Sexism towards Women: Adaptation of the Ambivalent Sexism Scale (P. Glick and S. Fisk) on a Russian Sample
Keywords:
sexism, hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, scale
Abstract
The article presents the Russian adaptation of the Ambivalent Sexism Scale by P. Glick and S. Fisk. This tool measures not only hostile (a tendency to negatively appraise women that violate traditional gender roles), but also benevolent (a tendency to positively appraise women, who comply with the traditional gender roles) sexism. In the approbation of the scale 1624 Russian citizens took part. The full version of the scale demonstrated satisfactory fit to the empirical data, due to more covariance between the items. On the basis of the found covariance between the items, a short version was formed. The short version of the scale comprised 12 items (6 for the subscale of the hostile sexism and 6 for the subscale of the benevolent sexism), it demonstrated a good fit to the empirical data (χ2 = 332.147, df = 53, RMSEA = 0.057, CFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.950). Multigroup analysis demonstrated full structural and factorial equivalence with the use of the short version of the scale on the sample of men and women, as well as heterosexuals and people with non-heterosexual identification. Social-demographical differences were found with the use of the short version of the scale. Men and heterosexuals in a stronger degree, than women and non-heterosexuals, demonstrate hostile and benevolent sexism, people older than 30 in a stronger degree show benevolent sexism, than younger respondents. In the whole the presented variant of the short version of the scale demonstrates good psychometric indices and can be used for further studies as a reliable and valid instrument.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. Altemeyer, B. (2006). The Authoritarians. Retrieved from http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians .pdf
2. Bendixen, M., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2017). When less is more: Psychometric properties of Norwegian short-forms of the Ambivalent Sexism Scales (ASI and AMI) and the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance (IRMA) Scale. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(6), 541-550. https://doi.org/10.1111 /sjop.12392
3. Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2007). How ambivalent sexism toward women and men support rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57(1-2), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9196-2
4. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.x
5. Costa, P. A., Oliveira, R., Pereira, H., & Leal, I. (2015). Adaptation of the Modern Sexism Inventories to Portugal: The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory. Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica, 28(1), 126-135.
6. Dardenne, B., Delacollette, N., Gregoire, C., & Lecocq, D. (2006). Structure latente et validation de la version franjaise de l'Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: l'echelle de sexisme ambivalent [Latent structure and validation of the French version of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: the ambivalent sexism scale]. Lannee Psychologique, 106, 235-264. (in French)
7. Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1999). Hostility und Benevolenz: Eine Skala zur Erfassung des ambivalenten Sexismus [Hostility and benevolence: A scale measuring ambivalent sexism]. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 30, 211-228. (in German)
8. Forbes, G. B., Collinsworth, L. L., 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, 56(5-6), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9161-5
9. Garaigordobil, M., & Aliri, J. (2013). Ambivalent sexism inventory: Standardization and normative data in a sample of the Basque country. Behavioral Psychology / Psicologia Conductual, 21(1), 173-186.
10. Gaunt, R. (2013). Breadwinning moms, caregiving dads: Double standard in social judgments of gender norm violators. Journal of Family Issues, 34(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12438686
11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.70.3.491
12. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary jutifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.56.2.109
13. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Masser, B., Manganelli, A. M., Huang, L. L., Rodriguez Castro, Y., ... Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
14. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., 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(5), 763-775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
15. Glick, P., Sakall -Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & Aguiar de Souza, M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 292-297. https://doi.org/10.1111 /1471-6402.t01-1-00068
16. Glick, P., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41(3), 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000025
17. Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228
18. Goncalves, G., Orgambidez-Ramos, A., Giger, J.-C., Santos, J., & Gomes, A. (2015). Validity evidence of the Portuguese adaptation of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Revista de Psicologia Social, 30(1), 152-181.
19. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
20. Ibabe, I., Arnoso, A., & Elgorriaga, E. (2016). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Adaptation to Basque population and sexism as a risk factor of dating violence. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19(2016), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.80
21. 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 John. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
22. Mosso, C., Briante, G., Aiello, 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), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0172-9
23. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
24. Rollero, C., Glick, P., & Tartaglia, S. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM - Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(2), 149-159. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.2.3
25. Russell, B. L., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment : An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50(7-8), 565-573.
26. Sakalli-Ugurlu, N. (2002). Qeli^ik duygulu cinsiyetjilik oljegi: Gejerlik ve guvenirlik jah^masi. [Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: A Study of Reliability and Validity]. TUrk PsikolojiDergisi, 17(49), 47-58. (in Turkish)
27. Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & McClellan, L. M. (2011). Benevolent sexism, perceived health risks, and the inclination to restrict pregnant women's freedoms. Sex Roles, 65(7), 596-605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9869-0
28. Thompson, E. P., & Jost, J. T. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 209-232. https://doi.org/10.10061999.1403
29. Viki, T. G., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The "true" romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533-537.
30. Zawisza, M., Luyt, R., & Zawadzka, A. M. (2015). Societies in transition: are they more sexist? A comparison between Polish, South African and British samples. Journal of Gender Studies, 24( 1), 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2013.803952
2. Bendixen, M., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2017). When less is more: Psychometric properties of Norwegian short-forms of the Ambivalent Sexism Scales (ASI and AMI) and the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance (IRMA) Scale. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58(6), 541-550. https://doi.org/10.1111 /sjop.12392
3. Chapleau, K. M., Oswald, D. L., & Russell, B. L. (2007). How ambivalent sexism toward women and men support rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57(1-2), 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9196-2
4. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.x
5. Costa, P. A., Oliveira, R., Pereira, H., & Leal, I. (2015). Adaptation of the Modern Sexism Inventories to Portugal: The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory. Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica, 28(1), 126-135.
6. Dardenne, B., Delacollette, N., Gregoire, C., & Lecocq, D. (2006). Structure latente et validation de la version franjaise de l'Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: l'echelle de sexisme ambivalent [Latent structure and validation of the French version of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: the ambivalent sexism scale]. Lannee Psychologique, 106, 235-264. (in French)
7. Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1999). Hostility und Benevolenz: Eine Skala zur Erfassung des ambivalenten Sexismus [Hostility and benevolence: A scale measuring ambivalent sexism]. Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, 30, 211-228. (in German)
8. Forbes, G. B., Collinsworth, L. L., 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, 56(5-6), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9161-5
9. Garaigordobil, M., & Aliri, J. (2013). Ambivalent sexism inventory: Standardization and normative data in a sample of the Basque country. Behavioral Psychology / Psicologia Conductual, 21(1), 173-186.
10. Gaunt, R. (2013). Breadwinning moms, caregiving dads: Double standard in social judgments of gender norm violators. Journal of Family Issues, 34(1), 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12438686
11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.70.3.491
12. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary jutifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.56.2.109
13. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Masser, B., Manganelli, A. M., Huang, L. L., Rodriguez Castro, Y., ... Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 713-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
14. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., 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(5), 763-775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
15. Glick, P., Sakall -Ugurlu, N., Ferreira, M. C., & Aguiar de Souza, M. (2002). Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 292-297. https://doi.org/10.1111 /1471-6402.t01-1-00068
16. Glick, P., & Whitehead, J. (2010). Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance. Social Psychology, 41(3), 177-185. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000025
17. Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228
18. Goncalves, G., Orgambidez-Ramos, A., Giger, J.-C., Santos, J., & Gomes, A. (2015). Validity evidence of the Portuguese adaptation of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Revista de Psicologia Social, 30(1), 152-181.
19. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
20. Ibabe, I., Arnoso, A., & Elgorriaga, E. (2016). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Adaptation to Basque population and sexism as a risk factor of dating violence. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 19(2016), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2016.80
21. 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 John. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
22. Mosso, C., Briante, G., Aiello, 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), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0172-9
23. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
24. Rollero, C., Glick, P., & Tartaglia, S. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM - Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21(2), 149-159. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.2.3
25. Russell, B. L., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment : An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50(7-8), 565-573.
26. Sakalli-Ugurlu, N. (2002). Qeli^ik duygulu cinsiyetjilik oljegi: Gejerlik ve guvenirlik jah^masi. [Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: A Study of Reliability and Validity]. TUrk PsikolojiDergisi, 17(49), 47-58. (in Turkish)
27. Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & McClellan, L. M. (2011). Benevolent sexism, perceived health risks, and the inclination to restrict pregnant women's freedoms. Sex Roles, 65(7), 596-605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9869-0
28. Thompson, E. P., & Jost, J. T. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 209-232. https://doi.org/10.10061999.1403
29. Viki, T. G., Abrams, D., & Hutchison, P. (2003). The "true" romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533-537.
30. Zawisza, M., Luyt, R., & Zawadzka, A. M. (2015). Societies in transition: are they more sexist? A comparison between Polish, South African and British samples. Journal of Gender Studies, 24( 1), 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2013.803952
Published
2018-11-06
How to Cite
АгадуллинаЕ. Р. (2018). Sexism towards Women: Adaptation of the Ambivalent Sexism Scale (P. Glick and S. Fisk) on a Russian Sample. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 15(3), 447-463. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2018-3-447-463
Issue
Section
Questionnaires for Studying Social-Psychological Issues
