Sexist attitudes do not exist in a limbo; they are embedded in larger belief systems associated with specific hierarchies of values. In particular, manifestations of benevolent sexism (Glick and Fiske 1996, 1997, 2001) can be perceived as a social boon, not a social ill, both because they are experienced as positive, and because they reward behaviors that maintain social stability. One of the strongest social institutions that create and justify specific hierarchies of values is religion. In this paper, we examine how the values inherent in religious beliefs (perhaps inadvertently) propagate an unequal status quo between men and women through endorsement of ideologies linked to benevolent sexism. In a survey with a convenience sample of train passengers in Southern and Eastern Poland (N = 180), we investigated the relationship between Catholic religiosity and sexist attitudes. In line with previous findings (Gaunt 2012; Glick et al. 2002a; Taşdemir and Sakallı-Uğurlu 2010), results suggest that religiosity can be linked to endorsement of benevolent sexism. This relationship was mediated in our study by the values of conservatism and openness to change (Schwartz 1992): religious individuals appear to value the societal status quo, tradition, and conformity, which leads them to perceive women through the lens of traditional social roles. Adhering to the teachings of a religion that promotes family values in general seems to have as its byproduct an espousal of prejudicial attitudes toward specific members of the family.

No abstract

Due to moral, religious, and cultural sensibilities, the topic of abortion still gives rise to controversy. The ongoing public debate has become visibly polarized with the usage of the pro-life versus pro-choice rhetoric. The aim of the current research was to investigate whether the language used in abortion discourse can affect people's attitudes by changing their attributions of humanity to unborn. Across three experimental studies we showed that participants who read about a 'foetus', compared to a 'child' declared higher support for elective abortion (Study 1; N = 108), this effect can be explained by greater humanness, as reflected in human nature traits, attributed to the child (vs. the foetus; Study 2; N = 121). The effect is mediated uniquely by attribution of human nature, but not by human uniqueness traits (Study 3; N = 120). These findings serve as a starting point for discussion of the role of language in shaping attitudes on abortion and other morally ambiguous issues.

No abstract

No abstract