Sexism, perceived discrimination, and system justification in the 2016 U.S. presidential election context

Monteith, Margo J.; Hildebrand, Laura K.

doi:10.1177/1368430219826683

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, men report more personal adherence to SDS (Alison and Risman, 2013; England and Bearak, 2014) and higher scores in the SDSS-S than women (Sierra et al, 2018). There is evidence that beliefs related to the system (Jost et al, 2017) and sexism (Gómez-Berrocal et al, 2011; Monteith and Hildebrand, 2019) shape both individual and group perceptions of gender discrimination. Future research should examine in more depth the role of these processes in individual support for the SDS and in society’s perception of the SDS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual Double Standard: A Psychometric Study From a Macropsychological Perspective Among the Spanish Heterosexual Population

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of heterosexual relationships, the sexual double standard (SDS) leads to a more negative assessment of women than men when they exhibit the same sexual behavior. This work assumes that in Western democratic societies, the individual attitude toward SDS takes different forms due to the processes of conviction regarding the social norm that exists on this matter. Therefore, the individual attitude toward SDS will depend on the person’s perception of what others think about that topic. We distinguish between self-referred response, it refers to subjects’ personal endorsement of the SDS, and responses hetero-referred, subjects’ perception of sexual societal double standard. This paper presents a version of the Double Standard Scale (SDSS) that assesses the subjective perception of society’s support for the SDS. We examine its psychometric properties in a sample of Spanish population heterosexual of 1,206 individuals (50% males), distributed across three groups (18–34, 35–49, and 50 years old or older). We performed Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The final version consists of 18 item distributed into three factors (Acceptance for Male Sexual Shyness, Acceptance for Female Sexual Freedom and Acceptance for Traditional Double Standard). Said three-factor structure does not match with the two-factor structure of the self-referred form. Internal consistency, temporal stability and validity evidence are reported. This version of the SDSS is reliable and valid. No gender differences are found in the SDSS-H. However, the results show that the context of group membership, based on education and age, is differently associated with the response to SDSS-H. That is, higher scores are found for individuals with the highest education and for the youngest participants. We discuss the usefulness of this measure to improve the prediction of individual attitude toward SDS, as well as, to evaluate the SDS phenomenon at a level of macropsychological analysis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual Double Standard: A Psychometric Study From a Macropsychological Perspective Among the Spanish Heterosexual Population

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Women who become mothers tend to fall behind, whereas men who become fathers often do even better than men who don't become fathers (Aravena, 2015;Cudd, 2006, chap. 5;Miller, 2014; see also Lisa and Larry example in Ayala-López and Beeghly, Chapter 11, "Explaining Injustice: Structural Analysis, Bias, and Individuals"). (Parenthood is not the only factor behind the gender pay gap.…”

Section: Leaving Mothers Behindmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If views like these remain pervasive, how can we expect to generate enough enthusiasm and buy-in to make meaningful and durable changes to parenting policies? The fundamental reason that it doesn't make sense to say things like, "don't worry about individuals' prejudices and stereotypes, just focus on changing structures," is that individuals' prejudices and stereotypes are some of the most powerful factors shaping their willingness to support (or oppose) political and structural change (Azevedo et al, 2019;Cooley et al, 2019;Harell et al, 2016;Monteith and Hildebrand, 2019;Mutz, 2018).…”

Section: Either/or Versus Both/andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual and Structural Interventions

Madva¹

2020

An Introduction to Implicit Bias

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

not to be included in print version for metadata only): Given all that we have learned about bias and injustice, what can we do-and what should we do-to fight back? Chapter 12 introduces empirically-tested interventions for combating implicit (and explicit) bias and promoting a fairer world, from small daily-life debiasing tricks to larger structural interventions. Along the way, this chapter raises a range of moral, political, and strategic questions about these interventions, and stresses the importance of admitting that we don't yet have all the answers. We must encourage intellectual humility and dedicate ourselves to gathering as much knowledge as possible.Changing the world is hard. Changing it for the better is usually harder than changing it for the worse. But why is positive change so difficult? Some answers are familiar. First, it's hard to get people to care, especially about problems in different places (physically or socially distant neighborhoods or countries) that don't confront us every day. Second, people are, understandably, wrapped up in pursuing personal goals (careers, families, hobbies). Third, and closely related to the first two reasons, many people feel like their votes and voices don't matter because the system is rigged (by corporate donors, gerrymandered voting districts, etc.) to make their political efforts pointless. Fourth, making change to promote equality is especially hard, because the haves are typically motivated to hold onto their advantages, and even to see their advantages as fair. Even the have-nots are easily hoodwinked into thinking that their disadvantages are fair when they're not (Jost, 2015). We derive comfort from believing we live in a merit-based society where, as long as you work hard enough, put your head down, and don't rile up political trouble, then your personal and professional life will go well. Fifth, people may (especially for certain jobs: maybe I don't want to hire someone convicted of decades of accounting fraud to be my accountant). But the result is that ex-offenders have a very hard time finding gainful employment, which in turn makes them more likely to become desperate to make ends meet, and then to re-offend and end up back in prison.Some ex-offenders have it worse than others. In one field study in Milwaukee, the odds of getting a callback for an interview were 34% for white male applicants with no criminal record but only 17% for white men with a criminal record. Moreover, the odds were 14% for black male applicants without a record, but only 5% for black men with a record (Pager, 2003).The first finding to note is that white men with a record had slightly better odds than black men without. Two follow-up studies in New York City found much the same: white applicants who had literally just gotten out of prison were slightly more likely to get a callback or job offer than black and Latinx applicants with spotless records (Pager et al., 2009). These studies illustrate how devastating a criminal record can be for anyone's job prospects, but espec...

show abstract

“…Many scholars simply do not observe considerable bias against majority groups in society. Indeed, this idea is supported by the 2016 ANES data; even Trump supporters view discrimination against women as occurring more often than discrimination against men (Monteith and Hildebrand 2019;Zigerell 2019). Even among those most predisposed to believe that discrimination against men is occurring, discrimination against women still is perceived as more prevalent in society.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is accurate to state that considerable research has found that sexism negatively influenced Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign (Cassese and Holman 2019;Knuckey 2019;Monteith and Hildebrand 2019;Schaffner, MacWilliams, and Nteta 2018;Valentino, Wayne, and Oceno 2018). However, these findings are not without critique; Zigerell (2019) claimed that current measurements of sexism measure bias only toward women and do not account for anti-man bias.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Powerless Conservatives or Powerless Findings?

Utych

2020

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Noting the lack of “anti-man” bias research in the 2016 election, Zigerell (2019) argued that a relative lack of conservatives in political science can lead to bias in publications against political science research supporting conservative viewpoints. This article offers an alternative explanation for this lack of research: that this research produces null findings and therefore is subject to the “file-drawer problem,” in which null effects are less likely to be published than positive effects. Using data from the 2016 American National Election Studies, I provide an illustrative example to support this claim and suggest some solutions.

show abstract

Sexism, perceived discrimination, and system justification in the 2016 U.S. presidential election context

Cited by 13 publications

References 46 publications

Sexual Double Standard: A Psychometric Study From a Macropsychological Perspective Among the Spanish Heterosexual Population

Sexual Double Standard: A Psychometric Study From a Macropsychological Perspective Among the Spanish Heterosexual Population

Individual and Structural Interventions

Powerless Conservatives or Powerless Findings?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About