Content uploaded by Pascal Gygax
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pascal Gygax on Nov 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
1!
Women’s endorsement of sexist beliefs directed towards the self and towards other
women in general
Regula Zimmermann and Pascal M. Gygax
University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Zimmermann, R., & Gygax, P. (in press). Women’s endorsement of sexist beliefs directed towards the
self and towards other women in general. In Faniko, L., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Sarrasin, O. & Mayor, E.
(eds). Men and women in social hierarchies. Peter Lang Publishers
Address for correspondence:
Pascal Gygax
Department of Psychology
University of Fribourg
Rue Faucigny 2
1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
E-mail: Pascal.Gygax@unifr.ch
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
2!
Abstract
Research on women’s endorsement of sexist beliefs has recently focused on the role
of both internalization and subtyping (Becker, 2010), claiming that women reject
hostile sexist statements more if they are directed towards the self than if they are
directed towards subtypes of women (e.g. career women). In our study, we
complement this idea of subtyping by showing, in a repeated measures design, that
women also reject hostile sexist statements more if they are directed towards the self
than if they are directed towards women in general. For benevolent sexism this
difference did not occur. These results are interpreted in terms of system and ego
justification (Jost & Banaji, 1994), which broadens previous claims on women’s
endorsement of sexist beliefs.
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
3!
Women’s endorsement of sexist beliefs directed towards the self and towards other
women in general
Even though some nations have progressed enormously with regard to gender equality
there is strong evidence that virtually no society has reached a state of true equality
between men and women (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2011). In
Switzerland, where the present research was conducted, women earn on average less
than men for equal work and hold lower professional positions (Swiss Federal
Statistical Office, 2008). More generally, labour is still statistically gender segregated,
reinforcing the wage gap between men and women (Strub, Gerfin, & Buetikofer,
2008). Beside these statistical indications of segregation, there is increasing empirical
evidence for multiple manifestations of sexism and sexist attitudes, in turn negatively
affecting women’s psychological well-being and identity development (e.g. Matteson
& Moradi, 2005; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001).
Though sexism is undeniably negatively affecting a substantial proportion of women
and virtually all women report that they have been targets of sexist discrimination
(Klonoff & Landrine, 1995; Matteson & Moradi, 2005 for US data), some women
have been shown to endorse sexist beliefs directed towards their own gender (e.g.
Glick et. al., 2000; Sarrasin, Gabriel, & Gygax, 2012, for Swiss-French and Swiss-
German samples). In light of the continuous struggle for the implementation of gender
equal policies (Hausmann et al., 2011), the endorsement of sexist beliefs by women
can be considered as problematic, as it undeniably contributes to the maintenance of
gender inequalities (e.g. Brandt, 2011).
Research on these issues, yet sparse, has focused either on the internalization (i.e.,
accepting social norms and values as one's own) of sexism to explain hostility of
women towards women (Cowan & Ullman, 2006), or on a combination of
internalization and subtyping (i.e., the tendency to divide a group into different
categories) to account for women's endorsement of sexist beliefs (Becker, 2010). In
the present paper, we suggest that the tendency that some socially shared norms are
interpreted as inevitable may complement these accounts for women's endorsement of
sexist beliefs.
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
4!
Ambivalent sexism
Any explanation for the hostility of women towards women, though, has to take into
account that sexism is an ambivalent prejudice (Glick & Fiske, 1996). The actual
concept of ambivalent sexism was developed by Glick and Fiske (1996), who defined
overt negative attitudes as hostile sexism (HS) yet argued that sexism could also
consist of subjectively positive attitudes towards women. Those positive attitudes
mainly refer to those that assume women to be “morally more sensible”, “men as
protectors of women” and/or “women as incomplete without men” and were defined
under the umbrella of benevolent sexism (BS). Whereas individuals seldom fail to
recognize hostile sexism as discriminatory, benevolent sexism, due to its subjectively
positive tone, is often not recognized as sexism (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005). Although
BS appears as subjectively positive, it nonetheless undermines women's participation
in collective action fighting gender inequalities or reduces their cognitive
performances (Becker & Wright, 2011; Dardenne, Dumont, & Bollier, 2007).
According to Glick and Fiske (1996), HS and BS have the same underlying
components, namely, paternalism, gender differentiation and heterosexuality. Based
on this concept, the authors developed the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI), a self-
report measure to assess sexist attitudes, the very measure used in this paper, focused
on women’s endorsement of sexist beliefs.
Internalization and Subtyping
As mentioned above, previous research analysing reasons for women's endorsement
of sexist beliefs focused on the role of internalization and subtyping (Becker, 2010;
Cowan & Ullman, 2006). Cowan and Ullman (2006), for example, explained
women’s hostility towards women in terms of internalization and social projection.
Internalization is a process which occurs when a person accepts social norms and
values as their own (Kelman, 1958). They might then project these norms and values
onto others, assuming that they are similar to them. Such a so-called social projection
most often allows a person to quickly and effortlessly evaluate others’ behaviour
(Krueger, 2007). Combined with a tendency to stereotype, an internalized negative
self-view (i.e., low self-esteem, pessimism and low perceived control) may result in
some women’s hostility towards women (Cowan & Ullman, 2006). Note that in their
study, Cowan and Ullman (2006), measuring hostility with the hostile Sexism Scale
from Glick and Fiske (1996), found a higher level of sexism in their participants than
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
5!
in other studies (e.g. Glick et al., 2000).
In two different studies, Becker (2010), using the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI)
(Glick & Fiske, 1996), tried to explain women’s agreement with sexist statements not
only in terms of internalization, but also in terms of subtyping. Following previous
literature, Becker (2010) was most interested in three types of prevalent subtypes of
women: traditional women (e.g. housewives), non-traditional women (e.g. career
women), and a sexual subtype (e.g. temptresses; Becker, 2010; Glick, Diebold,
Bailey-Werner, & Zhu, 1997). Glick et al. (1997) found that men’s hostile sexism
predicted a negative evaluation of non-traditional subtypes, yet benevolent sexism
was positively correlated to the evaluation of traditional subtypes. Female participants
showed a similar, but somehow attenuated pattern for hostile sexism.
Taking these results into account, Becker (2010), in her first study, examined the
influence of subtyping as well as internalization on women’s agreement with sexist
statements. Female participants filled in both the hostile and benevolent sexism scales,
and after completing each item of the scales, they were asked if they had thought of a
specific subtype when answering, and if they did, which subtype. Participants were
given several possibilities to choose from: “women in general”, “career women”,
“feminists”, “housewives”, “temptresses”, or were asked to write down other subtypes.
Participants were also asked, for each item, whether they considered the statement as
an accurate description of themselves (i.e., internalization). The results revealed that
women thought mostly of “women in general” when answering (in 66.5% when
answering the HS scale, in 84% when answering the BS scale). However, when they
thought of “feminists” or “career women”, hostile sexist beliefs were more likely to
be endorsed, and when they had “housewives” in mind benevolent sexist beliefs were
more likely to be endorsed. Internalization also had an influence on the way
participants responded. The more they considered sexist statements as an accurate
description of themselves, the more likely they were to endorse them. Although this
was true for hostile as well as for benevolent sexism, benevolent sexist statements
were generally more internalized.
In the second study, Becker (2010) focused more closely on the issue of subtyping.
She modified the German version of the ASI (Eckes & Six-Materna, 1999) to create
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
6!
three versions focused specifically on one of three subtypes (“feminists”, “career
women”, “housewives”) and one focused on the self (i.e., presenting all statements
with the pronoun “I”). Each participant completed only one of the four possible
versions. The results revealed that hostile sexism scores were significantly higher
when the statements were directed towards “feminists” or “career women” than
towards “housewives”, and were in turn numerically higher than when they were
directed towards the self. However, benevolent sexism scores were higher when
directed towards the self than when directed towards “career women”, “feminists” or
“housewives”. Becker (2010) concluded that when women endorsed hostile sexist
beliefs, the beliefs were not really directed towards their gender ingroup but rather
towards women who may not match their traditional role conception (i.e., “norm-
deviant women”).
Becker (2010) explained the observed subtyping as grounded in what Jost and Banaji
(1994) or Jost and Kay (2005) defined as system justification. System justification is
defined as the “process by which existing social arrangements are legitimized, even at
the expense of personal and group interest” (Jost & Banaji, 1994, p. 2) and is based on
empirical evidence showing that members of low status groups sometimes support an
existing societal status quo, even to their own disadvantage. For example, financially
disadvantaged people may at times contest financial redistribution from which they
would benefit (Kluegel & Smith, 1986).
Consequently, Becker (2010) argued that her participants stereotyped sub-groups of
women and directed their sexist attitudes towards the norm-deviant subtypes (e.g.
career women), therefore maintaining gender stereotypes, consequently power
differences between women and men, as imposed by the system. Although this is a
fair interpretation, we argue that system justification goes further than subtyping: it
predicts that members of disadvantaged groups see the world through the dominant
cultural lens and therefore ascribe to others’ traits that are consonant with their social
position (Jost & Banaji, 1994). This means that under a system justifying perspective,
women would adopt the dominant ideology in order to have a positive image not only
of themselves (ego justification) and their ingroup (ingroup justification), but also of
the social system in which they live (Jost & Hunyady, 2003).
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
7!
Current Study
Based on this hypothesis we tested whether women not only agree with sexism when
it is internalized or when it is directed towards norm-deviant subtypes, but also when
it is directed towards women in general. As Becker (2010) only compared sexism
directed towards the self and sexism directed towards female subtypes, one cannot
draw definitive conclusions as to whether the same effect would occur when
comparing sexism (1) directed towards the self to (2) that directed towards women in
general. In essence, one could argue that the condition “women” was lacking for
Becker (2010).
In this paper, we put this idea to the test. We used Becker’s (2010) version of the ASI
with the personal pronoun condition (“I”) measuring the internalization of the
statement and compared it to the standard “women” condition (German version of the
ASI, Eckes & Six-Materna, 1999). To ensure the most direct comparison and to avoid
any cohort effects, we also decided to run the experiment with version as a repeated
measure, with each participant completing both questionnaires (completions separated
by at least 7 days, as explained in the Procedure section below).
Method
Participants
Twenty-five female psychology students from the University of Fribourg
(Switzerland) took part in this study and received course credits in return. One
participant had to be excluded, as she did not complete the questionnaire. Sixteen
participants were native Swiss German speakers, eight stated that their first language
was standard German, twenty-two participants self-identified as heterosexual, two as
bisexual. Their age ranged from 19 to 24 years (M = 21.2, SD = 1.5).
Measure
Becker’s (2010) slightly adapted version of the German translation of the
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Eckes & Six-Materna, 1999) was used. The scale
consisted of eleven hostile sexism (HS) and eleven benevolent sexism (BS) items.
Each scale was used in a general and in a self condition (e.g. for HS: “Women/I
interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist”, for BS: “Women/I should be
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
8!
cherished and protected by men”). Participants could answer on a six point rating
scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly).
For a complete list of HS statements, see Table 1; for BS items and the German
translations of the two scales, see Becker (2010). As we tested a sample of students,
who possibly do not have (permanent) jobs, the HS item “Women/I exaggerate
problems at work” was changed to “Women/I exaggerate problems at university”.
The reliability for the 22 HS items (11 from the personal and 11 from the general
condition) was α = .63. The reliability for all BS items was α = .88. The HS and the
BS items were presented in a mixed order.
Procedure
All participants were tested individually in two sessions. They were randomly
assigned either to a questionnaire with the general or with the self condition items
(half of the participants received the self condition first). After a waiting period of
between 7 to 22 days, the same participants received the other questionnaire in a
second session. The interruption was chosen to ensure that the answers from the first
questionnaire would not influence those of the second questionnaire. To test for an
effect arising from the order of questions, two versions of the questionnaire with
diametrically opposed question layouts were created.
To control for potential order effects, we ran an initial 2 (order of the questions) x 2
(order of the condition) mixed ANOVA on HS and BS scores, with the order of
questions as a between-participant factor and order of conditions as a within-
participant factor. As there were no significant effects, all subsequent analyses are
presented without order as a factor.
Results
Mean scores on the benevolent sexism scale revealed no significant difference
between the self (M = 2.80, SD = 0.91) and the general conditions (M = 3.00, SD =
0.92), t (23) = –1.60, p = .12. Although Becker’s (2010) sample was different (i.e., “a
convenience sample of German women”), we replicated her findings of the self-
version of the BS questionnaire. It is interesting to see our results agreeing with
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
9!
Becker’s (2010), showing that when it comes to benevolent sexism, women
participants tend to treat “I”, “women” and “housewives” similarly.
As found by Becker (2010), the picture was quite different when looking at hostile
sexism. Mean scores on the hostile sexism scale revealed that participants were more
likely to reject hostile sexist statements when they were directed at the self (M = 2.11,
SD = 0.55) than when they were directed towards women in general (M = 3.00, SD =
0.53), t (23) = –6.82, p < .001, η2 = .33. This difference, although based on a
different sample, resembles that of Becker’s difference between sexism directed
towards norm-deviant subtypes and that directed towards the self. Together, these
results show a stronger adherence to sexist beliefs when directed towards norm-
deviant subtypes (at least towards the ones tested by Becker, 2010) and women in
general than when directed towards the self.
((insert Table 1))
To further examine the differences between the self and the general conditions of the
hostile sexism scale, separate analyses of each statement were conducted.1 The
analysis of the HS scale revealed that all items of the questionnaire were rejected
more significantly if directed at the self than towards women in general (see Table 1).
The highest score in the general condition was for the statement “Women are too
easily offended”, with a mean of 4.04 (SD = 0.95), the only item higher than the
centre of the scale.
The item with the largest difference between the two conditions was “When women/I
lose to men in a fair competition, they/I typically complain about being discriminated
against.” This statement, explicating competition between men and women, and part
of the “Competitive Gender Differentiation” factor (Glick & Fiske, 1996), was the
most rejected in the self condition (M = 1.38, SD = 0.65). This shows that women
may not only deny being discriminated against (Crosby, 1984), but may also reject the
idea of complaining about being discriminated against.
Discussion
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
10!
The core issue here remains, as unfolded early in this paper, as to the reason why
some women seem to hold sexist beliefs against women. If our data seem to suggest
that this issue is highly relevant as far as hostile sexism is concerned (and we will
come back to this), it does not seem to be the case for benevolent sexism. Benevolent
sexism, being formulated as subjectively positive and in part promising women
certain benefits, is sometimes not considered to be sexism (Barreto & Ellemers,
2005), which explains why it is more internalized than hostile sexism. Participants
may have considered the self and the women conditions as equivalent.
As internalization is weaker for hostile sexism, Becker (2010) suggested that
subtyping was the process to explain women’s agreement with hostile sexist
statements. It seems to us that this idea relies on the premise that when answering the
hostile sexism questionnaire with the pronoun “I”, participants might have answered
as “I = Women in general (without the deviant ones)”. Our results, based on a female
student sample, seem somehow difficult to reconcile with this idea.2 As ambivalent
sexism has been shown to be an ideology legitimizing the status quo (e.g. Glick &
Fiske, 2001), we suggest that higher scores on the hostile sexism scale combined with
the benevolent sexism scale patterns, illustrate system justification. We even argue
that they exemplify the notion that some socially shared norms (e.g. “Once a woman
gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash.”) are
interpreted as inevitable (or even fair).
When looking at the results of the self condition, we would like to suggest that they
illustrate the fact that people, here women, need to maintain an advantageous self-
image (i.e., ego justification), as being a target of discrimination is socially
undesirable (Jost & Banaji, 1994). This reasoning is in line with research showing that
stereotype threat can cause low status groups to disengage from a system (Steele,
1997), consequently supporting positive self-esteem (e.g. Crocker & Major, 1989).
In essence, our data support the idea that for members of disadvantaged groups (here
women), justification motives can typically conflict (Jost & Banaji, 1994). We
suggest that our results for the hostile sexism scale illustrate a conflict between ego-
justification (the lower scores on the personal scale) and system justification (the
higher scores on the women in general scale). Importantly, and despite the fact that
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
11!
we did not directly test system justification motives (e.g. outgroup favoritism), system
justification theory predicts that members of disadvantaged groups would not engage
in social change if their system justification motives were stronger than their ego and
group justification motives (Jost & Hunyady, 2005). Policies intended to promote
social change should therefore take into account that men and women contribute to
the maintenance of women's subjugation.
More globally, results of this study, along with those of Becker (2010), demonstrate
that women (both from a convenience and a student samples) responding to sexism
scales can be influenced by the phrasing of the items (e.g. Women are…, I am…,
Career women are…), suggesting different underlying responding processes (e.g.
subtyping, internalization, system justification). This should motivate future research
in this domain to understand not only the processes at stake when women respond to
sexism scales, but also their triggering factors. A shortcoming of the present study is
that we had no true access to the reasoning processes of our participants as well as
their triggering factors. This is probably true of most of the studies investigating
possible effects of and on sexism. As such, and in light of the results of the present
study, some findings in the literature might have to be considered with caution, as the
way participants consider sexism scales, and maybe even individual items of the
sexism scales, is never fully clear-cut.
Finally, this study, as well as those conducted by Julia Becker, should impel
researchers to more closely examine the effects of women endorsing sexist beliefs on
men’s endorsement of these beliefs. Previous research suggests that women’s
endorsement of sexist beliefs directs men towards thinking that, in fact, as women
also hold sexist beliefs, they might not actually be so problematic (e.g. DeKeseredy,
1999).
Practical Implementations
On a more practical side, the processes that were discussed in this paper may
be alarming in terms of societal progress, inasmuch as the implementation of
interventions to balance power differences between women and men may be disrupted
by members considering these differences as legit. Of course, when belonging to the
high power group, such a consideration is not really astonishing, but when belonging
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
12!
to the low power one, it may seem somehow surprising. Even more surprising may be
that, irrelevant of the exact nature of the mental processes at stake, these processes
illustrate the extent to which some people go to legitimize the system in place.
Ironically, interventions to promote changes in stereotypes may actually reinforce
them, as those trying to oppose to gender stereotypes may simply be considered as
part of norm-deviant subtypes (Becker, 2010). Crucially, the success of an
intervention may well depend on its perceived norm deviance. Put simply, a proposal
for social change that is not perceived as norm deviant is more likely to be accepted
(Gaucher & Jost, 2011). For example, some experiments have shown that women's
interest in political participation increased when participants perceived women as
more highly represented in politics (e.g. Friesen, Gaucher, & Kay as cited in Gaucher
& Jost, 2011).
Alternatively, constructive interventions may be possible at young ages, to prevent
gender stereotypes (or even biased system structures) to creep into young children’s
representations of the world, allowing both girls and boys to construct representations
independent of gender. Although such a claim goes beyond the scope of this paper,
interventions aiming at children’s construct of gender stereotypes may have to be
implemented very early, as previous research has shown that toddlers of 24 months
are already sensitive to gender stereotypes (Zosuls et al., 2009).
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
13!
References
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it
contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 35, 633-642. doi:10.1002/ejsp.270
Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The
role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist contents. Sex
Roles, 62, 453-467. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9707-4
Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent
sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62-77.
doi:10.1037/a0022615
Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological
Science, 22, 1413-1418. doi:10.1177/0956797611420445
Cowan, G., & Ullman, J. B. (2006). Ingroup rejection among women: The role of
personal inadequacy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 399-409.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00315.x
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychological review, 96, 608-630. doi: 10.1037/0033-
295x.96.4.608
Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral
Scientist, 27, 371-386.
DeKeseredy, W. S. (1999). Tactics of the antifeminist backlash against Canadian
national woman abuse surveys. Violence Against Women, 5, 1258-1276.
doi:10.1177/10778019922183363
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent
sexism: Consequences for women's performance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93, 764-779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764
Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1999). Hostilität und Benevolenz: Eine Skala zur
Erfassung des ambivalenten Sexismus. [Hostility and benevolence: A scale
measuring ambivalent sexism]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 30, 211-228.
doi:10.1024//0044-3514.30.4.211
Gaucher, D., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Difficulties awakening the sense of injustice and
overcoming oppression: On the soporific effects of system justification. In P.
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
14!
T. Coleman (Ed.), Conflict, interdependence, and justice (pp. 227-246). New
York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9994-8_10
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam:
Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323-1334. doi:10.1177/01461672972312009
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating
hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, 491-512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies. In
J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging
perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 278-306).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., . . . López
López, W. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and
benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 763-775. doi:10.1037/10022-3514.79.5.763
Good, J., & Rudman, L. (2010). When female applicants meet sexist interviewers:
The costs of being a target of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62, 481-493.
doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9685-6
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., Bekhouche, Y., & Zahidi, S. (2011). The Global Gender
Gap Index 2011. Cologny/Geneva: World Economic Forum Retrieved from
http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-gender-gap.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification
and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 33, 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2003). The psychology of system justification and the
palliative function of ideology. European review of social psychology, 13,
111-153. doi:10.1080/10463280240000046
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying
ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265.
doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary
gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
15!
justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498-509.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three
processes of attitude change. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1995). The Schedule of Sexist Events. A measure of
lifetime and recent sexist discrimination in women’s lives. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 19, 439-470. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1995.tb00086.x
Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans' views of
what is and what ought to be. Piscataway: AldineTransaction.
Krueger, J. I. (2007). From social projection to social behaviour. European Review of
Social Psychology, 18, 1-35. doi:10.1080/10463280701284645
Matteson, A. V., & Moradi, B. (2005). Examining the structure of the Schedule of
Sexist Events: Replication and extension. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
29, 47-57. doi:10.1111/j.0361-6843.2005.00167.x
Sarrasin, O., Gabriel, U., & Gygax, P. (2012). Sexism and attitudes toward gender-
neutral language: The case of English, French and German. Swiss Journal of
Psychology, 71, 113-124. doi:10.1024/1421-0185/a000078
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity
and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.52.6.613
Strub, S., Gerfin, M., & Buetikofer, A. (2008). Vergleichende Analyse der Löhne von
Frauen und Männern anhand der Lohnstrukturerhebungen 1998 bis 2006.
Untersuchung im Rahmen der Evaluation der Wirksamkeit des
Gleichstellungsgesetzes. [Comparative analysis of women's and men's wages
based on the Swiss wage structure survey from 1998 to 2006. Study within the
evaluation of the gender equality act] Bern: Büro BASS/Universität Bern.
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism:
Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily
diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31-53. doi:10.1111/0022-
4537.00200
Swiss Federal Statistical Office. (2008). On the way to gender equality. Current
situation and developments. Neuchâtel: Swiss Federal Statistical Office,
Retrieved from
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
16!
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/20/22/press.Document.12
1343.pdf.
Zosuls, K. M., Ruble, D. N., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shrout, P. E., Bornstein, M. H.,
& Greulich, F. K. (2009). The acquisition of gender labels in infancy:
Implications for sex-typed play. Developmental Psychology, 45, 688-701.
doi:10.1037/a0014053
WOMEN’S ENDORSEMENT OF SEXIST BELIEFS
!
!
17!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1!Since BS items showed no difference, they were not analysed separately.
2!Note that although the scores on the hostile Sexism Scale were higher when women
was included in the items than when I was (by .89 on a six-point scale), they were still
under the mid-point (3.5) (yet similar to an equivalent male population in Sarrasin et
al., 2012)!