Social Justice Research

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 1–17 | Cite as

The Role of Legitimizing Ideologies as Predictors of Ambivalent Sexism in Young People: Evidence from Italy and the USA

  • Cristina Mosso
  • Giovanni Briante
  • Antonio Aiello
  • Silvia Russo


The studies presented here focus on the relationship between legitimizing ideologies and ambivalent sexism. 544 Italian students (Study 1) and 297 US students (Study 2) completed several scales: social dominance orientation (SDO), system justification (SJ), political orientation, religiosity, and the Glick and Fiske (J Pers Soc Psychol 70(3):491–512, 1996) Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Zero-order correlations revealed all facets of ideological attitudes to be positively related to each other and correlated with ambivalent sexism. In particular, the SDO was related to both ideology components of SJ and political orientation and to ambivalent sexism (hostile and benevolent). Moderated regressions revealed that SDO has a positive impact on hostile sexism for men only, while SJ has a positive impact on hostile sexism for women only. While the first result was stable across the two studies, the last moderated effect has been detected only in Study 1. We discuss the results with respect to different facets of social ideologies and cultural differences between the two countries.


System justification Social dominance orientation Ambivalent sexism Conservative ideology 



We gratefully acknowledge the support of John T. Jost. We warmly thank the MA students from the Universities of Torino and Cagliari—Italy for their help in collecting the data. We also would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.


  1. Aiello, A., Chirumbolo, A., Leone L., & Pratto, F. (2005). Uno studio di Adattamento e Validazione della Scala di Orientamento alla Dominanza Sociale [A study for an Italian Adaptation and Validation of the Social Dominance Scale]. Rassegna di Psicologia, 2(2), 65–75.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W., & Ross, R. J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432–443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, J. C., & Wagner, U. (2009). Doing gender differently—The interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women’s endorsement of sexist beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 487–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model in the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., 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(5), 763–775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, C. (2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47, 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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(5), 713–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jost, J. T. (2011). System justification theory as compliment, complement, and corrective to theories of social identification and social dominance. In D. Dunning (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 223–263). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003a). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 129–339.Google Scholar
  15. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. N. (2003b). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee, I., Pratto, F., & Li, M. (2007). Social relationships and sexism in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Cross-Cultural differences, 38, 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, S., Federico, C. M., Sidanius, J., & Rabinowitz, J. (2002). Social dominance orientation and intergroup bias: The legitimation of favoritism for high-status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Manganelli, A. M., Volpato, C., & Canova, L. (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.Google Scholar
  24. Moscovici, S. (1986). L’ère des représentations sociales. In W. Doise & A. Palmonari (Eds.), L’étude des représentations sociaels. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
  25. Ng, S. H. (1980). The social psychology of power. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social-dominance orientation as an intergroup construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 242–268). New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Sibley, C. G., & Becker, J. C. (2012). On the nature of sexist ambivalence: Profiling ambivalent and univalent sexists. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 589–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183–219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Snellman, A., Ekehammar, B., & Akrami, N. (2009). The role of gender identification in social dominance orientation: Mediating or moderating the effect of sex? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 999–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taşdemir, N., & Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2010). The relationships between ambivalent sexism and religiosity among Turkish university students. Sex Roles, 62, 420–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Mosso
    • 1
  • Giovanni Briante
    • 1
  • Antonio Aiello
    • 2
  • Silvia Russo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.University of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations