Sex Roles

, Volume 66, Issue 7–8, pp 468–478 | Cite as

Intergenerational Transmission of Benevolent Sexism from Mothers to Daughters and its Relation to Daughters’ Academic Performance and Goals

  • Pilar Montañés
  • Soledad de Lemus
  • Gerd Bohner
  • Jesús L. Megías
  • Miguel Moya
  • Rocio Garcia-Retamero
Original Article

Abstract

A questionnaire study addressed the intergenerational transmission of benevolent sexist beliefs (BS) from mothers to adolescent daughters and influences of BS on daughters’ traditional goals, academic goals (i.e., getting an academic degree), and academic performance. In addition, the role of mothers’ educational level and job status as predictors of their BS was explored. One hundred sixty-four pairs of female adolescents and their mothers from Granada (Spain) completed questionnaires independently. Hypotheses were tested in a path model. Results suggest that mothers’ BS is negatively predicted by their education but not their job status. Mothers’ BS predicted daughters’ BS, which in turn negatively predicted daughters’goal to get an academic degree and positively predicted daughters’ traditional goals. Daughters’ academic performance was positively predicted by their goal to get an academic degree and negatively predicted by mothers’ BS. Results are discussed in terms of the socializing influence of mothers’ sexist ideology on their daughters and its implications for the maintenance of traditional roles that perpetuate gender inequalities.

Keywords

Benevolent sexism Goals Intergenerational transmission Academic performance Adolescence 

References

  1. Affleck, M., Morgan, C. S., & Hayes, M. P. (1989). The influence of gender-role attitudes on life expectations of college students. Youth & Society, 20, 307–319. doi:10.1177/0044118X89020003005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Álvarez, B., & Miles, D. (2006). Husbands’ housework time: Does wives paid employment make a difference? Investigaciones Económicas, 30, 5–31.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohner, G., Ahlborn, K., & Steiner, R. (2010). How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Sex Roles, 62, 568–582. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booth, A., & Amato, P. (1994). Parental gender role nontraditionalism and offspring outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 865–877. doi:10.2307/353599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676–713. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. D. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohinstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Corder, J., & Stephan, C. (1984). Females’ combination of work and family roles: Adolescent aspiration. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 391–402. doi:10.2307/352471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crouter, A., Manke, B., & McHale, S. (1995). The family context of gender intensification in early adolescence. Child Development, 66, 317–329. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00873.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Lemus, S., Castillo, M., Moya, M., Padilla, J. L., & Ryan, E. (2008). Elaboración y validación del inventario de sexismo ambivalente para adolescentes [Construction and validation of the ambivalent sexism inventory for adolescents]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 8, 537–562.Google Scholar
  13. De Lemus, S., Moya, M., & Glick, P. (2010). When contact correlates with prejudice: Adolescents’ romantic relationship experience predicts greater benevolent sexism in boys and hostile sexism in girls. Sex Roles, 63, 214–225. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9786-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dema-Moreno, S. (2009). Behind the negotiations: Financial decision-making processes in Spanish dual-income couples. Feminist Economics, 15, 27–56. doi:10.1080/13545700802620575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. O. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy effects, and parents’ socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 183–201. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb01929.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Efron, B. (1987). Better bootstrap confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 171–185. doi:10.2307/2289144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2009). Collective action in modern times: How modern expressions of prejudice prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 749–768. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eurostat. (2006). 8 March 2006: International women’s day. A statistical view of the life of women and men in the EU25. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/06/29&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=e
  20. Ex, C., & Janssens, J. (1998). Maternal influences on daughters’ gender role attitudes. Sex Roles, 38, 171–186. doi:10.1023/A:1018776931419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Expósito, F., Moya, M., & Glick, P. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlatos (Ambivalent sexism: Measurement and correlates). Revista de Psicología Social, 13, 159–169. doi:10.1174/021347498760350641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55, 51–61. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9068-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2009). Causal attributions about feminine and leadership roles: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 492–509. doi:10.1177/0022022108330991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.2.109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glick, P., & Hilt, L. (2000). Combative children to ambivalent adults: The development of gender prejudice. In T. Eckes & M. Trautner (Eds.), Developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 243–272). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., ... & López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Rodríguez-Castro, Y. (2002). Education and religiosity as predictors of ambivalently sexist attitudes. Sex Roles, 47, 433–441. doi:10.1023/A:1021696209949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., ... & Wells, R. (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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Goñi-Legaz, S., Ollo-López, A., & Bayo-Moriones, A. (2010). The division of household labor in Spanish dual earner couples: Testing three theories. Sex Roles, 63, 515–529. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9840-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenberg, E., & Goldberg, W. (1989). Work, parenting and the socialization of children. Developmental Psychology, 25, 23–35. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.1.22.Google Scholar
  32. Hoffman, L. W. (1989). Effects of maternal employment in the two-parent family. American Psychologist, 44, 283–292. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ibañez-Pascual, M. (2008). La segregación ocupacional por sexo a examen. Características personales, de los puestos y de las empresas asociadas a las ocupaciones masculinas y femeninas. [Sex segregation of occupations under examination. Individual, job and business characteristics associated with male and female occupations]. Revistas Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 123, 87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Instituto de la Mujer. (2009). Alumnado universitario matriculado según área de conocimiento [University students registered by subject areas]. Retrieved from http://www.migualdad.es/mujer/mujeres/cifras/tablas/W128.XLS
  36. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2009). Mujeres y Hombres en España 2009. [Women and Men in Spain 2009]. Retrieved from http://www.ine.es/prodyser/pubweb/myh/myh09.pdf
  37. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characterstics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 322–328. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-2-00071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jost, J. T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2005). Stereotypes in our culture. In J. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice (pp. 208–225). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Katz, P. A., & Ksansnak, K. R. (1994). Developmental aspects of gender role flexibility and traditionality in middle childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 272–282. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.30.2.272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kilianski, S., & Rudman, L. A. (1998). Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39, 333–352. doi:10.1023/A:1018814924402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kulik, L. (2002). The impact of social background on gender–role ideology: Parents’ versus children’s attitudes. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 53–73. doi:10.1177/0192513X02023001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kulik, L. (2004). Predicting gender role attitudes among mothers and adolescent daughters in Israel. Affilia, 19, 437–449. doi:10.1177/0886109904268930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Leaper, C. (2002). Parenting girls and boys. In Handbook of parenting: Children and parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 189–226). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Leaper, C., & Friedman, C. K. (2006). The socialization of gender. In J. Grusec & P. Hastings (Eds.), The handbook of socialization: Theory and research (pp. 561–587). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  49. Maccoby, E. E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing apart, coming together. Cambridge: Harvard.Google Scholar
  50. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the produce and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Tucker, C. J. (1999). Family context and gender role socialization in middle childhood: Comparing girls to boys and sisters to brothers. Child Development, 70, 990–1004. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00072.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Whiteman, S. (2003). The family contexts of gender development in childhood and adolescence. Social Development, 12, 126–148. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moen, P., Erickson, M. A., & Dempster-McClain, D. (1997). Their mothers’ daughters? The intergenerational transmission of gender attitudes in a world of changing roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 281–293. doi:10.2307/353470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Montañés, P., de Lemus, S., Megías, J. L., & Moya, M. (2011). How attractive are Spanish sexist men and women? Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  55. Moya, M. (2011). Ambivalent sexism indexes by gender and age in Spain. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  56. Moya, M., Expósito, F., & Ruiz, J. (2000). Close relationships, gender and career salience. Sex Roles, 42, 825–846. doi:10.1023/A:1007094232453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moya, M., Expósito, F., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Glick, P., & Páez, D. (2002). Sexismo ambivalente en España y Latinoamérica [Ambivalent sexism in Spain and Latin America]. SOCIOTAM, Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 12, 139–167.Google Scholar
  58. 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. doi:10.1177/0146167207304790.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 242–268). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  60. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rudman, L. A., & Heppen, J. B. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in personal power: A glass slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1357–1370. doi:10.1177/0146167203256906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sánchez, L., & Hall, C. S. (1999). Traditional values and democratic impulses: The gender division of labor in contemporary Spain. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30, 659–685.Google Scholar
  64. Sánchez-Herrero Arbide, S., Sánchez-López, M. P., & Dresch, V. (2009). Hombres y trabajo doméstico: Variables demográficas, salud y satisfacción [Men and house - work: Demographic variables, health and satisfaction]. Anales de Psicología, 25, 299–307.Google Scholar
  65. Serbin, L. A., Powlishta, K. K., & Gulko, J. (1993). The development of sex typing in middle childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58, 1–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Silván-Ferrero, M. P., & Bustillos López, A. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith, M., & Self, G. (1980). The congruence between mothers’ and daughters’ sex role attitudes: A research note. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 105–109. doi:10.2307/351938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Swim, J. K., Mallett, R., Russo-Devosa, Y., & Stangor, C. (2005). Judgments of sexism: A comparison of the subtlety of sexism measures and sources of variability in judgments of sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 406–411. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00240.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents’ gender schemas related to their children’s gender related cognitions? Developmental Psychology, 38, 615–630. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Walkerdine, V. (1984). Some day my prince will come: Young girls and the preparation for adolescent sexuality. In A. McRobbie & M. Nava (Eds.), Gender and generation (pp. 162–184). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pilar Montañés
    • 1
    • 4
  • Soledad de Lemus
    • 2
  • Gerd Bohner
    • 3
  • Jesús L. Megías
    • 2
  • Miguel Moya
    • 2
  • Rocio Garcia-Retamero
    • 2
  1. 1.University of La RiojaLogroñoSpain
  2. 2.University of GranadaGranadaSpain
  3. 3.University of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  4. 4.Departamento de Ciencias de la EducaciónLogroñoSpain

Personalised recommendations