Sex Roles

, Volume 62, Issue 9–10, pp 615–622 | Cite as

Religion and Sexism: The Moderating Role of Participant Gender

  • Lauren E. Maltby
  • M. Elizabeth L. Hall
  • Tamara L. Anderson
  • Keith Edwards
Original Article

Abstract

The present study examined the relationship between gender, religious belief and ambivalent sexism. Specifically, this study tested the hypothesis that participant gender moderates the relationship between religious belief and ambivalent sexism. Three-hundred thirty seven Evangelical Christian undergraduate students from the Southwestern United States were administered the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Christian Orthodoxy Scale. Results showed that gender moderated the relationship between Christian orthodoxy and Protective Paternalism. This finding suggests the importance of intervening variables, such as gender, in understanding the relationship between religion and sexism.

Keywords

Religion Gender Ambivalent sexism Mediator 

References

  1. Burn, S. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 412–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawson, J. (2009). Interpreting interaction effects. Retrieved from http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm.
  4. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1993). Are people prejudiced against women?: Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 1–35). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Feather, N. T., & Boeckmann, R. J. (2007). Beliefs about gender discrimination in the workplace context of affirmative action: Effects of gender and ambivalent attitudes in an Australian sample. Sex Roles, 57, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forbes, G. B., Doroszewicz, K., Card, K., & Adams-Curtis, L. (2004). Association of the thin body ideal, ambivalent sexism, and self-esteem with body acceptance and the preferred body size of college women in Poland and the United States. Sex Roles, 50, 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L., Jobe, R. L., White, K. B., Revak, J., Zivcic-Becirevic, I., & Pokrajac-Bulian, A. (2005). Body dissatisfaction in college women and their mothers: Cohort effects, developmental effects, and the influences of body size, sexism, and the thin body ideal. Sex Roles, 53, 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forbes, G. B., Collinsworth, L. J., Jobe, R. L., Braun, K. D., & Wise, L. M. (2007). Sexism, hostility toward women, and endorsement of beauty ideals and practices: Are beauty ideals associated with oppressive beliefs? Sex Roles, 57, 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 44, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fullerton, J. T., & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallagher, S. K., & Smith, C. (1999). Symbolic traditionalism and pragmatic egalitarianism: Contemporary evangelicals, families, and gender. Gender and Society, 13, 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Lopez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Hill, P., & Hood, R. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham: Religious Education.Google Scholar
  19. Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and meditational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(1), 87–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunsberger, B. (1989). A short version of the Christian orthodoxy scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (1994). Religious fundamentalism and integrative complexity of thought: A relationship for existential content only? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mahalik, J. R., & Lagan, H. D. (2001). Examining masculine gender role conflict and stress in relation to religious orientation and spiritual well-being. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism: The relationships among hostility, benevolence, and neosexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51, 609–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientation and the targets of discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ozorak, W. E. (1996). The power, but not the glory: How women empower themselves through religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pancer, S. M., Jackson, L. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Lea, J. (1995). Religious orthodoxy and the complexity of thought about religious and nonreligious issues. Journal of Personality, 63, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pargament, K. I. (2002). The bitter and the sweet: An evaluation of the costs and benefits of religiousness. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reich, K. H. (1997). Do we need a theory of religious development for women? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 7, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thompson, E. H., Jr. (1991). Beneath the status characteristic: Gender variations in religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren E. Maltby
    • 1
  • M. Elizabeth L. Hall
    • 1
  • Tamara L. Anderson
    • 1
  • Keith Edwards
    • 1
  1. 1.Rosemead School of PsychologyBiola UniversityLa MiradaUSA

Personalised recommendations