The Role of Legitimizing Ideologies as Predictors of Ambivalent Sexism in Young People: Evidence from Italy and the USA

Social Justice Research

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 1-17

  Mosso, Cristina ^a   Briante, Giovanni ^a   Aiello, Antonio ^b   Russo, Silvia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURIN   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAGLIARI   (Italy)

Author keywords

Ambivalent sexism; Conservative ideology; Social dominance orientation; System justification

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874645737     PISSN: 08857466     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11211-012-0172-9     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Aiello, A., Chirumbolo, A., Leone L., & Pratto, F. (2005). Uno studio di Adattamento e Validazione della Scala di Orientamento alla Dominanza Sociale [A study for an Italian Adaptation and Validation of the Social Dominance Scale]. Rassegna di Psicologia, 2(2), 65-75.
2. Allport, G. W., & Ross, R. J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
3. Becker, J. C., & Wagner, U. (2009). Doing gender differently-The interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women's endorsement of sexist beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 487-508.
4. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223-230.
5. Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model in the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414-446.
6. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512.
7. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.
8. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763-775.
9. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, C. (2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47, 433-441.
10. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent Attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713-728.
11. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
12. Jost, J. T. (2011). System justification theory as compliment, complement, and corrective to theories of social identification and social dominance. In D. Dunning (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 223-263). New York: Psychology Press.
13. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919.
14. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003a). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 129-339.
15. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111-153.
16. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265.
17. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498-509.
18. Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. N. (2003b). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13-36.
19. Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of "poor but happy" and "poor but honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823-837.
20. Lee, I., Pratto, F., & Li, M. (2007). Social relationships and sexism in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Cross-Cultural differences, 38, 595-612.
21. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.
22. Levin, S., Federico, C. M., Sidanius, J., & Rabinowitz, J. (2002). Social dominance orientation and intergroup bias: The legitimation of favoritism for high-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 144-157.
23. Manganelli, A. M., Volpato, C., & Canova, L. (2008). L'atteggiamento ambivalente verso uomini e donne. Un contributo alla validazione delle scale ASI e AMI [The ambivalent attitude toward men and women. A Validation Study of ASI and AMI scale]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 35, 261-287.
24. Moscovici, S. (1986). L'ère des représentations sociales. In W. Doise & A. Palmonari (Eds.), L'étude des représentations sociaels. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.
25. Ng, S. H. (1980). The social psychology of power. London: Academic Press.
26. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social-dominance orientation as an intergroup construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.
27. Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 242-268). New York: Guilford Publications.
28. Sibley, C. G., & Becker, J. C. (2012). On the nature of sexist ambivalence: Profiling ambivalent and univalent sexists. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 589-601.
29. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men's hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160-172.
30. Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Snellman, A., Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2009). The role of gender identification in social dominance orientation: Mediating or moderating the effect of sex? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 999-1012.
33. Taşdemir, N., & Sakalli{dotless}-Uǧurlu, N. (2010). The relationships between ambivalent sexism and religiosity among Turkish university students. Sex Roles, 62, 420-426.
34. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151-176.