Skip to main content
Log in

Religion and Sexism: The Moderating Role of Participant Gender

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Burn, S. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 412–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. (2009). Interpreting interaction effects. Retrieved from http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 44, 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fullerton, J. T., & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. K., & Smith, C. (1999). Symbolic traditionalism and pragmatic egalitarianism: Contemporary evangelicals, families, and gender. Gender and Society, 13, 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, P., & Hood, R. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham: Religious Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunsberger, B. (1989). A short version of the Christian orthodoxy scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 360–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism: The relationships among hostility, benevolence, and neosexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 503–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51, 609–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientation and the targets of discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 324–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pargament, K. I. (2002). The bitter and the sweet: An evaluation of the costs and benefits of religiousness. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 168–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. H., Jr. (1991). Beneath the status characteristic: Gender variations in religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren E. Maltby.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maltby, L.E., Hall, M.E.L., Anderson, T.L. et al. Religion and Sexism: The Moderating Role of Participant Gender. Sex Roles 62, 615–622 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9754-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9754-x

Keywords

Navigation