This study assesses individual social attitudes and ideological beliefs regarding systems of power and sexism (i.e., Authoritarianism, Conservatism, Traditionalism, Social Dominance Orientation [SDO], Hostile Sexism [HS], and Benevolent Sexism [BS]) in relationship to Bible interpretation choice about passages related to gender. Data were collected from 216 conservative Protestant Christian churchgoers. It was hypothesized that individuals with higher levels of Authoritarianism, Conservatism, Traditionalism, SDO, HS, and BS would prefer interpretations that endorse gender hierarchy. The results supported these hypotheses, finding Traditionalism and HS to be the primary factors related to interpretation choice. Additionally, it was hypothesized that any significant difference between men and women regarding interpretation choice would be explained by individual differences in these social attitudes and ideological beliefs. Men were significantly more likely than women to prefer Bible interpretations oriented toward gender hierarchy, and this difference was primarily explained by Traditionalism and HS.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllportG. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation.Oxford, England: Henry Holt.
2.
AllportG. W. (1966). Religious context of prejudice.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 447–457.
3.
AltemeyerB. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism.Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
BassettR. L., MatthewsonK., & GailitisA. (1993). Recognizing the person in biblical interpretation: An empirical study.Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 12, 38–46.
6.
BeganyJ. J., & MilburnM. A. (2002). Psychological predictors of sexual harassment: Authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths.Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3(2), 119–126. doi:10.1037/1524–9220.3.2.119
7.
BruceF. F. (1977). New Testament interpretation.Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
8.
BudnerS. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable.Journal of Personality, 30, 29–50. doi:10.1111/1467–6494.ep8933446
9.
BurnS., & BussoJ. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(4), 412–418. doi:10.1111/j.1471–6402.2005.00241.x
10.
BussD. M., AbbottM., AngleitnerA., AsherianA., BiaggioA., Blanco-VillasenorA., … YangK. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(1), 5–47. doi:10.1177/0022022190211001
11.
ChristopherA. N., & MullM. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223–230.
12.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.).Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
CrittendenC. A., & WrightE. M. (2013). Predicting patriarchy: Using individual and contextual factors to examine patriarchal endorsement in communities.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(6), 1267–1288.
14.
DuckittJ. (1989). Authoritarianism and group identification: A new view of an old construct.Political Psychology, 10(1), 63–84. doi:10.2307/3791588
15.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16.
DuckittJ. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to out-groups.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 684–696. doi:10.1177/0146167205284282
DuckittJ., BizumicB., KraussS., & HeledE. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model.Political Psychology, 31, 685–715.
19.
DuckittJ., WagnerC., du PlessisI., & BirumI. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual-process model.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 75–93.
20.
EaglyA. H., & WoodW. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles.American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.54.6.408
21.
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. doi:10.1002/per.526
22.
EliasonK. (2014). Benevolent sexism's manifestation and expression in conservative Christians. (Unpublished master's thesis). Biola University, La Mirada, California.
23.
EmersonM. O., & SmithC. (2000). Divided by faith.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
24.
FeatherN. T. (2004). Value correlates of ambivalent attitudes toward gender relations.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 3–12. doi:10.1177/0146167203258825
25.
FeatherN. T., & McKeeI. R. (2012). Values, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and ambivalent attitudes toward women.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(10), 2479–2504. doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.2012.00950.x
FrancisL. J., & JonesS. H. (1998). Personality and Christian belief among adult churchgoers.Journal of Psychological Type, 47, 5–11.
28.
FrancisL. J., & JonesS. H. (1999). Psychological type and tolerance for religious uncertainty.Pastoral Psychology, 47, 253–259. doi:10.1023/A:1021395211229
29.
Frankel-BrunswikE. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable.Journal of Personality, 18, 106–143. doi:10.1111/j.l467–6494.1949.tb01236.x
30.
GlickP., & FiskeS. T. (1996a). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.70.3.491
31.
GlickP., & FiskeS. T. (1996b). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. [Database record]. Retrieved from PsychTESTS. doi:10.1037/t00700–000
32.
GlickP., & FiskeS. T. (2001a). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality.American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.
33.
GlickP., & FiskeS. T. (2001b). Ambivalent sexism.Advances in Experimental Psychology, 33, 115–188.
34.
GlickP., FiskeS. T., MladinicA., SaizJ. L., AbramsD., MasserB., … LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.79.5.763
35.
GlickP., LameirasM., & CastroY. (2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men.Sex Roles, 47(9-10), 433–441. doi:10.1023/A:1021696209949
36.
GoldsteinV. S. (1960). The human situation: A feminine view.The Journal of Religion, 40(2), 100–112.
37.
GordonA. M., & ChenS. (2013). Does power help or hurt?: The moderating role of self-other focus on power and perspective-taking in romantic relationships.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1097–1110.
38.
GruberS., & SzołtysekM. (2012). Stem families, joint families, and the European pattern: What kind of a reconsideration do we need?Journal of Family History, 37(1), 105–125.
39.
JohnsonC. B. (1983). The psychology of biblical interpretation.Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
40.
KreindlerS. A. (2005). A dual group processes model of individual differences in prejudice.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 90–107. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_1
41.
MaltbyL. E., HallM. E. L., AndersonT. L., & EdwardsK. (2010). Religion and sexism: The moderating role of participant gender.Sex Roles, 62, 615–622.
42.
McFarlandS. G. (1989). Religious orientations and the targets of discrimination.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 324–336. doi:10.2307/1386743
43.
MorashM., BuiH., ZhangY., & HoltfreterK. (2007). Risk factors for abusive relationships: A study of Vietnamese American immigrant women.Violence Against Women, 13(7), 653–675. doi:10.1177/1077801207302044
44.
OrmeL. M. (2015). Power and sexism: Factors in biblical interpretation. (Unpublished dissertation). Biola University, La Mirada, California.
45.
OgleR. S., & BattonC. (2009). Revisiting patriarchy: Its conceptualization and operationalization in criminology.Critical Criminology, 17(3), 159–182. 10.1007/s10612–009–9081–0
46.
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, 741–763.
47.
ScholerD. M. (1987). Feminist hermeneutics and evangelical biblical interpretation.Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 30(4), 407–20.
48.
Schüssler FiorenzaE. (2001). Wisdom ways.New York, NY: Orbis Books.
49.
TaşdemirN., & Sakalli-UğurluN. (2010). The relationships between ambivalent sexism and religiosity among Turkish university students.Sex Roles, 62(7-8), 420–426. doi:10.1007/s11199–009–9693–6
VillageA. (2014). The relationship of psychological type to interpretations of Genesis among churchgoers in England.Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(1), 78–82.
52.
VillageA., & FrancisL. J. (2005). The relationship of psychological type preferences to biblical interpretation.Journal of Empirical Theology, 18, 74–89. doi:10.1163/1570925054048929
53.
WitheridgeK. S. (2010). Personality and religiousness: Examining the interactions between religious beliefs and personality traits (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3392883)
