A Cross-Cultural Examination of Gender Norms and Sexism

Naoyuki Sunami, Zachary C. Roth, Ryan Kopatich, Hannah Bradshaw, Zeinab Hosseini, & Kristine Kelly
Western Illinois University
Introduction
There is robust evidence that sexism and
traditional beliefs about gender exist across a
variety of differing cultures (Glick et al.,
2000). Stoica, Miller, and Ardelea (2011)
demonstrated that media depictions of beliefs
about gender stereotypes for men and
women differed among cultures. There is
some evidence that relations exist between
beliefs about gender roles and overt sexist
behaviors toward women in Iran
(Ghvamshahidi, 1995). Additionally, these
patterns have been observed in a Filipino
sample (Sarabia & Kalakasan, 1994).
However, research has yet to examine
ambivalent and hostile sexist attitudes in
these countries. Thus, this study sought to
examine the differences in gender conformity
and sexist attitudes across the countries of
Iran, the Philippines, and the United States.

Method
PARTICIPANTS
The sample consisted of 129 participants
who were recruited from the United States (n
= 33), Iran (n = 33), and the Philippines (n =
63) via social networking avenues.
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 40
years old (M = 23, SD = 4.51) and included
57 men and 72 women.

PROCEDURE
Participants completed a short online survey
that contained either the Conformity to
Masculine Norms Inventory or the Conformity
to Feminine Norms Inventory (Parent &
Moradi, 2010), depending on the sex of the
participant. They also completed
a
benevolent and hostile sexism scale (Glick et
al., 2000).

Method (cont.)
MATERIALS
The Ambivalent Sexism Index (Glick et al.,
2000) contains 22 items scored on a 6-point
Likert scale ranging from 0 (disagree strongly)
to 5 (agree strongly). This scale includes
subscales measuring Hostile Sexism (e.g.,
Women are too easily offended.) and
Benevolent Sexism (e.g., In a disaster,
women ought to be rescued before men.).
The Conformity to Feminine Norms Inventory
(Parent & Moradi, 2010) contains 45 items
scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from
0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree)
(e.g., I am terrified of gaining weight.).

Results (cont.)
Table 1.


Correlations Among Dependent Variables

Benevolent
Hostile Sexism
Sexism
Benevolent
Sexism
Conformity to
Feminine
Norms
Conformity to
Masculine
Norms
**p < .01 (2-tailed)

Conformity to
Feminine
Norms

.54**

.36**

.45**

.47**

.39**

N/A

Figure 4. Conformity to
Feminine Norms scores
across countries.

Discussion

The Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory

(Parent & Moradi, 2011) contains 46 items
scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from
0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree)
(e.g., In general, I control the women in my
life.).

Results
Four one-way analyses of variance were
conducted with country of origin as the
independent variable and conformity to
masculine and feminine gender norms,
benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism as
dependent variables. Results of these
analyses are presented in Figures 1-4. As
can be seen, significant differences were
found between countries on hostile sexism
[F(2,126) = 5.03, p < .01, 2 = .07] and
benevolent sexism [F(2,126) = 10.01, p < .01,
2 = .14] from the Ambivalent Sexism Index.
Tukey post-hoc tests revealed that Iranian
participants scored higher on hostile sexism
than American participants, and Iranian and
Filipino participants scored higher on
benevolent sexism than American
participants.

Figure 3. Conformity to
Masculine Norms scores
across countries.

Figure 1. Hostile sexism across countries.

While Glick et al. (2000) examined sexism

in a multitude of countries outside of those
traditionally studied, the countries
examined here were not part of their
analysis; therefore, this research adds to
the growing literature on sexism globally.
Specifically, little research has been done
on gender norms and sexism in Iran and
the Philippines; thus, this study provides a
broader understanding of psychological
processes in contexts other than the United
States or Western Europe. However,
further research is still needed to determine
the source of these differences (e.g.
r e l i g i o s i t y o f t h e s o c i e t y, p o l i t i c a l
conservatism, equality of opportunities).
References
Ghvamshahidi, Z. (1995). The Linkage Between Iranian Patriarchy and the Informal
Economy in Maintaining Women's Subordinate roles in Home-Based Carpet
Production. Women's Studies International Forum, 18(2), 135-151. doi:
10.1016/0277-5395(95)00009-2
Glick, P. et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent
sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5),
763-775.
Parent, M. C. & Moradi, B. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of the conformity to
feminine norms inventory and development of an abbreviated version: The
CFNI-45. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 97-109.
Parent, M. C. & Moradi, B. (2011). An abbreviated tool for assessing conformity to
masculine norms: Psychometric properties of the conformity to masculine norms
inventory-46. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(4), 339-353.
Sarabia, A., & Kalakasan (Kababaihan Labansa, K. (1994). What media can do without:
sexism and violence against women. Pambubugbog Ng Asawa. Sino Ang May Sala,
84-92.

Figure 2. Benevolent sexism across countries.

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Stoica, M., Miller, D. W., & Ardelea, D. (2011). An examination of gender role portrayals
in television commercials in Romania: A gender of nations approach. Journal Of
Marketing Communications, 17(4), 245-261. doi:10.1080/13527260903448501