Gender-specific System Justification Research Articles

Modern Rape Myths: Justifying Victim and Perpetrator Blame in Sexual Violence.

Rape myths are beliefs, stereotypes, and attitudes usually false, widespread, and persistent about rape, victims, and perpetrators. They aim to deny and justify men's sexual assault against women. This study evaluates the mediating effect of modern rape myths on the relationship between gender system justification and attribution of blame to both victim and perpetrator in a fictional case of sexual violence. A total of 375 individuals residing in Chile, 255 women and 120 men, 19-81 years (M = 37.6 SD = 13.06) participated in the study. Results from a Structural Equation Model show that gender system justification is directly related to the attribution of blame to the victim, showing an indirect relationship throughout the modern rape myth. However, gender system justification and attribution of blame to the aggressor are indirectly related, being mediated by modern rape myths. The study of the relationship between the acceptance of modern rape myths, gender-specific system justification, and victim and aggressor blame for rape is a contribution to understanding beliefs justifying sexual violence against women.

The Relationship between God’s Gender, Gender System Justification and Sexism

ABSTRACT Behavioral scientists and feminist theologians have long theorized that religions that primarily conceptualize God (and other divine authority figures) as male can legitimatize the social and political authority of men in society, as well as legitimatize and rationalize gender inequality. In the current study, we examined the relationship between gendered God concepts, Gender Specific System Justification and Ambivalent Sexism. In Studies 1 and 2 we found that individuals with male God concepts were higher in Gender Specific System Justification, hostile sexism (Study 1 and 2) and benevolent sexism (Study 2). In Study 3 we explored the causal relationship between gendered God concepts, Gender Specific System Justification and Ambivalent Sexism using a priming manipulation. Results revealed that individuals primed to think about God as male (vs female) were more likely to support the gender status quo. The effects found across all three studies did not differ across participant gender. Both men and women who conceptualized God as male or were primed with a male image of God were higher in Gender Specific System Justification than other gendered conceptualizations of God. Taken together these results suggest that male God concepts may reinforce the gender status quo. Implications, limitations and future research directions are discussed.

Predicting Bystander Intention to Intervene: The Role of Gender-Specific System Justification and Rape Myth Acceptance for Men and Women.

The relationship between rape myth acceptance, gender-specific system justification (GSJ), and bystander intention to intervene has often been studied on a one-dimensional basis, without separating the four dimensions of the acceptance of rape myths. The current study analyzes the relationship between the acceptance of rape myths, GSJ, and bystander intention to intervene, and explores whether the relationships operate differently for men and women. The sample was 3,966 university students: 2,962 from the University of Turin and 1,004 from the Politecnico of Turin; 71.2% women and 28.8% men; average age of 22.61 years. After descriptive analyses, independent sample T-test, and bivariate correlations, a model where the acceptance of four rape myths (“She asked for it”; “He didn’t mean to”; “It wasn’t really rape”; “She lied”) mediated the relationship between GSJ and bystander intention to intervene was tested on the whole sample and then separately on women and men. A bootstrapping procedure was applied. Our data show that for both men and women, GSJ was related to the four rape myths, whereas women and men differed on the relationship between acceptance of rape myths and bystander intention to intervene: only the dimension “She asked for it” was significant for both groups; the dimension “It wasn’t really rape” was significant only for the men. Focusing on the differences in women and men regarding acceptance of rape myths can be fruitful for a theoretical deepening of the field and may inform the development of more successful prevention programs.

Two Preregistered Direct Replications of “Objects Don’t Object: Evidence That Self-Objectification Disrupts Women’s Social Activism”

Self-objectification has been claimed to induce numerous detrimental consequences for women at the individual level (e.g., sexual dysfunction, depression, eating disorders). Additionally, at the collective level, it has been proposed that self-objectified women might themselves contribute to the maintenance of the patriarchal status quo, for instance, by participating less in collective action. In 2013, Calogero found a negative link between self-objectification and collective action, which was mediated by the adoption of gender-specific system justification. Here, we report two preregistered direct replications (PDRs) of Calogero’s original study. We conducted these PDRs after three failures to replicate the positive relation between self-objectification and gender-specific system-justification belief in correlational studies. Results of the two PDRs, in which we used a Bayesian approach, supported the null hypothesis. This work has important theoretical implications because it challenges the role attributed to self-objectified women in the maintenance of patriarchy.

"We Look (and Feel) Better Through System-Justifying Lenses": System-Justifying Beliefs Attenuate the Well-Being Gap Between the Advantaged and Disadvantaged by Reducing Perceptions of Discrimination.

Low-status groups report lower levels of well-being than do high-status groups. Although system justification theory posits that the endorsement of system-justifying beliefs should decrease this well-being gap, the underlying mechanisms responsible for this hypothesized palliative effect have evaded empirical scrutiny. We address this oversight by arguing that system-justifying beliefs confer palliative benefits upon low-status groups by decreasing perceptions of group-based discrimination. Using nationally representative data from New Zealand (N = 12,959), we demonstrate that ethnic minorities (Study 1a) and women (Study 1b) generally report lower levels of well-being than do New Zealand Europeans and men, respectively. Nevertheless, as hypothesized, these differences were mitigated by the endorsement of ethnic- and gender-specific system justification, respectively. Mediated moderation analyses further revealed that part of the palliative effects of system justification occurred via reductions in perceived group-based discrimination. The implications of these findings for intergroup relations are discussed.

French Validation of the Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale (DVMAS)

The Domestic Violence Myth Acceptance Scale (DVMAS) was developed to study widely held stereotypical attitudes and beliefs, which contribute to the minimization and justification of intimate partner violence (IPV). This research aims to validate a French version of the DVMAS. In Study 1 ( N = 282), we tested the structure of the DVMAS. Results revealed that the scale displayed reasonable fit indices. In Study 2 ( N = 296), we assessed convergent and discriminant validity. The scale was positively correlated with belief in a just world, ambivalent sexism, and gender-specific system justification. In Study 3 ( N = 156), we tested the predictive validity of the DMAS. Results showed that participants who endorsed more myths also placed more responsibility on the victim of IPV, exonerated the aggressor more, and perceived the violence as less severe. Broadly speaking, results provide evidence of reliability of the French DVMAS and domestic violence myths are commonplace and impact the representation of violence. This scale could contribute to improve certain aspects at stake in the negative judgments against victims of IPV in France.

The Madonna-Whore Dichotomy: Men Who Perceive Women's Nurturance and Sexuality as Mutually Exclusive Endorse Patriarchy and Show Lower Relationship Satisfaction

The Madonna-Whore Dichotomy (MWD) denotes polarized perceptions of women in general as either “good,” chaste, and pure Madonnas or as “bad,” promiscuous, and seductive whores. Whereas prior theories focused on unresolved sexual complexes or evolved psychological tendencies, feminist theory suggests the MWD stems from a desire to reinforce patriarchy. Surveying 108 heterosexual Israeli men revealed a positive association between MWD endorsement and patriarchy-enhancing ideology as assessed by Social Dominance Orientation (preference for hierarchical social structures), Gender-Specific System Justification (desire to maintain the existing gender system), and sexist attitudes (Benevolent and Hostile Sexism, Sexual Objectification of Women, and Sexual Double Standards). In addition, MWD endorsement negatively predicted men’s romantic relationship satisfaction. These findings support the feminist notion that patriarchal arrangements have negative implications for the well-being of men as well as women. Specifically, the MWD not only links to attitudes that restrict women’s autonomy, but also impairs men’s most intimate relationships with women. Increased awareness of motives underlying the MWD and its psychological costs can help practice professionals (e.g., couple therapists), as well as the general public, to foster more satisfying heterosexual relationships.

Objectification and System Justification Impact Rape Avoidance Behaviors

There is little recent research on women’s adoption of rape avoidance behaviors, and there has been no known investigation into how adoption of these behaviors relates to various system justification beliefs or experiences of sexual objectification. We surveyed 294 U.S. women aged 18 to 40 to assess experiences of objectification, belief in a just world, gender-specific system justification, benevolent sexism, rape myth acceptance, and engagement in rape avoidance behaviors. Belief in a just world, gender-specific system justification, and benevolent sexism were conceptualized and analyzed as a “system justification” latent factor due to similarities between constructs regarding how they influence worldview, particularly regarding fairness and relations between dominant and subordinate groups. Our hypothesized model had good fit to the data and illustrated that experiencing objectification was related to increased rape myth acceptance and system justification, which, in turn, were related to implementation of rape avoidance behaviors. Further, system justification was significantly positively related to rape myth acceptance. Results show the continued importance of understanding the role of objectification in the endorsement of rape myths and assessments of societal fairness, as well as how women’s attitudes about society may ultimately affect their assessment of rape myths and their personal behavior. This research provides new information and groundwork for researchers developing rape education programming in addition to those interested in the complex relationship between women’s experiences and behavioral outcomes.

Ideology and Gender: Observers’ System Justification and Targets’ Gender as Interactive Predictors of Citizenship Expectations

ABSTRACTWe integrate system justification and social role theory to explain how observers’ system justification and target employees’ gender interact to predict observers’ expectations of targets’ sportsmanship citizenship behaviors. In contrast with social role theory predictions, observers did not expect greater levels of sportsmanship from women compared to men. Yet observers expected more sportsmanship from women (a) when observers were ideologically motivated by gender-specific beliefs (gender-specific system justification; Study 1) and (b) when system justification was cued experimentally (Study 2). A heretofore-unexamined aspect, observers’ ideology, modifies their expectations of sportsmanship citizenship across target genders. This has implications for system justification, social role, and organizational citizenship theoretical perspectives.

“A Giant Leap for Mankind” But What About Women? The Role of System-Justifying Ideologies in Predicting Attitudes Toward Sexist Language

Sexist language excludes, trivializes, or diminishes either gender. Despite efforts by many professional bodies to encourage the use of nonsexist alternatives, sexist language use persists across many languages. Furthermore, research has shown that men are less supportive of nonsexist language alternatives than women, and that this effect is mediated by attitudes toward women. We propose that broader ideologies related to the perceived legitimacy of dominance hierarchies and existing social systems also explain this gender gap. British undergraduate participants completed measures of attitudes toward women, gender-specific system justification, and social dominance orientation. They also completed an inventory of attitudes toward sexist language. There was a strong gender difference in attitudes toward sexist language that was significantly mediated by gender-specific system justification and social dominance orientation. The relationship between gender and attitudes toward sexist language therefore appears to be driven by broader ideologies that serve to keep women “in their place”.

A System Justification View of Sexual Violence: Legitimizing Gender Inequality and Reduced Moral Outrage Are Connected to Greater Rape Myth Acceptance

Rape is a pervasive social problem that causes serious physical and psychological repercussions. Rape victims’ recovery is often complicated by the public's failure to believe the victim and restore justice. This study applied system justification theory to examine whether the justification of gender inequality is related to moral outrage (an emotional precursor to corrective action) and rape myth acceptance; we also examined whether rape myth acceptance is associated with moral outrage at injustice. Results showed that gender-specific system justification correlated with less moral outrage at human suffering as well as greater rape myth acceptance. The relationships between these variables were similar for men and for women, a finding that suggests that rape myths are system justifying for women. When we controlled for gender-specific system justification, rape myth acceptance correlated with less moral outrage. Results are discussed in the context of how legitimizing ideologies reduce moral outrage at injustice and perpetuate a system of sexual violence.

Reducing the Endorsement of Sexism Using Experiential Learning

In two multipart studies, we tested the effectiveness of an experiential learning-based intervention (Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation–Academic [WAGES-Academic]) to reduce sexism endorsement. We randomly assigned undergraduates to either WAGES ( n = 144) or one of two control conditions ( n = 268): one where participants received the same information as WAGES but without experiential learning or another that included an experiential group activity but no gender equity information. WAGES participants (vs. both controls) reported less endorsement of sexist beliefs after completing the activity and/or at a follow-up 7–11 days later as measured by the Modern Sexism (Study 1), Neo-sexism (Study 2), Hostile Sexism (Study 2), and Gender-Specific System Justification (Studies 1 and 2) scales. Both studies demonstrated that these effects were attributable to WAGES providing more information, evoking less reactance, eliciting more empathy, and instilling more self-efficacy compared to the other conditions. Results suggest that programs to reduce sexist beliefs will be successful only insofar as they invite access to discussion in such a way that does not elicit defensive denial of the problem, create a context in which participants are readily able to empathize with other, and instill feelings of self-efficacy that one can address the problem.

Objects Don’t Object

Integrating system-justification and objectification theories, the research reported here broadens the scope of prior work on women’s self-objectification to examine its system-justifying function. I investigated the relation of trait and state self-objectification to support for the gender status quo and engagement in gender-based social activism among U.S. college women. Study 1 established that greater trait self-objectification was related to more gender-specific system justification and less engagement in gender-based social activism. The data supported a mediational model in which gender-specific system justification mediated the link between trait self-objectification and social activism. Results from Study 2, in which self-objectification was situationally activated, confirmed the same mediational model. These findings suggest that trait and state self-objectification may be part of a wider pattern of system-justifying behavior that maintains gender inequality and thwarts women’s pursuit of social justice.

Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change.

The current research tests a model for understanding how benevolent sexism undermines, whereas hostile sexism promotes, social change. Study 1 (N = 99) and Study 2 (N = 92) demonstrate that exposing women to benevolent sexism decreases their engagement in collective action, whereas exposure to hostile sexism increases it. Both effects were mediated by gender-specific system justification and perceived advantages of being a woman. In Study 2, positive and negative affect also mediated these relationships. Results from Studies 3 and 4 (N = 68 and N = 37) support the causal chain described in the mediational models tested in Studies 1 and 2. Manipulations that increased gender-specific system justification (Study 3) and perceived advantages of being a woman (Study 4) reduced intentions to participate in collective action.