Gender, ideology, and mass media: The different predictors of Ambivalent Sexism

Journal title PSICOLOGIA DI COMUNITA’
Author/s Chiara Rollero, Stefano Tartaglia
Publishing Year 2013 Issue 2012/2
Language Italian Pages 10 P. 119-128 File size 433 KB
DOI 10.3280/PSC2012-002011
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Ambivalent Sexism Theory, proposed by Glick & Fiske (1996; 2011), posits that sexist attitudes encompass considerable ambivalence on the part of each sex toward the other. Such theory argues four dimensions of sexism: benevolent (BS) and hostile (HS) toward women, as well as benevolent (BM) and hostile (HM) toward men. Present study addresses the question of which factors mainly affect each of these dimensions. Male and female participants (N = 253) were given a questionnaire aimed at comparing the effects of different variables through four regression models. Respondents’ gender and ideological characteristics predicted HS, BM, and HM; watching television influences benevolent attitudes (both BS and BM), whereas the use of Internet increases HS.

Keywords: Ambivalent Sexism Theory, gender stereotypes, Social Dominance Orientation, Mass Media, Multiple Regression Models.

  1. Glick P., Lameiras M., Rodríguez Castro Y. (2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47: 433-441
  2. Holzner S. (2009). Facebook marketing: Leverage social media to grow your business. Albany, NY: SUNY press.
  3. Jost J.T., Kay A.C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse form of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88: 498-509
  4. Kian E.M., Clavio G., Vincent J., Shaw S.D. (2011). Homophobic and sexist yet uncontested: Examining football fan postings on Internet message boards. Journal of Homosexuality, 58 (5): 680-699
  5. Managanelli Rattazzi A.M., Volpato C., Canova L. (2008). L’atteggiamento ambivalente verso donne e uomini. Un contributo alla validazione delle scale ASI e AMI. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 35: 261-287
  6. Mazzara B. (2008). I discorsi dei media e la psicologia sociale. Roma: Carocci
  7. Moya M., Glick P., Expósito F., de Lemus S., Hart J. (2007). It’s for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women’s reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33: 1421-1434
  8. Nowatski J., Morry M.M. (2009). Women’s intentions regarding, and acceptance of, self-sexualizing behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33: 95-107
  9. Plakoyiannaki E., Mathioudaki K., Dimitratos P., Zotos Y. (2008). Images of Women in Online Advertisements of Global Products: Does Sexism Exist?. Journal of Business Ethics, 83: 101-112
  10. Riva G. (2004). Psicologia dei nuovi media. Bologna: Il Mulino
  11. Rollero C., Fedi A. (2012). Ambivalent attitudes toward women and men: Recognizability of stereotypes and effects on self-perception. Psicología Politica, 44: 69-86
  12. Sakalli N. (2002). Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44: 599-610
  13. Sidanius J., Pratto F. (1999), Social Dominance. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
  14. Viki G.T., Abrams D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47: 289-293.
  15. Wiles J.A., Wiles C.R., Tjernlund A. (1995). A Comparison of Gender Role Portrayals in Magazine Advertising: The Netherlands, Sweden and the USA. European Journal of Marketing, 29 (11): 35-49.
  16. Bargh J.A., McKenna K.Y.A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 573-590
  17. 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.
  18. Christopher A.N., Mull M.S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30: 223-230
  19. De Piccoli N., Rollero C. (2010). Differenze e diseguaglianze di genere tra Nord e Sud d’Italia. Attualità di uno stereotipo. Psicologia di Comunità, VI: 65-74.
  20. Di Stefano G., Roccato M. (2005). Una banca di item per misurare l’orientamento alla dominanza sociale in Italia. TPM, 12: 5-20.
  21. Gelli B. (2009). Psicologia della differenza di genere. Milano: Franco Angeli
  22. Glick P., Fiske S.T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70, 491-512
  23. Glick P., Fiske S.T. (1999). The Ambivalence toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23 (3): 519-536.
  24. Glick P., Fiske S.T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56: 109-118
  25. Glick P., Fiske S.T. (2011). Ambivalent Sexism Revisited. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35: 530-535.
  26. Glick P., Fiske S.T., Mladinic A., Saiz J.L., 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: 763-775
  27. 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: 713-728.

Chiara Rollero, Stefano Tartaglia, Genere, ideologia e mass media: i differenti predittori del sessismo ambivalente in "PSICOLOGIA DI COMUNITA’" 2/2012, pp 119-128, DOI: 10.3280/PSC2012-002011