Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 75, Issue 11–12, pp 543–554 | Cite as

Why Do Women Endorse Honor Beliefs? Ambivalent Sexism and Religiosity as Predictors

  • Peter Glick
  • Nuray Sakallı-Uğurlu
  • Gülçin Akbaş
  • İrem Metin Orta
  • Suzan Ceylan
Original Article

Abstract

Cultures of honor, such as Turkey, prioritize defending individual and family reputations, but in gender-specific ways (Nisbett and Cohen 1996). Men maintain honor via reputations for toughness, aggression, control over women, and avenging insults. Women maintain honor through obedience to men, sexual modesty, and religious piety. Honor beliefs support women’s subordination, justifying violence against them (Sev’er and Yurdakul, Violence against Women, 7, 964–998, 2001) and therefore should be challenged. Understanding honor beliefs’ ideological correlates may inform such efforts. We hypothesized that benevolent sexism, a subjectively favorable system-justifying ideology, would more strongly, positively predict Turkish women’s (versus men’s) honor beliefs; whereas hostile sexism, which is openly antagonistic toward women, would more strongly, positively predict Turkish men’s (versus women’s) honor beliefs. Additionally, due to justifications for gender inequality embedded in Islamic religious teachings, we expected Islamic religiosity to positively predict honor beliefs for both genders. A convenience sample of Turkish undergraduates (313 women and 122 men) in Ankara completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, Religious Orientation Scale, and Honor Endorsement Index. Regression analyses revealed that benevolent (but not hostile) sexism positively predicted women’s honor beliefs, whereas hostile (but not benevolent) sexism positively predicted men’s honor beliefs. Islamic religiosity positively predicted honor beliefs for both genders, but (unexpectedly) did so more strongly for men than women. We suggest that combating benevolent sexism and promoting feminist interpretations of Islamic religiosity may help to empower Turkish women to challenge honor beliefs.

Keywords

Culture of honor Hostile sexism Benevolent sexism Religious Orientation Muslim sample Turkish sample 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

The research complied with APA ethical standards and was reviewed and approved by an IRB prior to conducting the research. The manuscript has not been submitted to any other journal.

References

  1. Alauddin, M., & Son Ngheim, H. (2010). Do instructional attributes pose multicollinearity problems? An empirical exploration. Economic Analysis and Policy, 49, 351–361. doi: 10.1016/S0313-5926(10)50034-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.Google Scholar
  3. Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432–443. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.5.4.432.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Anwar, G. (1999). Reclaiming the religious center from a Muslim perspective: Theological alternatives to religious fundamentalism. In C. W. Howland (Ed.), Religious fundamentalisms and the human rights of women (pp. 303–314). New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anwar, E. (2006). Gender and self in Islam. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Arat, Y. (2010). Religion, politics, and gender equality in Turkey: Implications of a democratic paradox? Third World Quarterly, 31, 869–884. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2010.502712.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Arın, C. (2001). Femicide in the name of honor in Turkey. Violence against Women, 7, 821–825. doi: 10.1177/10778010122182758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bank, A., & Karadag, R. (2012). The political economy of regional power: Turkey under the AKP. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2145876.
  9. Berkes, N. (1964). The development of secularism in Turkey. Montreal: McGill University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burn, S. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 412–418. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castillo, L. G., Perez, F. V., Castillo, R., & Ghosheh, M. R. (2010). Construction and initial validation of the Marianismo Beliefs Scale. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 23, 163–175. doi: 10.1080/09515071003776036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ceylan, S., & Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2012).Violence against women in honor cultures. Manuscript prepared for publication.Google Scholar
  13. Cirhinlioğlu, F. G. (2010). Dini yönelimler ve önyargı [Religious orientations and prejudice]. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi [International Journal of Human Sciences], 7, 1366–1384.Google Scholar
  14. Cotterill, S., Sidanius, J., Bhardwaj, A., & Kumar, V. (2014). Ideological support for the Indian caste system: Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Karma. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2, 98–116. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v2i1.171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldner, Y. (2000). “Honor” murders – Why the perps get off easy. Middle East Quarterly, 7, 41–50.Google Scholar
  16. Furseth, I., & Repstad, P. (2006). An introduction to the sociology of religion: Classical and contemporary perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Gaunt, R. (2012). “Blessed is he who has not made me a woman”: Ambivalent sexism and Jewish religiosity. Sex Roles, 67, 477–487. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0185-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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: 10.1017/cbo9781139022736.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrahms, 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, 763775. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.
  21. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, Y. R. (2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47, 433–441. doi: 10.1023/A:1021696209949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.
  23. Hassan, R. (1999). Feminism in Islam. In S. Young & K. Young (Eds.), Feminism and world religions (pp. 248–78). New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hassan, R. (2003). Rights of women: Muslim practice versus normative Islam. Retrieved from http://www.riffathassan.info/writing/IslamicTheologyofWomen/Rights_of_Women_Muslim_Practive_verus.pdf.
  25. Heper, M. (1985). The state tradition in Turkey. Walkington: Eothen.Google Scholar
  26. Hoffmann, J. P., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2008). Gender, religious tradition, and biblical literalism. Social Forces, 86, 1245–1272. doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Human Rights Presidency of Turkey (2007). Human Rights Presidency 2007 Honor Killings Report. Retrieved from http://svn.abisource.com/abiword-testsuite/trunk/impexp/docx/honour_killings_report_by_govt_2007.docx
  28. İnce, O., Yaralı, A., & Özsel, D. (2009). Customary killings in Turkey and Turkish modernization. Middle Eastern Studies, 45, 537–551. doi: 10.1080/00263200903009593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson, L. L., & Lipsett-Rivera, S. (Eds.). (1998). The faces of honor: Sex, shame, and violence in colonial Latin America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kay, A., & Napier, J. (2014). The justice motive as a driver of religious experience. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 5, 42–44. doi: 10.1080/2153599x.2014.910262.Google Scholar
  36. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. W. (1990). Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 442–462. doi: 10.2307/1387311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Korteweg, A., & Yurdakul, G. (2009). Islam, gender, and immigrant integration: Boundary drawing in discourses on honor killing in the Netherlands and Germany. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32, 218–238. doi: 10.1080/01419870802065218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kulwicki, A. D. (2002). The practice of honor crimes: A glimpse of domestic violence in the Arab world. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 23, 77–87. doi: 10.1080/01612840252825491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewis, B. (2002). The roots of Muslim rage. Policy, 17, 17–26.Google Scholar
  40. Mikolajczak, M., & Pietrzak, J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and religion: Connected through values. Sex Roles, 70, 387–399. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0379-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Mitchell, L., & Melville, C. (2013). “Every inch a king”. Kings and kingship in the ancient and medieval worlds. In L. Mitchell & C. Melville (Eds.), Every inch a king: Comparative studies on kings and kingship in the ancient and medieval worlds (pp. 1–21). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
  42. Moxnes, H. (1996). Honor and shame. In R. L. Rohrbaugh (Ed.), The social sciences and new testament interpretation (pp. 19–40). Peabody: Hendrickson.Google Scholar
  43. Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  44. O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rule of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41, 673–90. doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Örnek Buken, N., & Şahinoğlu, S. (2006). Violence against women in Turkey and the role of physicians. Nursing Ethics, 13, 187–205. doi: 10.1191/0969733006ne838oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ortner, S. B. (1978). The virgin and the state. Feminist Studies, 4, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pollit, K. (2002). Introduction. In B. Reed (Ed.), Nothing sacred: Women respond to religious fundamentalism and terror (pp. 9–14). New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books.Google Scholar
  48. Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A., & Fischer, A. (2002a). The role of honour concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 143–163. doi: 10.1080/02699930143000167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodriguez Mosquera, P., Manstead, A., & Fischer, A. (2002b). Honor in the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 16–36. doi: 10.1177/0022022102033001002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sakallı Uğurlu, N., & Akbaş, G. (2013). “Honor” and “honor violence against women” in honor cultures: Social psychological explanations. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 16(32), 76–91.Google Scholar
  51. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2002). Çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik ölçeği: Geçerlik-güvenirlik çalışması [Ambivalent sexism inventory: A study of reliability and validity]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi [Journal of Turkish Psychology], 17, 47–58.Google Scholar
  52. Sev’er, A., & Yurdakul, G. (2001). Culture of honor, culture of change: A feminist analysis of honor killings in Turkey. Violence against Women, 7, 964–998. doi: 10.1177/10778010122182866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sibley, C. G., Overall, N. C., & Duckitt, J. (2007). When women become more hostilely sexist toward their gender: The system-justifying effect of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 57, 743–754. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9306-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taşdemir, N., & Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2010). The relationships between ambivalent sexism and religiosity among Turkish university students. Sex Roles, 62, 420–426. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9693-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tezcan, M. (1999). Ülkemizde aile içi tore ya da namus cinayetleri [Honor killings in families in Turkey]. In T. C. Başbakanlık Kadının (Ed.), Statüsü ve Sorunları Genel Müdürlüğü (pp. 21–27). Ankara: T. C. Başbakanlık Kadının Statüsü ve Sorunları Genel Müdürlüğü.Google Scholar
  57. Usul, A. R. (2014). Is there any hope on the revival of EU–Turkey relations in the “new era”? Turkish Studies, 15, 283–302. doi: 10.1080/14683849.2014.92623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997–1010. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Vandello, J. A., Cohen, D., Grandon, R., & Franiuk, R. (2009). Stand by your man: Indirect cultural prescriptions for honorable violence and feminine loyalty in Canada, Chile and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 81–114. doi: 10.1177/0022022108326194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wadud, A. (1999). Qur’an and woman: Rereading the sacred text from a woman’s perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wadud, A. (2006). Inside the gender jihad: Women’s reform in Islam. Oxford: Oneworld Publication.Google Scholar
  62. Yılmaz, Ş. (2012). Turkey’s quest for NATO membership: The institutionalization of the Turkish–American alliance. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 12, 481–495. doi: 10.1080/14683857.2012.741844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Glick
    • 1
  • Nuray Sakallı-Uğurlu
    • 2
  • Gülçin Akbaş
    • 2
  • İrem Metin Orta
    • 3
  • Suzan Ceylan
    • 2
  1. 1.Lawrence UniversityAppletonUSA
  2. 2.Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Atılım UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations