This study aimed to examine cultural differences between the United States and Pakistan on prejudice against working women, including employment skepticism and traditional role preference. Another purpose of the study was to assess how social dominance orientation (SDO), hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism explain the prejudice against working women. This study collected data online from a sample of 289 working women including N = 152 from the United States and N = 137 from Pakistan. Pakistani participants had higher scores on all the study variables than the U.S. participants. The results of mediation analyses showed that hostile and benevolent sexism significantly mediates the relationship between countries and employment skepticism. Moreover, hostile and benevolent sexism also mediated the relationship between countries and traditional role preferences. This study advances our knowledge of the complex relationship between cultural factors, SDO, hostile and benevolent sexism, and prejudice against working women. These findings offer a strong platform for further investigation and have practical applications to design programs aimed at reducing prejudice against working women and promoting gender equality in a range of professional settings.
AntmenD. (2023). Explaining the justification of violence against women based on the system justification theory. Nesne, 11(29), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-11-29-10
AustinD. E.JacksonM. (2019). Benevolent and hostile sexism differentially predicted by facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.002
4.
BarretoM.DoyleD. M. (2023). Benevolent and hostile sexism in a shifting global context. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00136-x
5.
BohnerG.AhlbornK.SteinerR. (2010). How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Sex Roles, 62, 568–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9665-x
ChristopherA. N.WojdaM. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workforce. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00407.x
8.
ClerkinC. (2017). What women want—And why you want women—In the workplace [Research report]. Center for Creative Leadership. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED582896
9.
Cuadrado-GordilloI.Martín-Mora-ParraG. (2022). Influence of cross-cultural factors about sexism, perception of severity, victimization, and gender violence in adolescent dating relationships. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(16), 10356. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610356
10.
DhontK.HodsonG.CostelloK.MacInnisC. C. (2014). Social dominance orientation connects prejudicial human–human and human–animal relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 61, 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.020
11.
EkehammarB.AkramiN.GyljeM.ZakrissonI. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism?European Journal of Personality, 18(6), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.526
12.
EnglandP.LevineA.MishelE. (2020). Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(13), 6990–6997. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1918891117
13.
EtchezaharE. D.UngarettiJ. (2015). Woman stereotypes anda ambivalent sexism in a sample of adolescents from Buenos Aires. Journal of Behavior, Health & Social Issues, 6(2), 87–94. http://hdl.handle.net/11336/36124
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
15.
Fernández PuenteA. C.Sánchez-SánchezN. (2021). How gender-based disparities affect women’s job satisfaction? Evidence from Euro-Area. Social Indicators Research, 156(1), 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02647-1
16.
FraserG.OsborneD.SibleyC. G. (2015). “We want you in the workplace, but only in a skirt!” Social dominance orientation, gender-based affirmative action and the moderating role of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 73, 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0515-8
17.
GalsanjigmedE.SekiguchiT. (2023). Challenges women experience in leadership careers: An integrative review. Merits, 3(2), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits3020021
18.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
19.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x
20.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x
21.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
22.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2018). The ambivalent sexism inventory. In FiskeS. T. (Ed.), Social cognition: Selected works of Susan Fiske (pp. 1–29). Routledge.
23.
GoodmanM. B.MoradiB. (2008). Attitudes and behaviors toward lesbian and gay persons: Critical correlates and mediated relations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.371
24.
HeikkiläM.IsakssonA.StranneF. (2020). Differentiations in visibility-male advantages and female disadvantages in gender-segregated programmes. Frontiers in Sociology, 5, Article 563204. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.563204
25.
HielA. V.MervieldeI. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Relationships with various forms of racism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(11), 2323–2344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02105.x
26.
HillC.CorbettC.St RoseA. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. American Association of University Women.
27.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.FoelsR.StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
JamshedN.StewartA. L.OverstreetN. M. (2022). Social dominance, sexual double standards, and violence against women in tight and loose cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(9), 1145–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221104950
30.
JostJ. T.BadaanV.GoudarziS.HoffarthM.MogamiM. (2019). The future of system justification theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12309
31.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
32.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
33.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(5), 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
34.
KarayeğenG. (2015). Çevreci Tutum Ve Davranışlar: sosyal Baskınlık Yönelimi, Yetkecilik Ve Ahlak Açısından Bir Değerlendirme (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi) [Environmentalist attitudes and behaviors: An evaluation in terms of social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, and ethics.] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ankara University.
35.
KingE. B.BotsfordW.HeblM. R.KazamaS.DawsonJ. F.PerkinsA. (2012). Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1835–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365902
36.
KoudenburgN.KannegieterA.PostmesT.KashimaY. (2021). The subtle spreading of sexist norms. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(8), 1467–1485. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220961838
37.
KteilyN. S.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (2011). Social dominance orientation: Cause or “mere effect”? Evidence for SDO as a causal predictor of prejudice and discrimination against ethnic and racial outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.009
NakanoK. (2007). Psychometric properties of the multidimensional aversion to women who work scale in Japanese undergraduate women. Psychological Reports, 101(1), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.101.1.163-170
OwuamalamC. K.SpearsR. (2020). Do humans possess an autonomous system justification motivation? A Pupillometric test of the strong system justification thesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103897
42.
PettigrewT. F.MeertensR. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
43.
PrattoF. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 191–263.
44.
PrattoF.LiuJ. H.LevinS.SidaniusJ.ShihM.BachrachH.HegartyP. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 369–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003005
45.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. 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
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1993). The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance. In SnidermanP. M.TetlockP. E.CarminesE. G. (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 173–211). Stanford University Press.
48.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 418–438). Sage.
49.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
50.
TerziogluF.KokG.GuvencG.OzdemirF.GonencI. M.HicyilmazB. D.SezerN. Y. (2018). Sexual and reproductive health education needs, gender roles attitudes and acceptance of couple violence according to engaged men and women. Community Mental Health Journal, 54, 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-017-0227-3
51.
ThomanS. E.StephensA. K.RobnettR. D. (2022). “Squeezing the Life Out of Each Day”: Emerging Adult Women’s Work-Family Expectations in STEM. Emerging Adulthood, 10(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696821990910
52.
TrutV.SinovčićP.MilavićB. (2022). Initial validation of the ambivalent sexism inventory in a military setting. Social Sciences, 11(4), 176.
