Toward Gender Understanding: Examining Ambivalent Sexism among University Students and Its Impact on Faculty Evaluation

  1. Amaia Yurrebaso 1
  2. Raquel Guzmán Ordaz 1
  3. Eva María Picado Valverde 1
  4. Álvaro Jáñez González 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Revista:
Societies

ISSN: 2075-4698

Any de publicació: 2024

Volum: 14

Número: 4

Pàgines: 48

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.3390/SOC14040048 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccés obert editor

Altres publicacions en: Societies

Objectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible

Resum

This study examines gender differences in levels of sexism among university students and evaluates variations in assessing sexist attitudes toward professors. The aim is to analyze potential disparities between men and women regarding ambivalent sexism (both hostile and benevolent) and to determine if these differences influence the evaluation of specific behaviors by teaching faculty. Additionally, the present study seeks to validate the variability hypothesis, asserting that men are over-represented in the extremes of distributions compared to women concerning analyzed sexist attitudes. Eighty university students participated voluntarily and anonymously, completing three questionnaires on ambivalent sexism, neosexism, and the assessment of sexist behaviors by their instructors. Consistent with prior research, the results reveal higher levels of sexism among men in this context. Despite these differences, both men and women align in evaluating specific behaviors in teaching faculty, irrespective of their individual levels of sexism. Finally, the data presented support the variability hypothesis, indicating greater variability in sexist attitudes among men than women. These findings suggest that general attitudes assessed in most questionnaires might not be representative of the behaviors and attitudes that people display in real specific situations. This could change how future research and interventions approach these issues.

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Lameiras, (2004), Anu. Sexol., 8, pp. 91
  • Allport, G.W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley.
  • Glick, (1996), J. Personal. Soc. Psychol., 70, pp. 491, 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
  • Sibley, C.G., and Barlow, F.K. (2016). The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice, Cambridge University Press.
  • Sutton, (2019), J. Personal. Soc. Psychol., 116, pp. 167, 10.1037/pspa0000135
  • Guimond, S. (2006). Social Comparison and Social Psychology: Understanding Cognition, Intergroup Relations, and Culture, Cambridge University Press.
  • Eagly, (2013), Sex Roles A J. Res., 69, pp. 549, 10.1007/s11199-013-0315-y
  • Buss, (2011), Sex Roles, 64, pp. 768, 10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3
  • Archer, (2009), Behav. Brain Sci., 32, pp. 249, 10.1017/S0140525X09990951
  • Eagly, (2018), J. Soc. Issues, 74, pp. 871, 10.1111/josi.12291
  • Olson, (2012), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 46, pp. 55, 10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7
  • Zhu, (2019), Front. Psychol., 10, pp. 1709, 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01709
  • Ritchie, (2018), Cereb. Cortex, 28, pp. 2959, 10.1093/cercor/bhy109
  • Joel, (2017), Neuropsychopharmacology, 42, pp. 379, 10.1038/npp.2016.79
  • Marley, C.L. (2023). A Cross-Species and Cross-Cultural Comparative Analysis of Sex and Gender Dierences in Rough and Tumble Play. [Ph.D. Thesis, Durham University]. Available online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/15100/.
  • Bale, (2015), Nat. Neurosci., 18, pp. 1413, 10.1038/nn.4112
  • King, (2012), J. Manag., 38, pp. 1835
  • Hammond, (2018), Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci., 9, pp. 863, 10.1177/1948550617727588
  • Goh, (2020), Personal. Individ. Differ., 155, pp. 109753, 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109753
  • (2017), ENSAYOS Rev. La Fac. Educ. Albacete, 32, pp. 127
  • Cowie, (2019), Personal. Individ. Differ., 148, pp. 85, 10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.023
  • (2020), Profesorado. Rev. Currículum Form. Profr., 24, pp. 284
  • Arbach, (2019), Interdisciplinaria, 36, pp. 59
  • (2018), Contextos Educ., 21, pp. 35
  • Adams, (2006), J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 42, pp. 602, 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.10.004
  • Castro, (2003), Acción Psicol., 2, pp. 131
  • (2020), Educ. XX1, 23, pp. 275
  • Pettijohn, (2008), Coll. Stud. J., 42, pp. 459
  • Shields, (1982), Signs J. Women Cult. Soc., 7, pp. 769, 10.1086/493921
  • Baye, (2016), Large Scale Assess. Educ., 4, pp. 1, 10.1186/s40536-015-0015-x
  • Gray, (2019), Large-Scale Assess. Educ., 7, pp. 2, 10.1186/s40536-019-0070-9
  • Kreuter, (2008), Public Opin. Q., 72, pp. 847, 10.1093/poq/nfn063
  • Moya, (1998), Int. J. Soc. Psychol., 13, pp. 159
  • Tougas, (1995), Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 21, pp. 842, 10.1177/0146167295218007
  • Moya, (2001), Psicothema, 13, pp. 643
  • Glick, (2000), J. Personal. Soc. Psychol., 79, pp. 763, 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
  • Reilly, (2015), J. Educ. Psychol., 107, pp. 645, 10.1037/edu0000012