The relationship between religiosity and ambivalent sexism: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Słowa kluczowe:
religiosity, ambivalent sexism, benevolent sexism, hostile sexism, faithAbstrakt
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore and analyze the existing research on the relationship between religiosity and two forms of ambivalent sexism: benevolent and hostile. A narrative synthesis approach and meta-analysis based on Fisher’s z-transformed correlation coefficients were used to summarize the findings. The findings are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The findings suggest that religiosity is associated positively with both forms of ambivalent sexism. There was a stronger positive correlation between religiosity and benevolent sexism (z = .29, 95% CI [.26; .33]) than between religiosity and hostile sexism (z = .19, 95% CI [.13; .25]). However, the relationship varied significantly across studies, suggesting moderating roles of religious affiliation and gender. The findings highlight the need for more nuanced and intersectional approaches. Empirical models which will allow a better understanding of this relationship are proposed.
Downloads
Bibliografia
Alcidi, M., Gribaldo, A., Grande, E., & Rosario, C. (2023). Forum: Religion, security, and gender. Public Anthropologist, 5, 53–115. https://doi.org/10. 1163/25891715-bja10042.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432–443. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/h0021212.
Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2003). Religion, religiosity, and gender. In C. R. Ember & M. Ember (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sex and gender (pp. 117–127). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29907-6_12.
Besta, T., Gómez, Á., & Vázquez, A. (2014). Readiness to deny the group’s wrongdoing and willingness to fight for its members. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 2, 49–55. https://doi.org/10.5114/ cipp.2014.43101.
Blumell, L. E., & Rodriguez, N. S. (2020). Ambivalent sexism and gay men in the US and UK. Sexuality & Culture, 24, 209–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12119-019-09635-1.
Brandt, M. J., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2017). People both high and low on religious fundamentalism are prejudiced toward dissimilar groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000076.
Burn, S. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 412–418. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x.
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764–779. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764.
Davis, T. M., Settles, I. H., & Jones, M. K. (2022). Standpoints and situatedness: Examining the perception of benevolent sexism in black and white undergraduate women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 46, 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 03616843211043108.
Gaunt, R. (2012). “Blessed is he who has not made me a woman”: Ambivalent sexism and Jewish religiosity. Sex Roles, 67, 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-012-0185-8.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.56.2.109.
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1021696209949.
Glick, P., Sakallı-Uğurlu, N., Akbaş, G., Orta, İ. M., & Ceylan, S. (2016). Why do women endorse honor beliefs? Ambivalent sexism and religiosity as predictors. Sex Roles, 75, 543–554. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-015-0550-5.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 201–221. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.001221.
Gutierrez, B. C., & Leaper, C. (2024). Linking ambivalent sexism to violence-against-women attitudes and behaviors: a three-level meta-analytic review. Sexuality & Culture, 28, 851–882. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12119-023-10127-6.
Hannover, B., Gubernath, J., Schultze, M., & Zander, L. (2018). Religiosity, religious fundamentalism, and ambivalent sexism toward girls and women among adolescents and young adults living in Germany. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02399.
Heath, E. G., & Sperry, K. (2021). A religious paradox: Can priming ideas of God reduce rape victim blame? Sex Roles, 84, 196–207. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-020-01163-9
Hellmer, K., Stenson, J. T., & Jylhä, K. M. (2018). What’s (not) underpinning ambivalent sexism? Revisiting the roles of ideology, religiosity, personality, demographics, and men’s facial hair in explaining hostile and benevolent sexism. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 29–37. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.001.
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2009). A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 172, 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 985X.2008.00552.x.
Hill, S., & Marshall, T. C. (2018). Beliefs about sexual assault in India and Britain are explained by attitudes toward women and hostile sexism. Sex Roles, 79, 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199- 017-0880-6.
Hjelm, T. (2014). Religion, discourse and power: a contribution towards a critical sociology of religion. Critical Sociology, 40, 855–872. https://doi. org/10.1177/0896920513477664.
Husnu, S. (2016). The role of ambivalent sexism and religiosity in predicting attitudes toward childlessness in Muslim undergraduate students. Sex Roles, 75, 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199- 016-0639-5.
Jaśkiewicz, M., & Sobiecki, J. (2022). When out-groups are perceived as out of place: Urban disorder sensitivity and environmental distance. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 10, 123–134. https://doi. org/10.5114/cipp.2021.110842.
Kossowska, M., Czernatowicz-Kukuczka, A., & Sekerdej, M. (2017). Many faces of dogmatism: Prejudice as a way of protecting certainty against value violators among dogmatic believers and atheists. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 127–147. https:// doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12186.
Kosakowska‐Berezecka, N., Besta, T., Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Vandello, J. A., Best, D. L., Wlodarczyk, A., Safdar, S., Zawisza, M., Żadkowska, M., Sobiecki, J., Agyemang, C. B., Akbaş, G., Ammirati, S., Anderson, J., Anjum, G., Aruta, J. J. B. R., Ashraf, M., Bakaitytė, A., ... Žukauskienė, R. (2020). Country‐ level and individual‐level predictors of men’s support for gender equality in 42 countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 1276–1291. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2696.
Leavitt, C. E., Allsop, D. B., Price, A. A., Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2021). Exploring gender roles in highly religious families. Review of Religious Research, 63, 511–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644- 021-00476-9.
Maftei, A., Holman, A. C., & Marchiș, M. (2023). Choosing a life with no children. The role of sexism on the relationship between religiosity and the attitudes toward voluntary childlessness. Current Psychology, 42, 11486–11496. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12144-021-02446-4.
Maitner, A. T., & Henry, P. J. (2018). Ambivalent sexism in the United Arab Emirates: Quantifying gender attitudes in a rapidly modernizing society. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 831– 843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217740433.
Mikołajczak, M., & Pietrzak, J. (2014). Ambivalent sexism and religion: Connected through values. Sex Roles, 70, 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199- 014-0379-3.
Mir‐Hosseini, Z. (2006). Muslim women’s quest for equality: Between Islamic law and feminism. Critical Inquiry, 32, 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1086/508085.
Orme, L. M. N., Hall, M. E. L., Anderson, T. L., & McMartin, J. (2017). Power, sexism, and gender: Factors in biblical interpretation. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 45, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 009164711704500403.
Page, M. J., Moher, D., & McKenzie, J. E. (2022). Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists. Research Synthesis Methods, 13, 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jrsm.1535.
Paynter, A., & Leaper, C. (2016). Heterosexual dating double standards in undergraduate women and men. Sex Roles, 75, 393–406. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-016-0628-8.
Piggott, D. M., & Anderson, R. E. (2023). Religion after rape: Changes in faith and hindered acknowledgment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38, 3883– 3905. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221109913.
R Core Team (2023). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www. R-project.org/.
Schnabel, L. (2018). More religious, less dogmatic: Toward a general framework for gender differences in religion. Social Science Research, 75, 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.06.010.
Shariff, A. F., Willard, A. K., Andersen, T., & Norenzayan, A. (2016). Religious priming: a meta-analysis with a focus on prosociality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 27–48. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1088868314568811.
Simsek, M., Fleischmann, F., & van Tubergen, F. (2019). Similar or divergent paths? Religious development of Christian and Muslim adolescents in Western Europe. Social Science Research, 79, 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.09.004.
Singhal, S., & Gupta, V. (2022). Religiosity and homophobia: Examining the impact of perceived importance of childbearing, hostile sexism and gender. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19, 1636–1649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-022-00725-8.
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rücker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., Tetzlaff, J., Deeks, J. J., Peters, J., Macaskill, P., Schwarzer, G., Duval, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 343, d4002. https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4002.
Taşdemir, N., & Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2010). The relationships between ambivalent sexism and religiosity among Turkish university students. Sex Roles, 62, 420–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9693-6.
Van Assche, J., Koç, Y., & Roets, A. (2019). Religiosity or ideology? On the individual differences predictors of sexism. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2018.11.016.
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss. v036.i03.
Wood, H. J. (2019). Gender inequality: The problem of harmful, patriarchal, traditional and cultural gender practices in the church. HTS Teologiese Studies, 75, a5177. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v75i1.5177.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.128.5.699.