Sexismo hostil y benevolentedimensiones de comparación intergrupal, imagen de los subtipos de mujer y autoimagen del endogrupo

  1. Gómez Berrocal, Carmen
  2. Cuadrado Guirado, María Isabel
  3. Navas, María Soledad
  4. Quiles del Castillo, María de las Nieves
  5. Morera Bello, María Dolores
Journal:
International Journal of Social Psychology, Revista de Psicología Social

ISSN: 0213-4748,  1579-3680

Year of publication: 2011

Volume: 26

Issue: 1

Pages: 45-62

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1174/021347411794078453 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

More publications in: International Journal of Social Psychology, Revista de Psicología Social

Abstract

The following research study analyses the relationship between types of sexism and intergroup strategies. Specifically, we explored 1) the dimensions attributed by the male in-group to different female subtypes, as well as 2) the relationship between types of sexism and strategies of intergroup differentiation and in-group favouritism. 180 men, with a mean age of 37.67 (DT= 12.1), filled out one of the three versions (traditional woman, independent woman and sexy woman) of a questionnaire. This included measures of features and attributes to evaluate subjects' perception of the woman stimulus, and to undertake ingroup-outgroup comparisons, together with measures of sexism. Overall results show that the independent woman type is both the most favoured and the most discriminated in subjects' assignation of positive and negative features. Moreover, hostile and benevolent sexism toward the independent woman type are related, on the one hand, to a tendency to favour the in-group in the comparison and, on the other, to distancing oneself from this woman type who for subjects carries a negative image. These results are discussed within the framework of Social Identity Theory.

Bibliographic References

  • Abrams, D. (1996). Social identity, self as structure and self as process. En W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social Groups and Identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 143–168). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • Abrams, D. (1999). Social identity, social cognition, and the self: The flexibility and stability of self-categorization. En D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social Identity and Social Cognition (pp. 197–229). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Demoulin, S., Leyens, J. PH., Paladino, M. P., Rodríguez-torres, R., Rodríguez-pérez, A. & Dovidio, J. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non-uniquely” human emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 71–96.
  • Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.
  • Eagly, A. H. & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes and judgements of competence. En W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 1–35). Nueva York: Wiley.
  • Expósito, F., Moya, M. & Glick, P. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlatos. Revista de Psicología Social, 13, 159–169.
  • Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. & Xu, J. (2002). A Model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
  • Fiske, S. T., Xu, L., Cuddy, A. C. & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473–489.
  • 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.
  • Glick, P. & Fiske, S. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
  • Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. En M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 115–188). San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Glick, P., Larsen, S., Johnson, C. & Branstiter, H. (2005). Evaluations on sexy women in low and high-status jobs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 4, 389–395.
  • Gómez-berrocal, C. (1998). Conflicto de identidad y racismo hacia los gitanos. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
  • Leyens, J. PH., Paladino, M., Rodríguez, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodríguez, A. & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emocional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroup and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197.
  • Masser, B. & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51, 609–615.
  • Oakes, P. J. (1996). The categorization process: Cognition and the group in the social psychology of stereotyping. En W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and Identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 95–120). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A. & Turner, J. C. (1998). The role of prototypicality in group influence and cohesion: Contextual variation in the graded structure of social categories. En S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Paez & J. C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social Identity: International perspectives (pp. 75–92). Londres: Sage.
  • Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B. & Tyler, R. B. (1990). “Us” and “Them”: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 475–486.
  • Pérez, J. A. (1996). Nuevas formas de racismo. En J. F. Morales & S. Yubero (Eds.), Del prejuicio al racismo: perspectives psicosociales (pp. 79–102). Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.
  • Pérez, J. A., Falomir, J. M., Baguena, M. J. & Mugny, G. (1993). El racismo: actitudes manifiestas y latentes. Papeles del Psicólogo, 56, 45–50.
  • P´rez, J. A., Moscovici, S. & Chulvi, &B. (2002). Natura y cultura como principio de clasificación social. Anclaje de representaciones sociales sobre minorías étnicas. Revista de Psicología Social, 17, 51–67.
  • Quiles, M. N., Morera, M. D., Correa, A. D., Navas, M. S., Gómez-berrocal C. & Cuadrado, I. (2008). El prejuicio hacia las mujeres: ¿infrahumanización o infravaloración? Revista de Psicología Social, 23, 221–228.
  • Recio, P., Cuadrado, I. & Ramos, E. (2007). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Detección de Sexismo en Adolescentes (DSA). Psicothema, 19, 522–528.
  • Six, &B. & Eckes, T. (1991). A closer look at the complex structure of gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 24, 57–71.
  • Swim, J., Aihin, K., Hall, W. & Hunter, B. (1995). Sexism and Racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.
  • Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79–97.
  • Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
  • Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. En W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Monterey: Brooks-Cole.
  • Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. & Joly, S. (1995). Neo-sexism: Plus ca change, plus c'est pariel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849.
  • Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. En H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social Identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorisation and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. En J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich: JAI Press.
  • Viki, G. & Abrams, D. (2003). Infrahumanization: Ambivalent Sexism and the Attribution of Primary and Secondary Emotions to Women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 492–499.
Data source: Dialnet