The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being

Jaime L. Napier; Hulda Thorisdottir; John T. Jost

doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7

The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being

Jaime L. Napier, Hulda Thorisdottir, John T. Jost

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Previous research on system justification theory suggests that beliefs that rationalize inequalities are related to subjective well-being. We examine how "complementary" (hostile and benevolent) justifications of gender inequality may serve a palliative function for both men and women. Using multilevel modeling and data from 32 countries (N's = 362 to 5160), we find that relationships between hostile and benevolent justifications and life satisfaction are moderated by the degree of gender inequality at the national level. In relatively egalitarian nations, individuals who endorse "complementary" justifications are higher on life satisfaction compared to those who endorse an exclusively hostile justification. In nations with high gender inequality, there is no difference in life satisfaction for those who endorse exclusively hostile vs. complementary justifications.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	405-419
Number of pages	15
Journal	Sex Roles
Volume	62
Issue number	7-8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7
State	Published - Apr 2010

Keywords

Complementary stereotypes
Subjective well-being
System justification

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Gender Studies
Social Psychology
Developmental and Educational Psychology

Access to Document

10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7

Cite this

@article{35098b03c22b495499cd4b4a47244871,

title = "The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being",

abstract = "Previous research on system justification theory suggests that beliefs that rationalize inequalities are related to subjective well-being. We examine how {"}complementary{"} (hostile and benevolent) justifications of gender inequality may serve a palliative function for both men and women. Using multilevel modeling and data from 32 countries (N's = 362 to 5160), we find that relationships between hostile and benevolent justifications and life satisfaction are moderated by the degree of gender inequality at the national level. In relatively egalitarian nations, individuals who endorse {"}complementary{"} justifications are higher on life satisfaction compared to those who endorse an exclusively hostile justification. In nations with high gender inequality, there is no difference in life satisfaction for those who endorse exclusively hostile vs. complementary justifications.",

keywords = "Complementary stereotypes, Subjective well-being, System justification",

author = "Napier, {Jaime L.} and Hulda Thorisdottir and Jost, {John T.}",

year = "2010",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "62",

pages = "405--419",

journal = "Sex Roles",

issn = "0360-0025",

publisher = "Springer New York",

number = "7-8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being

AU - Napier, Jaime L.

AU - Thorisdottir, Hulda

AU - Jost, John T.

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - Previous research on system justification theory suggests that beliefs that rationalize inequalities are related to subjective well-being. We examine how "complementary" (hostile and benevolent) justifications of gender inequality may serve a palliative function for both men and women. Using multilevel modeling and data from 32 countries (N's = 362 to 5160), we find that relationships between hostile and benevolent justifications and life satisfaction are moderated by the degree of gender inequality at the national level. In relatively egalitarian nations, individuals who endorse "complementary" justifications are higher on life satisfaction compared to those who endorse an exclusively hostile justification. In nations with high gender inequality, there is no difference in life satisfaction for those who endorse exclusively hostile vs. complementary justifications.

AB - Previous research on system justification theory suggests that beliefs that rationalize inequalities are related to subjective well-being. We examine how "complementary" (hostile and benevolent) justifications of gender inequality may serve a palliative function for both men and women. Using multilevel modeling and data from 32 countries (N's = 362 to 5160), we find that relationships between hostile and benevolent justifications and life satisfaction are moderated by the degree of gender inequality at the national level. In relatively egalitarian nations, individuals who endorse "complementary" justifications are higher on life satisfaction compared to those who endorse an exclusively hostile justification. In nations with high gender inequality, there is no difference in life satisfaction for those who endorse exclusively hostile vs. complementary justifications.

KW - Complementary stereotypes

KW - Subjective well-being

KW - System justification

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77952428268&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77952428268&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7

DO - 10.1007/s11199-009-9712-7

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77952428268

SN - 0360-0025

VL - 62

SP - 405

EP - 419

JO - Sex Roles

JF - Sex Roles

IS - 7-8

ER -

The joy of sexism? A multinational investigation of hostile and benevolent justifications for gender inequality and their relations to subjective well-being

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this