Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T12:36:06.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Ambivalent sexism, power distance, and gender inequality across cultures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Peter Glick
Affiliation:
Psychology Department Lawrence University USA
Serge Guimond
Affiliation:
Université de Clermont-Ferrand II (Université Blaise Pascal), France
Get access

Summary

Although some anthropologists dispute the universality of patriarchy and argue that the hunter-gatherer groups in which humans evolved were egalitarian (Salzman, 1999), agricultural and industrial societies are typically dominated by men, who monopolize the highest status positions in powerful social institutions, such as business, government, and organized religion (Carli and Eagly, 2001; Harris, 1991; Sidanius and Pratto, 1999). Societies are typically structured by a gendered division of labor that reflects prescriptive gender roles, which both create and reinforce gender hierarchy (Eagly and Wood, 1999). It is not surprising, then, that gender is a primary psychological category in both social and self-perception. When perceiving others, gender categorization occurs automatically and (judging by the frequency with which people within categories are confused with each other) predominates over other forms of categorization such as race (Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, and Ruderman, 1978). In self-perception, gender categorization is a basic aspect of self-definition (Bem, 1981).

Given the importance of gender in self and social perception, as well as the regularity with which men and women interact in daily life, cross-gender social comparisons have the potential to occur frequently. Such comparisons potentially have important implications for maintaining or challenging gender inequality. For example, if female employees compare their salaries with male coworkers and find that they are paid less, they might challenge the fairness of the organization or initiate a lawsuit.

Type
Chapter
Information
Social Comparison and Social Psychology
Understanding Cognition, Intergroup Relations, and Culture
, pp. 283 - 302
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Brekowitz, L. (ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. ii, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex-typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besabe, N., Páez, D., Valencia, J., Gonzalez, J. L., Rimé, B., and Diener, E. (2002). Culutral dimensions, socioeconomic development, climate, and emotional hedonic level. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenber, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., and Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carli, L. L. and Eagly, A. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dambrun, M. and Guimond, S. (2001). La théorie de la privation relative et l'hostilité envers les Nord-Africains [Relative deprivation theory and hostility towards North Africans]. International Review of Social Psychology, 14, 57–89.Google Scholar
Dubé, L. and Guimond, S. (1986). Relative deprivation and social protest: The personal–group issue. In Olson, J. M., Herman, C. P., and Zanna, M. P. (eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario symposium (Vol. iv; pp. 201–216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes and judgments of competence. In Stroebe, W. and Hewstone, M. (eds.). European Review of Social Psychology, (Vol. v, pp. 1–35). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H. and Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Early, P. C. and Erez, M. (1997). The transplanted executive. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., and Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P. and Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. xxxiii, pp. 115–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Glick, P. and Fiske, S. T.(1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P. and Fiske, S. T.(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J, Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J., Akande, A., Alao, A., Brunner, A., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six-Materna, I., Expósito, F., Moya, M., Foddy, M., Kim, H-J., Lameiras, M., Sotelo, M. J., Mucchi-Faina, A., Romani, M., Sakalli, N., Udegbe, B., Yamamoto, M., Ui, M., Ferreira, M. C., and López, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., Manganelli, A. M., Pek, J., Huang, L., Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., Castro, Y. R., D'Avila Pereira, M. L., Willemsen, T. M., Brunner, A., Six-Materna, I., and Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, P. R. and Brown, R. (1995) From ethnocentrism to collective protest: responses to relative deprivation and threats to social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guimond, S., Branscombe, N., Brunot, S., Buunk, B. P., Chatard, A., Désert, M., Garcia, D., Haque, S., Martinot, D., and Yzerbyt, V. (2005). Culture, gender, and the self: variations and impact of social comparison processes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Harris, M. (1991). Cultural anthropology (3rd edn.). New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G.(2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T. and Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kay, A. C. and Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” sterotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maznevski, M. L., DiStefano, J. J., Gomez, C., Nooderhaven, N. G., and Wu, P. (1997). Variations in cultural orientations within and among five countries. Paper presented at the Academy of International Business annual meeting, Monterrey, Mexico.
Mosher, D. L. and Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring a macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moya, M., Poeschl, G., Glick, P., Páez, D., and Sedano, I. F. (2005). Sexisme, masculinité-féminité et facteurs culturels [sexism, masculinity-femininity, and cultural factors], Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 18, 141–167.Google Scholar
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Salzman, P. C. (1999). Is inequality universal? Current Anthropology, 40, 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, J. and Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human categories and social groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., and Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 778–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (2002). Human development report 2002. New York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, I. and Smith, H. J. (eds.) (2002). Relative deprivation: Specification, development and integration. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×