‘Choosing’ the Patriarchal Norm: Emerging Adults’ Marital Last Name Change Attitudes, Plans, and Rationales

Obstacles to Birth Surname Retention Upon Marriage: How Do Hostile Sexism and System Justification Predict Support for Marital Surname Change Among Women?

“…Prevailing support for marital surname change among heterosexual couples presents an important social issue as it manifests that there remains a social facet of status inequality in marriage, wherein (traditionally) women are expected to change their legal identity in a way men are not. Surprisingly, research that has provided insight into the social-psychological processes that underlie inegalitarian naming conventions is rare (for an exception, see, e.g., Pilcher, 2017 ; Stoiko and Strough, 2017 ). Previous research on marital surname change has approached this phenomenon from an individual perspective, which focused mainly on the role of women’s personal motives in their marital surname choice (e.g., Scheuble et al, 2012 ; MacEacheron, 2016 ; Stoiko and Strough, 2017 ; Taniguchi and Kaufman, 2020 ).…”

“…Surprisingly, research that has provided insight into the social-psychological processes that underlie inegalitarian naming conventions is rare (for an exception, see, e.g., Pilcher, 2017 ; Stoiko and Strough, 2017 ). Previous research on marital surname change has approached this phenomenon from an individual perspective, which focused mainly on the role of women’s personal motives in their marital surname choice (e.g., Scheuble et al, 2012 ; MacEacheron, 2016 ; Stoiko and Strough, 2017 ; Taniguchi and Kaufman, 2020 ). While, we acknowledge the importance of understanding individual-level motives regarding naming choices, in the current paper, we argue that decisions made by individuals in relation to their surnames upon marriage can be embedded in and become a consequence of a broader social system as well.…”

“…While the association between ambivalent sexism and support for male-centerd marital surname change has not been systematically examined quantitatively, a few studies conducted with female college students in the context of the United States have shown that their plans to adopt their husbands’ surname upon marriage were associated with their higher conformity to patriarchal norms (e.g., Scheuble et al, 2012 ; Stoiko and Strough, 2017 ). A qualitative study conducted with professional feminist middle-class heterosexual women in the United Kingdom has suggested that they viewed the practice of marital surnaming as built into the dominant ideologies of institutionalized sexism (e.g., Mills, 2003 ).…”

“…A qualitative study conducted with professional feminist middle-class heterosexual women in the United Kingdom has suggested that they viewed the practice of marital surnaming as built into the dominant ideologies of institutionalized sexism (e.g., Mills, 2003 ). Research on marital surname change has also examined women’s rationales for their decision not to retain their maiden name upon marriage (e.g., Scheuble et al, 2012 ; MacEacheron, 2016 ), drawing comparisons between the choices of feminist and non-feminist women (e.g., Stoiko and Strough, 2017 ) as well as approaching the complex surname choices made by same-sex couples (e.g., Underwood and Robnett, 2019 ).…”

“…When a disproportionate number of women worldwide manifest the willingness to undergo a major and visible change in their legal identity by adopting their husbands’ surname upon marriage, it can reasonably be considered a group phenomenon worth scrutiny from a social-psychological perspective. Some studies have documented that sexist ideology exerts a great influence on the endorsement of patriarchal norms in a marriage that promote and protect male dominance in a heterosexual family (e.g., Chen et al, 2009 ; Stoiko and Strough, 2017 ). A handful of experimental research has shown that both benevolent sexism and hostile sexism predict individuals’ support for traditional gender roles, thus often showing their complementary role in promoting gender inequalities (e.g., Barreto and Ellemers, 2005 ; Barreto et al, 2010 ; Brownhalls et al, 2021 ).…”