The present research investigated the relationship between system justification beliefs and the endorsement of ambivalent sexist attitudes toward men. In Study 1 (web-based questionnaire, N = 220) we explored the relationship between system justification (SJ), and hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men (HM and BM). Results showed that SJ was positively related to BM but not to HM. In Study 2 (paper-and-pencil questionnaire, N = 158), we tested the mediating role played by BM and HM in the relationship between SJ and the preference for male candidates. We replicated Study 1 results and showed that BM, but not HM, was positively related to the dependent variable; moreover SJ exerted an indirect and positive effect on the preference for male candidates as mediated by BM. Finally, supplementary analyses showed that the relationship between SJ and BM was positive and significant for women only. Results are discussed in light of system justification theory and of BM as an additional form of legitimization and maintenance of the status quo.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). Moderator–mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.51.6.1173
2.
BrewerM. B.BrownR. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554–594). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
3.
ChristopherA. N.MullM. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223–230. doi:10.1111/j.1471–6402.2006.00284.x
4.
ChristopherA. N.WojdaM. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 65–73. doi:10.1111/j.1471–6402.2007.00407.x
GlickP.FiskeS. 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
7.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1999). The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536. doi:10.1111/j.1471–6402.1999.tb00379.x
8.
GlickP.LameirasM.FiskeS. T.EckesT.MasserB.VolpatoC.GlickP. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.86.5.713
9.
GlickP.WhiteheadJ. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41, 177–185. doi:10.1027/1864–9335/a000025
10.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
11.
JostJ. T. (2011). System justification theory as compliment, complement, and corrective to theories of social identification and social dominance. In DunningD. (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 223–263). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
12.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. 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
13.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9221.2004.00402.x
14.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
15.
JostJ. T.KayA. 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. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.88.3.498
16.
JostJ. T.KivetzY.RubiniM.GuermandiG.MossoC. (2005). System-justifying functions of complementary regional and ethnic stereotypes: Cross-national evidence. Social Justice Research, 18, 305–333. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-6827-z
17.
JostJ. T.LiviatanI.van der ToornJ.LedgerwoodA.MandisodzaA.NosekB. (2010). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In BobocelD. R.KayA. C.ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173−203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.SheldonO.SullivanB. N. (2003). 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. doi:10.1002/ejsp.127
19.
KayA. C.JostJ. 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. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.85.5.823
20.
ManganelliA. M.VolpatoC.CanovaL. (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. doi:10.1421/26601
21.
MossoC.BrianteG.AielloA.RussoS. (2013). The role of legitimizing ideologies as predictors of ambivalent sexism in young people: Evidence from Italy and the USA. Social Justice Research, 26, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11211–012–0172–9
22.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 161–176. doi:10.1111/1540–4560.00254
23.
PlutzerE.ZippJ. F. (1996). Identity politics, partisanship, and voting for women candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 30–57. doi:10.1086/297738
24.
RoetsA.van HielA.DhontK. (2012). Is sexism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition perspective on men’s and women’s sexist attitudes toward own and other gender. European Journal of Personality, 26, 350–359. doi:10.1002/per.843
25.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359–371. doi:10.1111/j.1751–9004.2011.00355.x
SibleyC. G.WilsonM. S.DuckittJ. (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. doi:10.1177/0146167206294745
28.
Silván-FerreroM.LopezA. (2007). Benevolent sexism toward men and women: Justification of the traditional system and conventional gender roles in Spain. Sex Roles, 57, 607–614. doi:10.1007/s11199–007–9271–8
29.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. doi:10.1086/651257
