and status perception in leadership role

The present study examined the difference between women and men in perceiving leadership roles. Two experiments, one conducted online and the other in a lab, investigated the subjective experiences of Japanese men and women when they are assigned with different roles (e.g., leader vs. subordinate). Both studies revealed that women perceived their role as less legitimate when they were assigned leader role (vs. subordinate role). In contrast, men did not differ in their perceived legitimacy according to the assigned roles. This discrepancy in legitimacy perception in response to different roles between men and women accounted for a significant variance in women's lower sense of status when they were a leader (vs. subordinate), but not among men. Our study results illustrate the psychological barrier operating for women in organizations that are embedded in a cultural context in which women leaders are highly underrepresented.

Moral Foundations, Himpathy, and Punishment Following Organizational Sexual Misconduct Allegations

We build on deontic justice and moral foundations theories to shed light on responses to sexual misconduct at work by proposing a model that explains why some third parties punish accusing victims and support alleged perpetrators. We theorize that when third parties are given conflicting he-said, she-said information, they intuitively evaluate organizational injustice based on moral values. We further theorize that binding moral foundations (loyalty, authority, purity) give rise to sympathy toward men accused of sexual misconduct and anger toward female accusers. Across five studies (total n = 5,413) utilizing archival, field, and vignette designs, we examined third-party responses to sexual misconduct accusations ranging in severity across several industries. Third-party endorsement of binding moral foundations was linked to increased perpetrator-directed sympathy and victim-directed anger (Studies 1–4). These emotions jointly mediated the relationship between binding values and credibility perceptions of the accusing victim and the alleged perpetrator (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, victim credibility was negatively associated with social sanctions and punishment severity levied toward the accusing victim, and perpetrator credibility was negatively associated with the same punishment outcomes for the alleged perpetrator (Studies 3 and 4). In Study 5, we found that managers framing the accusing victim as disloyal exacerbated negative judgments and emotions toward the victim and positive judgments and emotions toward the perpetrator for individuals who highly ascribe to binding moral foundations. We discuss the theoretical contributions and practical implications of moral concerns on third parties’ emotions, judgments, and motivations to punish actors involved in sexual misconduct allegations.

Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1652 .

Further evidence that system justification amongst the disadvantaged is positively related to superordinate group identification

Members of disadvantaged groups sometimes support societal systems that enable the very inequalities that disadvantaged them. Is it possible to explain this puzzling system-justifying orientation in terms of rational group-interested motives, without recourse to a separate system motive? The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) claims that it is. SIMSA proposes that the system justification shown by a disadvantaged group (e.g., African American women) can sometimes support identity needs that are tied to a more inclusive (superordinate) in-group (e.g., Americans). There is already some supportive evidence for this proposition, but it is not yet clear whether: (1) such trends are visible in a wider range of disadvantaged contexts, and (2) this explanation also applies to those who are strongly invested in their subgroup (e.g., feminists). In two waves of a large nationally representative survey from 21 to 23 European states (N_total = 84,572) and two controlled experiments (N_total = 290 women), we found that: (a) system justification was positively associated with superordinate ingroup identification across multiple cases of disadvantage (Studies 1-3), (b) system justification increased when this inclusive identity was made more salient (Studies 2 & 3), and (c) system justification was visible even amongst feminists when they activated their superordinate (Italian) identity (Study 3).

Character Perceptions of Storytellers: Investigating the Mediated Contact Hypothesis and Stories About Living With HIV

Research into mediated contact hypothesis shows that exposure to people sharing their stories of living with a stigmatized condition can decrease negative stereotypes and improve willingness to engage in future interpersonal contact, but results are inconsistent. In this study, we offer novel reasons for why mediated intergroup contact can facilitate positive inter-group outcomes, by focusing on audience members' perceptions of the storyteller's character (i.e., perceptions of attributes or features that make up an individual). Our model was tested (N = 369, U.S. adults) with video-recorded stories from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Let's Stop HIV Together campaign. The results showed that, as predicted, viewers' perceptions of the storyteller's character as more fluid and more multidimensional predicted stronger transportation into the story, which predicted greater perceptions of group variability and more intergroup ease. Implications for character perceptions as mechanisms of contact effects, communication's role in shaping character perceptions, and reducing HIV stigma are discussed.

Do Youth Dream of Gender Stereotypes? The Relationship among Gender Stereotyping, Support for Feminism, and Acceptance of Gender-Based Violence

Although gender roles have continued to evolve, stereotypical perceptions about men and women persist. From a traditional perspective, men are viewed as aggressive, competitive, and dominant, whereas women are expected to be pretty, affectionate, and passive. The relevance of gender stereotypes lies in the way such expectations reinforce gender inequality and discrimination. Gender stereotyping is also linked to an increased acceptance of gender-based violence, as such conceptions are based on the premise that women are subordinate to men. The current study uses data from the Barometer on Youth and Gender, conducted by the Centro Reina Sofía in 2021 (N = 1201), to analyze the potential associations among gender stereotyping, support for feminism, and acceptance of gender-based violence among young people in Spain (15-29 years old). The results show that young people ascribe, to some extent, stereotypical characteristics to women and men and point to the existence of gender-based occupational stereotypes. Our results shed light on the role that gender stereotyping plays in support for feminism and the acceptance of gender-based violence. They also provide valuable information about the magnitude of gender-stereotypical perceptions among young men and women.

Gender Inclusion and Fit in STEM

Despite progress made toward increasing women's interest and involvement in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), women continue to be underrepresented and experience less equity and inclusion in some STEM fields. In this article, I review the psychological literature relevant to understanding and mitigating women's lower fit and inclusion in STEM. Person-level explanations concerning women's abilities, interests, and self-efficacy are insufficient for explaining these persistent gaps. Rather, women's relatively lower interest in male-dominated STEM careers such as computer science and engineering is likely to be constrained by gender stereotypes. These gender stereotypes erode women's ability to experience self-concept fit, goal fit, and/or social fit. Such effects occur independently of intentional interpersonal biases and discrimination, and yet they create systemic barriers to women's attraction to, integration in, and advancement in STEM. Dismantling these systemic barriers requires a multifaceted approach to changing organizational and educational cultures at the institutional, interpersonal, and individual level.

Modern Rape Myths: Justifying Victim and Perpetrator Blame in Sexual Violence

Rape myths are beliefs, stereotypes, and attitudes usually false, widespread, and persistent about rape, victims, and perpetrators. They aim to deny and justify men's sexual assault against women. This study evaluates the mediating effect of modern rape myths on the relationship between gender system justification and attribution of blame to both victim and perpetrator in a fictional case of sexual violence. A total of 375 individuals residing in Chile, 255 women and 120 men, 19-81 years (M = 37.6 SD = 13.06) participated in the study. Results from a Structural Equation Model show that gender system justification is directly related to the attribution of blame to the victim, showing an indirect relationship throughout the modern rape myth. However, gender system justification and attribution of blame to the aggressor are indirectly related, being mediated by modern rape myths. The study of the relationship between the acceptance of modern rape myths, gender-specific system justification, and victim and aggressor blame for rape is a contribution to understanding beliefs justifying sexual violence against women.

Benevolent and hostile sexism in a shifting global context

The theory of and research on ambivalent sexism - which encompasses both attitudes that are overtly negative (hostile sexism) and those that seem subjectively positive but are actually harmful (benevolent sexism) - have made substantial contributions to understanding how sexism operates and the consequences it has for women. It is now clear that sexism takes different forms, some of which can be disguised as protection and flattery. However, all forms of sexism have negative effects on how women are perceived and treated by others as well as on women themselves. Some of these findings have implications for understanding other social inequalities, such as ableism, ageism, racism and classism. In this Review, we summarize what is known about the predictors of ambivalent sexism and its effects. Although we focus on women, we also consider some effects on men, in particular those that indirectly influence women. Throughout the Review we point to societal shifts that are likely to influence how sexism is manifested, experienced and understood. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of these changes and specifying areas of enquiry that need to be addressed to continue making progress in understanding the mechanisms that underlie social inequalities.

The role of sexual orientation and the perceived threat posed by men in the acceptance of sexism

We aimed at examining the differences between straight (N = 583) and gay (N = 112) people in terms of the acceptance of ambivalent sexist attitudes not only toward women (ASI) but also toward men (AMI) and how the level of perceived threat posed by men (Realistic Threat Scale) influences these attitudes' acceptance. The study results showed that gay men endorsed hostile sexism at the same level as straight men, while lesbian women were more hostile toward men than straight women. In this study, gay people manifested significantly lower levels of benevolent (sexist) attitudes toward both genders than straight people. While a positive relationship was identified between the perceived threat posed by men and hostility toward men, there was a reciprocal correlation in the case of hostile sexism. Men who recognized the threat men can pose to women were less accepting of hostile sexism and more accepting of hostile attitudes toward their own gender group. Moreover, straight men who recognized this threat endorsed less benevolent attitudes toward their own gender group than those who failed to admit it. Our results showed that heterosexual interdependence and recognizing the threat posed by men highly influence the extent to which hostile and benevolent (sexist) attitudes toward women and men are accepted or rejected. The implications and practical relevance of our study are also discussed.

Sexual harassment training and men's motivation to work with women

With the #MeToo movement generating renewed public attention to the problem of sexual misconduct, it is an important time to assess how sexual harassment training affects men's motivation to work with women. We conducted an experiment in which we exposed undergraduate men to sexual harassment policy training and then assessed their motivation to work with a female partner on a decision-making task. We employed a 2 × 2 design in which participants were randomly assigned to a policy condition (sexual harassment policy or control) and a team role (leader or subordinate). We found that policy training did not affect whether participants chose a female or male partner. However, we found that policy training led male participants to rate female partners as more dissimilar to them and that leadership status moderated the effect of policies on men's expressed anxiety about working with a female partner. Findings have implications for reducing sexual harassment and gender inequality.

The irony of (romantic) harmony: Heterosexual romantic relationships can drive women’s justification of the gender hierarchy

Even though gender inequality is evident across life domains, women often justify the gender hierarchy. We examined whether the very closeness that heterosexual women share with their male romantic partners predicts their justification of gender inequality. We drew on intergroup-related research, showing that positive perceptions that minority groups develop within harmonious intergroup interactions, generalize to affect their views of group-based inequality. We expected that to the extent that women experience their romantic relationships positively, they will be more accepting of gender inequality within their homes, and these perceptions will generalize to predict justification of macro-level gender inequality. Five correlational and two experimental studies supported this prediction. The more women rated (or were primed with) their relationship as positive, the more they justified the gender social system. This was mediated by women’s perception of their housework division as fair, and was less pronounced among feminists. Implications regarding social change are discussed.

I will help you survive but not thrive: Helping decisions in situations that empower women

This research examines gender-based helping behavior from a social dominance perspective. We focused on the interplay between the gender of a prospective donor and the gender of the recipient in shaping donation decisions in contexts that either empower recipients or not. In two studies ( N = 866), male (but not female) donors chose to donate less often (Study 2) and to give lower amounts (Studies 1–2) to women in need than to men when donations were made in a potentially empowering context – a business context (e.g., donating to a person whose shop burned down), than in a nonempowering context – a domestic context (e.g., donating to a person whose house burned down). Lack of empathy for the female recipient among men partially mediated this gender–donation bias effect (Study 2). These findings suggest that men are less likely to help women in situations that empower women and challenge the existing gender hierarchy.

Implicit gender-science stereotypes and college-major intentions of italian adolescents

Gender stereotypes are often viewed as one of the root causes of the gender gap in STEM. According to Eccles’ model, they would indirectly influence major choices by shaping expectations of success and values attached to the viable options. However, empirical findings on the link between implicit gender-science stereotypes and college major intentions are limited. To fill this gap, the current study examines this association in a mixed-gender sample of 302 Italian high-school students. Logistic regression analysis revealed that implicit gender stereotypes were directly associated with females’ intention of majoring in STEM. Unlike previous findings, the mediation analysis could not confirm that other relevant factors, i.e., interest in the subject, performance at school, identification with the subject, and value attributed to the job’s salary and social utility, moderated this association.

Is Support for Feminism Enough for Change? How Sexism and Gender Stereotypes Might Hinder Gender Justice

Even though formal processes (i.e., gender quotes) are necessary to achieve gender justice, attitudinal changes (i.e., support of egalitarian social norms) are also essential. The endorsement of sexism and gender stereotypes perpetuate inequality on a daily basis, and can be seen as barriers that prevent societies from reaching social justice. Therefore, changing sexist social norms can be understood as a fundamental step in accomplishing gender justice. With the aim of studying Chileans’ sexist norms, we conducted a survey with a representative sample (N = 490) exploring levels of sexism and gender stereotypes, as well as support for the feminist movement. Using Latent Profile Analysis, we identified four groups of citizens: (1) a first group that shows high levels of sexism and low support for the feminist movement (9%); (2) a second group, with low levels of sexism and high support for the feminist movement (20%); (3) a third group with high levels of sexism and high support for the feminist movement (65%); and (4) a fourth group with mid-levels of sexism and support of the feminist movement (6%). We called these groups the Sexist, Feminist, Inconsistent, and Moderate Group, respectively. The four groups showed similar high endorsement of gender stereotypes. These results are twofold. First, they hint that although nowadays gender equality seems to be generally accepted, this coexists with a high prevalence of sexist social norms, represented by the inconsistent group being the most prevalent. Second, gender stereotypes are still deeply rooted in Chilean culture, surprisingly even among feminist citizens.

Mothers' Domestic Responsibilities and Well-Being During the COVID-19 Lockdown: The Moderating Role of Gender Essentialist Beliefs About Parenthood

The present work investigates how the increased domestic responsibilities created by the Spring 2020 lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway and gender ideologies relate to the well-being of mothers with elementary school children. In June 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional online study including current and retrospective measures with 180 mothers (M age = 39.96 years, SD = 6.11) of elementary school children across Norway. First, in line with earlier research on the strain of the pandemic on parents, and especially mothers, we found that Norwegian mothers' well-being during the lockdown significantly declined compared to before the lockdown (both measured retrospectively). Furthermore, mothers' well-being after the Spring 2020 lockdown did not immediately return to pre-lockdown levels. Finally, we predicted that gender ideologies (i.e., essentialist beliefs about parenthood) would exacerbate the negative impact of increased domestic responsibilities (i.e., childcare and housework) on mothers' well-being (i.e., higher standard-higher stress hypothesis). As predicted, for mothers who more strongly endorsed the belief that mothers are instinctively and innately better caretakers than fathers, perceptions of increased domestic responsibilities were associated with lower well-being post-lockdown. These findings point to the specific challenges mothers face in times of crisis, and the importance of addressing and confronting seemingly benevolent ideologies about motherhood that place additional burdens on women.

Intensive mothering and the perpetuation of gender inequality: Evidence from a mixed methods research

Intensive mothering is a cultural model of appropriate childrearing according to which mothers should unselfishly make a tremendous investment in their child. Using a mixed methodology, we examined the relevance of this ideology to understand the persistence of gender inequality. A content analysis of the most popular French mommy blogs indicates that this ideology remains commonplace, and has even incorporated contemporary concerns regarding sustainable development. Besides the expected themes of the sacredness of the child, the primary responsibility of the mother, and the use of intensive methods for all aspects of childrearing, the analysis of blog posts highlights new themes, including the sacredness of home, need for balance, and the praise of fathers. Furthermore, mommy blogs, as public online diaries involving everyday experience, prompt mothers to confess their failure to comply with intensive mothering demands and, at the same time, to reaffirm their commitment to its principles. Social influence is evidenced by the comments in response to the posts, which demonstrate polarization toward intensive mothering among the readers. A survey study further demonstrates that this ideology is positively related to a series of gender hierarchy-enhancing beliefs and attitudes. As a whole, the present research indicates that intensive mothering should be considered a system justifying ideology, while mommy blogs provide a platform for its diffusion and strengthening.

Economic inequality shapes the agency–communion content of gender stereotypes

Economic inequality is a main issue in current societies, and it affects people’s psychological processes. In this research, we propose that perceived economic inequality might affect how people perceive men and women. In two experiments carried out in Spain ( N = 170) and Mexico ( N = 215), we tested whether high (vs. low) economic inequality leads to changes in the perceived agency and communion of both men and women. Our findings suggest that when economic inequality is high (vs. low), the communal content in social perceptions of both men and women decreases. Specifically, under high (vs. low) inequality, the difference in agency and communion ascribed to a man becomes greater (i.e., men are perceived as even more agentic than communal), whereas this difference becomes smaller for women (i.e., women are still perceived as more communal than agentic, but this difference is smaller). We discuss these findings’ implications regarding the psychosocial effects of economic inequality.

Assessing Rape Myth Acceptance: A Contribution to Italian Validation of the Measure for Assessing Subtle Rape Myth (SRMA-IT)

The study aimed to validate the Italian version of the Measure for Assessing Subtle Rape Myths developed by McMahon and Farmer. A sample of 3,915 university students (70.8% female) completed the questionnaire. After an exploratory factor analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis tested the resulting four-factor structure of the Italian Subtle Rape Myth Acceptance (SRMA-IT) Scale ("She Asked for It"; "He Didn't Mean To"; "It Wasn't Really Rape"; and "She Lied"), consistent with McMahon and Farmer's initial hypothesis. The Italian validation did not include items related to intoxication. Internal consistency of the subscales was good (α from .78 to .90). Convergent validity between all subscales and System Justification-Gender was detected: A strong relationship was observed (r is from .19 to .33; p < .001). The independent-sample T test then showed that women accepted all four rape myths significantly less than men: Effect size is more than moderate for the myth "She Asked for It" (Cohen's d = .60) and between small and moderate for the other myths (d is from .35 to .42). Acceptance of rape myths is often associated with higher men's proclivity to rape and with tendency to raped women's double victimization (they can be not believed or blamed when they disclose the rape). Having a validated instrument to measure rape myth acceptance can enhance empirical research on this topic and help to develop interventions of prevention both for men in the society and for the first responders to disclosures, also sustaining a culture of respect and of contrast to violence.

Perceiving fairness in an unfair world: System justification and the mental health of girls in detention facilities

Psychologists in the helping professions have long accepted the idea that cognitions have implications for mental health and wellbeing. Community psychologists have further established the importance of context and systems in the etiology of mental health problems. In this paper, we argue that as a discipline that prioritizes social justice, community psychology should consider associations between cognitions about structural and systemic inequality and individual mental health, particularly in marginalized populations. As one illustration of this argument and its complexities, we asked if and to what degree mental health was concurrently associated with adolescents' beliefs in societal fairness (i.e., system-justifying beliefs), attending to gender differences. Our findings were informed by a sample of 196 adolescents residing in detention facilities (49.50% girls; 51.75% Black/Caribbean, 21.68% multiracial; 15.38% Hispanic/Latine; 27.98% LGBTQ+). These youth represent an understudied group in the research literature addressing fairness beliefs and their influence on wellness. Results suggested that boys were more likely to endorse societal fairness compared to girls, but these beliefs were unrelated to their mental health. However, we found a significant gender moderation such that girls who perceived society to be fair reported lower levels of internalizing and externalizing mental health problems. We discuss implications for theory, research, and intervention.

When women support the status quo: Gender moderates the relationship between openness to experience and system-justifying beliefs

Although epistemic needs motivate the endorsement of system-justifying beliefs, few studies have investigated moderators of this association. Here, we argue that because being the target of discrimination should undermine one’s sense of control, the association between epistemic needs and system-justifying beliefs should be stronger for disadvantaged (vs. advantaged) groups. As hypothesized, analyses of a nation-wide random sample of adults ( N = 14,929) revealed that the negative relationship between openness to experience (i.e., an indicator of low epistemic needs) and multiple system-justifying beliefs (i.e., gender-based system justification, right-wing political preference, and conservative party support) was stronger for women (vs. men), and that these moderated associations were mediated by perceptions of gender discrimination. Our results suggest that women may sometimes endorse beliefs that conflict with their self and group interests in order to satisfy their epistemic needs.

The role of group versus hierarchy motivations in dominant groups’ perceived discrimination

Against the backdrop of significant social and political change in the US, dominant groups’ perceptions of discrimination against their group have increased. Previous research shows that group threat and legitimizing beliefs augment these perceptions. However, the concurrent role of individuals’ attitudes towards hierarchy in perceived discrimination has not been examined. In the present research, we investigate whether social dominance orientation (SDO) and group threat (status and moral image threat) interact to predict perceived discrimination among two dominant groups, White Americans and men. Furthermore, we test whether their perceived discrimination predicts less support for policies benefitting minorities and immigrants, and women, respectively. Across two correlational studies (Studies 1 and 2) and one experiment (Study 3), we found little support for the proposed interaction between SDO and group threat; instead, they were independent predictors of the outcomes. By testing SDO and perceived group threats simultaneously, these studies contribute to the literature by showing that group-based and hierarchy-based concerns play distinct roles in perceived discrimination among dominant groups.

The “Equal-Opportunity Jerk” Defense: Rudeness Can Obfuscate Gender Bias

To address sexism, people must first recognize it. In this research, we identified a barrier that makes sexism hard to recognize: rudeness toward men. We found that observers judge a sexist perpetrator as less sexist if he is rude toward men. This occurs because rudeness toward men creates the illusion of gender blindness. We documented this phenomenon in five preregistered studies consisting of online adult participants and adult students from professional schools (total N = 4,663). These attributions are problematic because sexism and rudeness are not mutually exclusive. Men who hold sexist beliefs about women can be—and often are—rude toward other men. These attributions also discourage observers from holding perpetrators accountable for gender bias. Thus, rudeness toward men gives sexist perpetrators plausible deniability. It protects them and prevents the first perceptual step necessary to address sexism.

Using sport media exposure to promote gender equality: Counter-stereotypical gender perceptions and the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup

By relying on literature on counter-stereotypes and media contact, we investigated whether media exposure is associated with counter-stereotypical gender perceptions. Focusing on the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup, we recruited samples ( N = 2,228) from eight competing countries (China, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Spain, England, US) across three continents. We hypothesized that exposure to media coverage of the competition’s counter-stereotypical female exemplars would be associated with increased counter-stereotypical perceptions of women. Results revealed that media exposure was associated with greater communion and agency attributed to women. In turn, communion and agency were associated (negatively and positively, respectively) with attribution of stereotypically male abilities (abilities to engage in stereotypically male academic disciplines and jobs) to women compared to men. No effects emerged for perceptions of stereotypically female characteristics. Gender moderated these effects, with associations being stronger among male than among female respondents. Theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed.

Standpoints and Situatedness: Examining the Perception of Benevolent Sexism in Black and White Undergraduate Women and Men

Racial differences in benevolent sexism have been underexplored. To address this gap, we used standpoint theory as a framework to examine race-gender group differences in the endorsement of benevolent sexism and how cultural factors (i.e., egalitarianism, religiosity, and racial identity) and inequality factors (i.e., experiences with racial discrimination and support for social hierarchies) might mediate this relationship. Among 510 Black and white undergraduate women and men, we found racial differences, such that Black women and men had higher endorsement of benevolent sexism than white women and men. Further, there was a gender difference for only white participants, with white men endorsing these attitudes more than white women. For Black women, religiosity and racial identity mediated the relationship between their race-gender group and greater benevolent sexism compared to white women, but only religiosity mediated the relationship for Black men. Neither inequality mediator accounted for benevolent sexism differences; however, both were associated with white women’s lower benevolent sexism, as was egalitarianism. Given these findings, we discuss implications for benevolent sexism theory, the possibility that cultural factors may shape Black women and men’s standpoint by establishing group-based norms and expectations around benevolently sexist behavior, and suggest culturally appropriate methods to reduce sexism.

How Do Russians Perceive and Justify the Status Quo: Insights From Adapting the System Justification Scales

This paper aims to adapt the system justification scales (general, political, economic, and gender) for the Russian socio-cultural context and to carry out their psychometric analysis. In Study 1 (N = 450), the original items from four system justification scales on a Russian sample were tested. The results suggested that none of the original scales worked properly in Russia and all of them demonstrated weak fit indices. In Study 2 (N = 553), culturally specific grounds for system justification in the Russian context were highlighted and tested. The results of this study confirmed that all the adapted scales demonstrated a good fit to the data. In Study 3 (N = 1,011), the invariance of system justification scales and the convergent and discriminant validity of the scales was tested. The results confirmed that the general, political, and economic system justification scales demonstrated full invariance, while the gender system justification scale showed partial invariance for multigroup comparison. All the scales convergent and discriminant validity, which leads to consider them as an effective tool for measuring system justification in various types of social relationships in Russia. The role of socio-cultural characteristics in justifying the status quo is discussed.

Obstacles to Birth Surname Retention Upon Marriage: How Do Hostile Sexism and System Justification Predict Support for Marital Surname Change Among Women?

Despite the ongoing shift in societal norms and gender-discriminatory practices toward more equality, many heterosexual women worldwide, including in many Western societies, choose to replace their birth surname with the family name of their spouse upon marriage. Previous research has demonstrated that the adherence to sexist ideologies (i.e., a system of discriminatory gender-based beliefs) among women is associated with their greater endorsement of practices and policies that maintain gender inequality. By integrating the ideas from the system justification theory and the ambivalent sexism theory, we proposed that the more women adhere to hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs, the more likely they would be to justify existing gender relations in society, which in turn, would positively predict their support for traditional, husband-centered marital surname change. We further argued that hostile (as compared to benevolent) sexism could act as a particularly strong direct predictor of the support for marital surname change among women. We tested these possibilities across three cross-sectional studies conducted among women in Turkey (Study 1, N=118, self-identified feminist women; Study 2, N=131, female students) and the United States (Study 3, N=140, female students). Results of Studies 1 and 3 revealed that higher adherence to hostile (but not benevolent) sexism was associated with higher support for marital surname change indirectly through higher gender-based system justification. In Study 2, the hypothesized full mediation was not observed. Consistent with our predictions, in all three studies, hostile (but not benevolent) sexism was found to be a direct positive predictor of the support for marital surname change among women. We discuss the role of dominant ideologies surrounding marriage and inegalitarian naming conventions in different cultures as obstacles to women’s birth surname retention upon marriage.