Benevolent sexism toward men: Its social legitimation and preference for male candidates

24 July 2021

AperTO - Archivio Istituzionale Open Access dell'Università di Torino

Benevolent sexism toward men: Its social legitimation and preference for male candidates / S. Russo; F. Rutto; C. Mosso. - In: GROUP PROCESSES & INTERGROUP RELATIONS. - ISSN 1368-4302. - 17:4(2013), pp. 465-473. Original Citation:

Benevolent sexism toward men: Its social legitimation and preference for male candidates

Published version:

DOI:10.1177/1368430213510571 Terms of use:

Open Access

(Article begins on next page)

Anyone can freely access the full text of works made available as "Open Access". Works made available under a Creative Commons license can be used according to the terms and conditions of said license. Use of all other works requires consent of the right holder (author or publisher) if not exempted from copyright protection by the applicable law. Availability:

This is the author's manuscript

This full text was downloaded from iris - AperTO: https://iris.unito.it/

iris - AperTO

University of Turin’s Institutional Research Information System and Open Access Institutional Repository

This is the author's final version of the contribution published as:

S. Russo; F. Rutto; C. Mosso. Benevolent sexism toward men: Its social

legitimation and preference for male candidates. GROUP PROCESSES &

INTERGROUP RELATIONS. 17 (4) pp: 465-473.

DOI: 10.1177/1368430213510571

The publisher's version is available at:

http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1368430213510571

When citing, please refer to the published version.

Link to this full text:

Benevolent sexism toward men: Its

social legitimation and preference

for male candidates

Silvia Russo, Filippo Rutto, and Cristina Mosso

Abstract

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-pencü 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 o f legitimization and maintenance of the status quo.

Keywords

ambivalent sexism toward men, gender differences, system justification

System justification (SJ) theory Qost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) holds that people tend to justify the system they live in and to perceive it as fair and equitable. It is a psychological need that leads people to develop and endorse beliefs concerning the system that justify unequal relationships among groups in society. System justification motives may over­ come ego and group justification motives, and result in outgroup favoritism and the acceptance of disadvantage among low-status group mem­ bers. Stereotypes may fulfill a system-legitimizing

fijnction by ascribing complementary strengths and weaknesses to members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups (Kay & Jost, 2003). For example, the endorsement o f complementary stereotypes is especially pronounced when sys- tem-justification motives are salient (Jost, Kivetz,

Rubini, Guermandi, & Mosso, 2005). While con­ siderable research has explored how complemen­ tary stereotypes toward women relate to system justification, there is little research on how ste­ reotypes toward men do so. The current studies focus on the relationship between benevolent attitudes toward men, general system-justifying beliefs, and behaviors that reinforce gender ine­ quality

Studying gender discrimination, GHck and Fiske (1996) argued that people typically hold two opposite and complementary forms of sexism which fulfiU a gender disparity justifying function. Hostile sexism (HS) designates the typical sexist attitudes towards women, based on the idea that women are weak and inferior to men. Benevolent sexism (BS) refers to seemingly positive attitudes that nevertheless position women in stereotypi- cally restricted roles by including stereotypes linked with warmth and morality rather than competence and status. Gender inequality can be promoted and supported not only by HS, but also by BS, which represents a more subtie and insidi­ ous injury. For example, adopting an experimen­ tal approach, Jost and Kay (2005) showed that the prime of benevolent sexism and complementary stereotypes increases support for the system as a whole and demonstrated that complementary gender stereotypes rationalize the status quo. Moreover, previous research (Christopher & Mull, 2006; Mosso, Briante, AieUo, & Russo, 2013; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007) showed that ambivalent sexism toward women may form part of a larger ideological set of values. More specifically, ambivalent attitudes toward women have been considered as mediating variables of the relationship between the endorsement of conservative ideologies and traditional role pref­ erences (Christopher & Wojda, 2008).

Glick and Fiske (1999) developed an instru­ ment to measure ambivalent attitudes toward men, the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (AMI). This scale complements the original Ambivalent Sexism Inventory subscales (Glick & Fiske, 1996) by tapping both hostile and benevo­ lent prejudices and stereotypes toward men. Hostility toward men (HM) is mainly related to

resentment of male dominance and stereotypes men as controlling and condescending people with attitudes high in HM negatively characterize men based on their position of advantage over women in society. Benevolence toward men (BM) is related to beliefs in support and justification of male dominance. As noted by Glick et al. (2004), BM portrays men as emotionally stronger than women, more willing to take risks for success, and, on the whole, stereotypes men as being higher in competence and status than women. Since BM is characterized as positive stereotyping of comple­ mentary gender differences, it should be related to individual dispositions to justify the system. However, to date, littie research has addressed the link between social ideologies and sexism toward men. Glick and Whitehead (2010) have recentiy investigated the relationship between HM and BM and the perceived stability and legitimacy of male dominance. In their research, they used a measure of the perceived legitimacy of gender inequalities, tapping the justification of extant gender differences. Their results showed that the perception of legitimacy of gender inequality was related to BM but not to HM.

Studying ambivalent attitudes toward men is relevant considering that, similar to HS and BS, they seem to play a prominent role in predicting the endorsement of gender differences and ine­ quality For example, GHck et al. (2004) found that HM and BM were positively correlated with national measures of gender inequality. Similarly, Silvan-Ferrero and Lopez (2007) showed that HM and BM were positively related to gender- typed tasks suggesting that ambivalent attitudes toward men contribute to the maintenance of established traditional gender roles. Thus, the focus on sexism toward men can be extremely important to detect its potential (behavioral and social) consequences.

The aim of these studies was to investigate the relationship between a^OT«ra/personal disposition to justify the social system, the specific endorse­ ment of sexist attitudes toward men, and behav­ iors that reinforce gender inequality To this end. Study 1 addressed the relationship between social ideologies and the endorsement of ambivalent

attitudes toward men in testing the hypothesis that SJ would predict BM, but not HM. Based on previous research (Mosso et al., 2013; Roets, van Hiel, & Dhont, 2012), we considered SJ as a prox­ imal predictor of sexism toward men relying on the assumption that system justification can be considered as a motivational disposition to defend and legitimize the social system (Jost et al., 2010). In Study 2, we also tested the hypothesis that SJ would predict people’s preference for male (vs. female) political candidates, and that this relationship would be mediated by benevo­ lent sexism toward men.

Study 1

Hypotheses

As BM emphasizes a positive description o f tra­ ditional gender roles and Glick and Whitehead (2010) found that the perception of legitimacy of gender inequality is related to BM but not to HM, we expected SJ to be positively related to BM. On the contrary, since HM taps overt resentment toward male dominance, which is consistent with existing gender relations in soci­ ety, we did not expect a significant relationship between HM and SJ

M ethod

Participants and procedure. Two-hundred and twenty Italians, recruited through a snow ball procedure at the University o f Torino (69% women, mean age = 27.07, SD - 5.02), partici­ pated in an online survey.

Measures

Indpendent variables. SJ was assessed using a six-item scale translated and adapted from Kay and Jost (2003) to measure participants’ support for the societal status quo. Items were as fol­ lows: “In our society not everyone has a fair shot at success. This is inevitable” (reversed); “The poor are not the same as the rich” (reversed); “I think everybody in Italy has the same rights and duties”; “I think in Italy everybody can be happy.

regardless of group belonging”; “In Italy every­ one has a fair shot at wealth and happiness”; “I think that in Italy everybody can get what he/ she deserves.” Since the scale did not reach the acceptable reliability threshold (a = .55), we had to exclude the first two items. We computed a mean score o f SJ (a = .72). Age and gender (1 = women, 0 = men) have been included as con­ trol variables. Moreover, we also identified politi­ cal orientation (1 = s t r o n g kft-mng, 1 = strongly right-wing) as a control variable, in that previous research showed that political conservatism is a form of system justification as it offers moral and intellectual support for the status quo Qost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003).

X Participants completed the Italian version (Manganelli, Volpato, & Canova, 2008) o f the 20-item Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory (AMI; GHck & Fiske, 1999). The scale includes 10 items for each subscale. The subscales showed good internal reliability (a = .79 for HM and a = .83 for BM).

Results

We ran two linear regression analyses predicting BM and HM respectively. We entered the demo­ graphic variables, political conservatism, one form of sexism (as explicitiy suggested by Glick & Fiske, 1999), and SJ as predictors. The models predicting BM and HM are displayed in Table 1. Participants’ gender was related to both the dependent variables with men showing higher levels o f BM and women higher levels of HM; political orientation was significantiy and posi­ tively related to BM only; each form of sexism had a positive relation with the other while age was not associated with either form of sexism. Finally, consistent with our hypothesis, SJ posi­ tively correlated with BM but not HM. In order to verify whether there were any gender differ­ ences in regard to the relationship between SJ and ambivalent sexism, we ran two moderated regres­ sions adding the interaction term between gender and SJ In both cases, the interaction term did not reach statistical significance (predicting BM,

Table 1. Linear regression analyses predicting benevolent and hostile sexism toward men. BM B SE

_P

HM B SE

_P

Intercept 3.20 .06 <.001 4.03 .06 <.001 Gender -0.46 .06 <.001 0.44 .07 <.001 Age -0.00 .01 .755 0.02 .01 .228 Political orientation 0.10 .04 .006 0.01 .04 .771 HM/BM 0.56 .05 <.001 0.59 .06 <.001 System justification 0.10 .05 .045 -0.04 .05 .407 .42 .38 Gender x SJ - .07, /> - .169; predicting HM, Gender x S J = -.07,/) = .201).

Discussion

In line with expectations, we found SJ to be related to BM (even when the effect of HM was partialed out) but not to HM. This finding high­ lights the system-justifying fijnction o f BM as proposed by Glick and Fiske (1999). Jost and Banaji (1994) argued that the justification of the social, political, and economic system leads peo­ ple to engage in cognitive adjustments in order to preserve a distorted image of reality and a view of the world as a just place: Our findings indi­ cated that a personal disposition to justify the sys­ tem is related to the endorsement of BM, thus supporting the idea that positive gender stereo­ types may represent a strategy to bolster the sta­ tus quo.

However the study had some limitations. First, participants were contacted through an e-mail recruitment procedure: This method may have led to a self-selection bias (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002). Second, the lack of gender­ moderated effect on the relationship between SJ and BM may be due to insufficient statistical power (men represent 30% of the sample). Finally, we focused exclusively on the relationship between SJ and ambivalent sexism toward men, thus limiting our investigation to the attitudinal level. Therefore, in Study 2, we expanded our focus to a behavioral outcome, namely the prefer­ ence for male political candidates. We identified

the political domain as a suitable field in which to study potential consequences of the endorse­ ment of ambivalent attitudes toward men. Indeed, the presence of women in politics today is still scarce as evidenced by data from the Inter­ parliamentary Union (http://www.ipu.org/ wmn-e/classif htm). Thus, in the political domain the traditional gender gap still persists.

Study 2

Hypotheses

In line with Study 1 results we expected SJ to be positively related to BM but not to HM. Moreover, considering that BM is related to beliefs in sup­ port and justification of male dominance, we expected to find a positive relationship between BM and the preference for male candidates.

M ethod

Participants and procedure. One hundred and fifty- eight Italian students at the University of Torino (58.9% women, mean age = 22.73, SD = 4.62) filled out a pencil-and-paper questionnaire.

Independent and mediating variables. Participants completed the Italian version of the AMI (Man­ ganelli et al., 2008) that showed good internal reli- abiHty (BM: a = .83; HM: a = .80). As m Study 1, system justification was assessed using six items: We calculated a mean score including all the

items (a = .69). We used age, gender (1 = women, 0 = men), political orientation, and the other type of sexism as control variables.

'e. Participants were presented with 28 pairs o f grayscale pictures o f male and female political candidates’ faces placed side by side (their position on the left/right hand of the paper was randomly chosen). They were asked to choose a candidate from each couple as leader of their preferred political coalition. Fifty-six pic­ tures of little known candidates were selected, standardized for background color, size, and luminosity, and pretested on the competence dimension: No significant difference was found between male (M = 5.57) and female candidates (M = 5.81), r(14) = -1 A 9,P = .160. Forty pictures were then paired by matching female and male candidates, producing 20 pairs. In order to dis­ guise the purpose of the study, the remaining 16 pictures were paired by matching same-sex candi­ dates and inserted among the male-female pairs (but not considered in the analyses). The prefer­ ence for male candidates has been calculated as the proportion of the number of chosen males over the number of valid answers.

Results

We tested a mediation model (PROCESS, Model 4; Flayes, 2013) aimed at predicting the prefer­ ence for male candidates as a function of BM, ITM, and SJ. We also included age, gender, and political orientation as covariates. Figure 1 shows results of the analysis. In line with Study 1 find­ ings, women showed higher levels of ITM while men showed higher levels of BM; SJ was posi­ tively related to BM only Again, as in Study 1, we ran two moderated regressions adding the inter­ action term between gender and SJ. In both cases, the interaction term did not reach statistical sig­ nificance (predicting BM: Gender x SJ = .10,/) = .402; predicting ITM: Gender x SJ = .19, = .095).

As concerns the preference for male candi­ dates, men showed a higher tendency to select male candidates than women. More interestingly.

BM was significantiy and positively related to the voting preference for male candidates while ITM was not. The indirect effect o f SJ on the depend­ ent variable as mediated by BM was positive (indi­ rect effect = .013, 95% Cl [.004, .028], Sobel test = .013,/) = .027) while the indirect effect o f SJ as mediated by ITM was not significant (indirect effect = -.001, 95% Cl [-.O il, .001], Sobel test = -.0 0 1 , p = .555).^ As a final note, SJ was not significantly and directiy related to the dependent variable: Even if traditional approaches to media­ tion analysis consider the direct effect o f the independent variable on the dependent variable a prerequisite for mediation models (Baron & Kenny, 1986), more recent contributions pointed out that the only requirement for mediation is the indirect effect that the independent variable exerts on the dependent variable trough the mediator (see for example Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & Petty, 2011; Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010).

Supplementary Analyses

Even if the results indicated that the relation­ ship between SJ and BM was not moderated by gender, zero-order correlations pointed in another direction. Indeed, in both samples, the correlation between SJ and BM was positive and significant for women (Study 1: r - Al , p - .041; Study 2: r - .?>?>,p = .001) but not for men (Study 1: r = -.01,/) = .946; Study 2: r = .13,/. = .315). We conducted supplementary analyses in order to address more thoroughly the moderation of the relationship between SJ and BM by gender Assuming that the lack o f a moderated effect may be explained by an insufficient statistical power o f the analyses, we combined Study 1 and Study 2 datasets (N = 378, 65% women) and ran the moderated regression analysis. Again, the interaction term Gender x SJ did not reach sta­ tistical significance (p = .118). ITowever, split­ ting the dataset by gender and conducting the regression analyses as described before, we obtained a clear pattern o f results: SJ is posi­ tively related to BM for women only (cf Table 2). Moreover, we also found a similar pattern for

Figure 1. Mediation model predicting the preference for male candidates as a function o f ambivalent sexism toward men and system justification beliefs. Unstandardized coefficients are displayed, standard error in pa­ rentheses (dotted lines indicate nonsignificant paths, ***p < .001, **p < .01). Age and political orientation have been excluded from the figure for the sake of clarity.

Table 2. Linear regression analyses predicting benevolent sexism toward men for men and women separately.

M en W om en B SE

_P

B SE

_P

Intercept 1.16 .44 .010 -0 .1 0 .31

n y i

Source (1= Study 1) 0.22 .18 .224 -0 .0 5 .12 .674 Age 0.00 .01 .952 -0 .0 0 .01 .923 Political orientation -0 .0 0 .04 .960 0.13 .03 <.001 HM 0.53 .08 <.001 0.53 .05 <.001 System justification 0.00 .06 .984 0.11 .04 .007 .41 .44

p o litical o rien tatio n : B ein g co nservative h ad a p ositive and sign ifican t relatio nsh ip w ith BM o n ly fo r w om en.

General Discussion

In this research w e investigated the relationships betw een the endorsem ent o f system justification id eo lo gy and am bivalent attitudes tow ard m en (Study 1), as w ell as their im pact on a behavioral outcom e, that is, the preference for m ale

candidates (Study 2). We show ed that people who tend to justify the general social system also endorse BM : This finding clearly supports the proposition that SJ prom otes people’s support o f gen d er differences and gen d er roles as tapped by BM . M ore specifically, supplem entary analyses show ed that system justification m otivations drove BM o nly for w om en, supporting the general idea that the m otivation to justify the system accounts for the com plicity o f m em bers o f sub­ ordinated groups in m aintaining the status quo

(Jost et al., 2004). Indeed, the mediating role of BM indicated that it reflects the justification of men’s roles as pater famiEas and as high-status members in society and, consequently, promotes behaviors that perpetuate the status quo, such as the preference for male political candidates. Even if the seeming specificity of the model to female participants was unexpected, it might be under­ stood as an example of increased system justifica­ tion among the disadvantaged: Indeed, system justification motives should be more appealing for members of subordinate groups like women; these motives should ‘lead people to endorse sys­ tem-serving beliefs that are contrary to their own social and political interests” (Jost, 2011, p. 225; Jost et al., 2004; Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003). On the contrary, men’s endorsement of benevolent attitudes toward their own group should be the norm, since it is in line with self and group interests. Our results support this idea in that system justification motives were related only to women’s endorsement of benevolent attitudes toward men.

Besides this main finding, two other interest­ ing results emerged. First, supplementary analy­ ses showed that, in line with the idea that political conservatism is a form o f system justification because it offers support for the status quo (Jost et al., 2003), conservative women tend to endorse BM more than liberal women. Thus our data indi­ cated that women’s conservative ideologies play a prominent role in explaining their level o f BM.

Second, we found the preference for male can­ didates to be related to BM and, indirectiy, to sys­ tem justification beliefs, above and beyond an in-group bias orienting participants’ preference for candidates of their own gender (Brewer & Brown, 1998). This finding is in Une with Sanbonmatsu’s (2002) claim that people have a baseline preference for members of their own gender group, in accord­ ance with the gender affinity effect (e.g., Dolan, 1998; Plutzer & Zipp, 1996), as well as gender ste­ reotypes. Our findings highlight the prominent role played by benevolent attitudes toward men in directing people’s preference for male candidates, at least in a low-informational environment. Indeed, we might not definitively conclude that the

endorsement of system justification and benevo­ lent sexism determines people’s voting choice in a real electoral context where much more informa­ tion about candidates is typically available and where party identification would likely overcome the effect of system justification. However, we believe that the role played by social ideologies should not be underestimated, at least among women: They may shape a predisposition to prefer men over women that might have an impact in low-informational races, such as in primary elec­ tions when party cues are lacking, and for people with low interest in politics. Future studies address­ ing the role played by sexist beliefs in real political campaigns may help to disentangle this issue.

This research had two main limitations. First of all, it was based on two correlational studies. As a consequence, the causal relationship between system justification and ambivalent sexism that we proposed could not be tested. Longitudinal research is needed in order to study the impact of justification beliefs on ambivalent sexism toward men over time. The second limitation concerns the assessment of male candidates’ preference in Study 2: Among the male-female candidate pairs, we inserted eight same-sex pictures pairs. However, it is possible that this strategy was not sufficient to disguise the purpose of the study Future studies should add more information about the candidates presented so that the pur­ pose of the study may not be as readily apparent.

In spite of these limitations, we believe this research represents a valuable contribution to the social psychological literature by examining the link between general system justification beliefs and the more specific attitudes toward men that imply support for traditional gender differences. Indeed, we showed that such attitudes may, at least among women, impact on behavioral out­ comes such that the extant gender inequality is maintained.

Acknowledgments

We warmly thank Laura Zuddas for her help in col­ lecting the data. We also would Kke to thank the edi­ tor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Funding

This work was supported by PRIN grant from the Ital­ ian Ministry of Education and Research (MlUR; Grant Number 200974XYL2_003).

Note

1. We also tested the competing hypothesis that SJ would mediate the relationship between BM and participants’ preference for male candidates: results showed that, while BM predicted SJ as well as the preference for male candidates, SJ did not function as a mediator (indirect effect = .002, 95% Cl [-.017, .007]).

References

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Moderator- mediator variables distinction in social psycho­ logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statis­ tical considerations. Journal o f Personalia and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.51.6.1173

Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J (1998). Intergroup rela­ tions. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook o f socialpsychology (4th e d . Vol. 2, pp. 554-594). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Christopher, A. N., & MuU, M. S. (2006). Conserva­

tive ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology o f Women Quarterly, 30, 223-230. doi:10.1111/j.l471- 6402.2006.00284.x

Christopher, A. N., & Wojda, M. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarian­ ism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology o f Women Quarterly, 32, 65—73. doi:10.1111/j.l471-6402.2007.00407.x

Dolan, K. (1998). Voting for women in “The year of the woman.” American Journal o f Political Science, 42, 272—293. Retrieved from http://www.jstororg/dis cover/10.2307/2991756?uid=3738664&xiid=2&xii d=4&sid=21102814724223

GHck, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 GHck, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence Toward

Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevo­ lent beHefs about men. Psychology o f Women Quar­ terly, 23, 519-536. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999. tb00379.x

GHck, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T , Eckes, T , Masser, B., Volpato, C., ... GHck, P (2004). Bad but bold:

Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequaHty in 16 nations. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713-728. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.86.5.713

GHck, P., & Whitehead, J (2010). HostiHty toward men and the perceived stabiHty of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41, 177-185. doi:10.1027/1864- 9335/a000025

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based ap­ proach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Jost, J. T. (2011). System justification theory as com­

pliment, complement, and corrective to theories of social identification and social dominance. In D. Dunning (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 223—263). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Jost, J T , & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereo­ typing in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal o f S o ch i Psychology, 33, 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x Jost, J T , Banaji, M. R , & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A dec­ ade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919. doi:10.1111/j.l467-9221.2004.00402.x

Jost, J T , Glaser, J , Kruglanski, A. W, & SuHoway F. J. (2003). PoHtical conservatism as motivated so­ cial cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339—375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

Jost, J T , & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevo­ lent sexism and complementary gender stereo­ types: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal o f Personali^ and Social Psychology, 88, 498-509. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.88.3.498

Jost, J. T , Kivetz, Y , Rubini, M., Guermandi, G , & Mosso, C. (2005). System-justifying functions of complementary regional and ethnic stereotypes: Cross-national evidence. Social Justice Research, 18, 305-333. doi:10.1007/sll211-005-6827-z Jost, J. T , Liviatan, 1., van der Toom, J , Ledgerwood,

A , Mandisodza, A , & Nosek, B. (2010). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J M. Ol­ son (Eds.), The psychology o f justice and legitimacy: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173-203). HiHsdale, NJ: Edbaum.

Jost, J T , Pelham, B. W , Sheldon, O., & SuUivan, B. N. (2003). Social inequaHty and the reduction of ideo­ logical dissonance on behalf of the system: Evi­ dence of enhanced system justification among the

disadvantaged. European Journal o f Social Psychology, 33, 13-36. doi:10.1002/ejsp.l27

Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happjr” and “poor but hon­ est” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Jour­ nal o f Personali^ and Social Psychology, 85, 823—837. doilO.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823

Manganelli, A. M., Volpato, C , & Canova, L. (2008). L’atteggiamento ambivalente verso uomini e donne. Un contributo alla validazione delle scale A Sl e AMI [The ambivalent attitude toward men and women. A validation study of A Sl and AMI scale]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 35, 261-287. doi 10.1421/26601 Mosso, C., Briante, G., AieUo, A., & Russo, S. (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. d o il0.1007/ sll211-012-0172-9

Nosek, B. A , Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the Internet. Journal o f Social Issues, 58(1), 161-176. doilO.1111/1540- 4560.00254

Plutzer, E., & Zipp, J. E (1996). Identity politics, par­ tisanship, and voting for women candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 30—57. doilO .1086/297738 Roets, A., van Hiel, A., & Dhont, K. (2012). Is sex­

ism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition

perspective on men’s and women’s sexist attitudes toward own and other gender. European Journal o f Personality, 26, 350-359. doilO.1002/per.843 Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J , Tormala, Z. L., &

Petty, R. E. (2011). M ediation analysis in so­ cial psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. S ocial an d Personality Psychol­ ogy Compass, 5, 359-371. d o il0 .1 1 1 1 / j.l7 5 1 - 9004.2011.00355.x

Sanbonmatsu, K (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal o f Political Science, 46(1), 20— 34. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/ 10.2307/3088412?uid=3738664&xiid=2&uid=4&s id=21102814724223

Sibley, C. G , Wüson, M. S , & Duckitt, J (2007). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance ori­ entation and right-wing authoritarianism. Per- sonaliy and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160—172. doilO.1177/0146167206294745

Silvan-Ferrero, M., & Lopez, A. (2007). Benevolent sexism toward men and women: Justification of the traditional system and conventional gender roles in Spain. Sex Roles, 57, 607-614. doilO.1007/ S11199-007-9271-8

Zhao, X., Lynch, J G , & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsider­ ing Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about me­ diation analysis. Journal o f Consumer Research, i7(2), 197-206. doilO.1086/651257