Sex Roles (2010) 62:615622

DOI 10.1007/s11199-010-9754-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Religion and Sexism: The Moderating Role of Participant

Gender
Lauren E. Maltby & M. Elizabeth L. Hall &
Tamara L. Anderson & Keith Edwards

Published online: 27 March 2010

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract The present study examined the relationship

between gender, religious belief and ambivalent sexism.
Specifically, this study tested the hypothesis that participant
gender moderates the relationship between religious belief
and ambivalent sexism. Three-hundred thirty seven Evangelical Christian undergraduate students from the Southwestern United States were administered the Ambivalent
Sexism Inventory and the Christian Orthodoxy Scale.
Results showed that gender moderated the relationship
between Christian orthodoxy and Protective Paternalism.
This finding suggests the importance of intervening
variables, such as gender, in understanding the relationship
between religion and sexism.

focusing on how the relationship between religious beliefs

and ambivalent sexism differs depending on gender.
Glick and Fiskes (1996) reconceptualization of prejudice against women as ambivalent in nature revolutionized
research in the area of sexism. The introduction of
benevolent sexism and the concept of ambivalence toward
members of a target group are ideas that have already borne
much fruit both theoretically and empirically. The present
research aims to explore the relationship of religion to
ambivalent sexism with a specific emphasis on gender as a
possible moderator of this relationship.

Keywords Religion . Gender . Ambivalent sexism .

Mediator

Despite being more liked than men in the United States,

women still experience discrimination (Eagly and Mladinic
1993; Glick et al. 2000). Based on research in the United
States, Glick and Fiske identified the two components of
this ambivalence toward women as hostile and benevolent
sexism. They defined hostile sexism as antagonism. It is an
attitude toward gender relations in which women are
perceived to be using sexuality or feminist ideology to
control men, and characterizes women as inferior in
ways that legitimize mens social control (Glick et al.
1997, p. 1323). Benevolent sexism on the other hand is a
belief which characterizes women as pure creatures who
ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose
love is necessary to make a man complete (Glick and
Fiske 2001, p. 109). Although benevolent sexism may be
experienced as subjectively positive by the perpetrator,
such idealization of women implies that they are best
suited for domestic roles and are weaker than men (i.e., to say
that women need protection and provision implies that they
are incapable of protecting and providing for themselves).
Although Glick and Fiskes theory was originally generated

Introduction
The research to be described in this article investigated the
role of gender in the relationship between religiosity and
ambivalent sexism. We report the results of a questionnaire
study that included measures of religious belief (The
Christian Orthodoxy Scale; Fullerton and Hunsberger
1982; Hunsberger 1989), and a measure of ambivalent
sexism (The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory; Glick and
Fiske 1996). The study makes a new contribution by

L. E. Maltby (*) : M. E. L. Hall : T. L. Anderson : K. Edwards

Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University,
13800 Biola Avenue,
La Mirada, CA 90639, USA
e-mail: Lauren.Maltby@gmail.com

Ambivalent Sexism

616

from research within the United States, their construct has

been validated in 19 countries worldwide (Glick et al. 2000).
Although hostile sexism is a single factor construct,
benevolent sexism consists of three subfactors: gender
differentiation, heterosexual intimacy, and protective paternalism. Gender differentiation is the belief that women have
many positive traits that complement those of men, namely
nurturing traits. This belief may serve to justify traditional
divisions of labor (such as men working outside the home,
and women working inside the home). Heterosexual
intimacy is the belief that in order to be truly happy one
must engage in a heterosexual, romantic relationship. Both
gender differentiation and heterosexual intimacy have
received less theoretical attention from researchers, and
therefore are not included in this study. Protective paternalism is the belief that men ought to protect and provide
for women, much as a father does for his children (Glick
and Fiske 1996). Traditional divisions of labor, an elevation
of womens nurturing characteristics, and a strong valuing
of marriage are commonly associated with conservative
religions. It is no wonder, then, that researchers have looked
to religion as a possible source of ambivalent sexism.
Ambivalent Sexism and Religiosity
A wealth of research has been conducted on ambivalent
sexism and its relationship to outcomes in the workplace in
several countries, including Australia and England (Feather
and Boeckmann 2007; Masser and Abrams 2004). Research
has also focused on the relationship of ambivalent sexism
and body esteem/beauty ideals (Forbes et al. 2005; Forbes
et al. 2007; Forbes et al. 2004; Franzoi 2001), although this
research has been focused on the United States with one
exception (Forbes et al. 2004) that compared American
participants with participants from Poland. However, the
body of research on ambivalent sexism and religiosity is
relatively smaller. The existing body of research has
suggested a relationship between religiosity and ambivalent
sexism. For example, Glick et al. (2002) administered the
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory to participants in Spain and
found that Catholic religiosity uniquely predicted benevolent, but not hostile, sexism. They posited that active
participation in the Catholic church may be one way of
reinforcing traditional gender roles and benevolently sexist
ideologies.
There are several methodological problems in the small
body of existing research on religion and ambivalent
sexism. The first is encountered in the aforementioned
study, where religious variables are conceptualized in
simplistic ways. Glick et al. (2002) conceived of religiosity
solely in terms of practice, and gave respondents only four
choices: nonbelievers, nonpracticing Catholics, practicing
Catholics, or adherents of another faith. The researchers

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615622

conceptualization of religiosity, even of faith or practice in

Catholicism, is too narrow; it fails to isolate any practices
or beliefs within the religious practices of Catholics that
may significantly shape their attitudes toward gender
relations.
A study by Christopher and Mull (2006) also conceptualized religion in problematic ways: conservative ideologies
are conflated with religious beliefs and doctrine. Building
on the work of Masser and Abrams (1999), who found a
small but significant correlation (r=.22) between BS and a
Protestant-ethic orientation in a British sample, Christopher
and Mulls study examined various types of conservative
ideology. The researchers randomly sampled 246 homes in
Michigan and administered the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale, a
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, and a Protestant
Work Ethic (PWE) scale. Results revealed that conservative
ideology variables together (SDO, RWA and PWE)
accounted for significant variability in both hostile and
benevolent sexism. Specifically, SDO and PWE were
significantly related to hostile sexism, whereas RWA
was related to benevolent sexism. The authors concluded
that the effects of religiosity [italics added] are greater
on benevolent sexist attitudes than hostile sexist attitudes
(p. 228).
This conclusion was reached in the absence of any
actual measures of religious beliefs. Although the
measure of Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) appears
religiously affiliated by name, the construct is defined
as measuring how significant work is in a persons life,
irrespective of religious affiliation or depth of religious
commitment (p. 225). Neither are RWA (which is rooted
in a commitment to maintaining tradition) nor SDO (which is
concerned with maintaining a social group hierarchy) religious in nature. Although certain religious beliefs may be
related to other conservative ideologies, religious doctrine is
not synonymous with conservative (but nonreligious) ideologies. In order to draw conclusions about the relationship
between religion and ambivalent sexism, research must
include religious variables themselves, not just associated
(but nonreligious) constructs.
Burn and Bussos (2005) research does not fall prey to
this same error, as they explored the relationship between
scriptural literalism, religiosity and ambivalent sexism.
They hypothesized a positive correlation between benevolent sexism and scriptural literalism, as well as benevolent
sexism and intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, or the way in
which individuals orient themselves to their religion.
Intrinsic religiosity is an orientation wherein ones religious
belief is the orienting center of ones life and motivation
(McFarland, 1989, p. 325), whereas extrinsic religiosity
reflects an orientation toward religion where one uses
religion for ulterior motives (McFarland 1989, p. 325)

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615622

such as status, social support, or comfort. In their American

sample, scriptural literalism significantly predicted benevolent sexism and protective paternalism. However, contrary
to their hypotheses, once intrinsic religiosity was entered
into the multiple regression, scriptural literalism ceased to
be a significant predictor of benevolent sexism. Intrinsic
religiosity and scriptural literalism did account for unique
portions of variance in the protective paternalism subscale,
but not in either of the other two benevolent sexism
subscales. In all cases, correlations were modest and
stronger findings may have been obtained with a broader,
more diverse sample (p. 417). These results would suggest
that religious beliefs (such as scriptural literalism in this
case) may serve to reinforce the protective paternalism
component of benevolent sexism, but also suggest that
individual differences (such as intrinsic religiosity) mediate
the relationship between ambivalent sexism and religious
beliefs. Burn and Bussos significant findings highlight a
third methodological shortcoming in research on ambivalent sexism and religiosity: the mediators and moderators of
this relationship, in the form of individual differences or
participant characteristics, are seldom explored.
The importance of individual differences when examining the relationship between sexism and religiosity is
exemplified in a study by McFarland (1989) of American
undergraduate students. Both intrinsically and extrinsically
oriented people may behave similarly in terms of their
religion (e.g., attending services, reading sacred texts,
financial donations). However, the motives and meaning
of these behaviors vary greatly depending on the individual.
McFarland found intrinsic religiosity to be negatively
correlated to sexist attitudes toward women, and extrinsic
religiosity to be positively correlated. The intrinsic/extrinsic
distinction in operationalizing religious variables allowed
for more nuanced understandings of the relationship
between religiosity and sexism.
McFarland also included in his study a measure of
fundamentalism, or a cognitively rigid style of holding
beliefs. McFarland found that when he controlled for
fundamentalism in women, the relationship between both
intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity and sexism disappeared
(although this was not found to be true for men). This
finding suggests that gender may moderate the relationship
between religiosity and sexism.
Participant Gender
McFarlands findings that gender mediated the relationship
between intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and sexism is consistent with other research, which has found gender differences on a variety of religious variables. Results from
numerous studies have suggested that women are more
religious than men (Mahalik and Lagan 2001; Ozorak

617

1996; Reich 1997; Thompson 1991). Their increased

involvement in religious practices may contribute to
varying functions of religiosity in maintaining or counteracting ambivalent sexism. Consequently, gender differences
are likely to present themselves in the present study as well.
Furthermore, because sexism affects the genders differently,
one might expect differences between the genders in the
relationship between religious beliefs and ambivalent
sexism.
The Present Study
Studies exploring the moderators of the relationship
between ambivalent sexism and religiosity are lacking.
Although religiosity and conservative ideology have been
shown to correlate positively with ambivalent sexism,
conceptual shortcomings in defining religiosity across these
studies make it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.
Specifically, a review of these studies makes clear the need
to differentiate conservative, but nonreligious ideologies,
and religious beliefs (i.e., doctrine), as well as participant
factors that may function as moderators. In addition, this
study is the first to study the moderating effect of gender in
the relationship between religiosity and sexism, in the
context of ambivalent sexism theory.
This study aims to address the methodological shortcomings in previous studies by using a measure specifically
designed to assess religious doctrine (orthodoxy), as well as
test the hypothesis that gender will moderate the relationship
between orthodoxy and ambivalent sexism. Specifically, we
hypothesize that a positive relationship will be found between
orthodoxy and ambivalent sexism in men, but not in women.
This will be tested using a multiple regression approach for
moderation, as outlined by Frazier et al. (2004). This
prediction is based on McFarlands (1989) finding that
mens, but not womens religiosity predicted sexism.

Method
Participants and Procedure
Data were collected from 337 undergraduate students at a
private, evangelical liberal arts university in the Southwestern United States. At the time of admission, all students
endorsed affiliation with the evangelical Christian faith
tradition. Evangelicalism is a conservative form of Christianity characterized by engagement with contemporary
culture while attempting to maintain a biblically based
identity, mission, and lifestyle (Gallagher and Smith 1999).
Evangelical Christianity maintains sub-cultural boundaries
while encouraging connection to the larger culture of which
it is a part. Participants were predominantly 1820 years old,

618

with an average age of 18.45, and a standard deviation of

1.67. The participants were primarily European American
(70.3%), with other participants identifying as Hispanic/Latin
American (10.4%), Asian/Asian American (8.6%), African
American (2.7%), Middle-Eastern (.3%), Pacific Islander
(1.2%), Other (1.8%) and a remaining 4.7% did not identify
their ethnicity. This sample also contained a majority of
women (245 women vs. 92 men). Participants were compensated with course credit in an introductory psychology
course. Packets were distributed in class, and students took
them home to be completed at their leisure before the next
class meeting; students who did not wish to participate
merely returned the blank packet. All participants identified
as Christian in their application materials, and attended a
religiously-affiliated school. All packets contained the measures described below, and all measures used in this study can
be found in their entirety in the published literature.
Measure
The Christian Orthodoxy Scale
The degree to which participants hold to doctrine that is
essential to Christian faith was assessed using the 24-item The
Christian Orthodoxy Scale (Fullerton and Hunsberger 1982;
Hunsberger 1989). Fullerton and Hunsberger originally
standardized the scale on 2,297 participants, including urban
and rural high school students, university students, and
parents of university students. An example item from this
scale would be, God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Participants indicate the degree to which they agree with a
given item on an 6-point Likert scale, ranging from -3
(disagree strongly) to 3 (agree strongly). After reversescoring 12 items, scores are calculated by summing the total
and adding this to a constant of four. This scale has
demonstrated adequate validity and reliability in previous
research (Hill and Hood 1999; Pancer et al. 1995;
Hunsberger et al. 1994). Alpha for our sample was .80.
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
Ambivalent sexism was assessed using Glick and Fiskes
(1996) Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), a self-report
questionnaire containing 22 items, 11 of which test
benevolent sexism, and 11 of which test hostile sexism.
Participants rate their agreement with these statements on a
6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (very strongly disagree)
to 5 (very strongly agree). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
has undergone extensive psychometric testing (Glick and
Fiske 2001). After reverse-scoring six items, the hostile and
benevolent subscale scores are calculated for each participant
by averaging the 11 items comprising each scale. The
subscales of benevolent sexism are then calculated by

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615622

averaging the values for each of the items comprising each

subscale. For a specific listing of which items comprise
which scale, please refer to Glick and Fiske (1996). Alpha
coefficients for benevolent sexism (Cronbachs =.70) and
hostile sexism (Cronbachs =.76) were adequate.

Results
Preliminary Analyses
Because previous research has found gender differences in
the ambivalent sexism variables, the means and standard
deviations of all study variables were calculated separately
for each gender (see Table 1). A one-way multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine gender differences on ambivalent sexism variables.
MANOVA results revealed significant differences between
males and females on the dependent variables, Wilks
=.819, F(7, 256)=8.086, p<.001. Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted on each dependent variable as a
follow-up test to MANOVA. Gender differences were
significant for benevolent sexism, F(1, 335)=12.47, p<.001,
effect size (2)=.04, and protective paternalism, F(1, 335)=
39.10, p<.001, effect size (2)=.11. The Christian Orthodoxy Scale showed no significant gender differences. Means
and standard deviations for ambivalent sexism and Christian
orthodoxy are displayed by gender in Table 1.
Before testing the hypothesis, preliminary analyses were
conducted to ensure normality of the data. As mentioned in
the description of the sample, participants were recruited
from a Christian liberal arts university. As such, the
homogeneity of the sample posed a threat to the validity
of results using a religious measure in the form of potential
bias and restricted range. Although The Christian Orthodoxy Scale had an alpha reliability of .80, the distribution
was negatively skewed (skewness=5.57) and the kurtosis
indicated that there were too few cases in the tail of the
distribution. In fact, 52.6% of participants had a score of 73
(the maximum) on The Christian Orthodoxy Scale, indicating a ceiling effect. Despite this, participant scores did not
suffer from restricted range, with scores ranging from 13 to
73. In order for the data on this measure to approximate a
normal distribution, a transformation was necessary. The
data were negatively skewed, and therefore needed to first
be reflected by subtracting every score from the maximum
score attained plus one (i.e., every score was subtracted
from 74). This reflected the distribution so that it became
positively skewed, and amenable to log and square root
transformations. It should be noted, however, that reflecting
data in this way changed the meaning of scores, such that
low scores now represented higher levels of Christian
orthodoxy, and high scores now represented lower levels of

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615622

Table 1 Means and standard
deviations for study variables in
relation to gender.

ASI Ambivalent sexism inventory, ASI scale endpoints: 0 to 5;

Christian Orthodoxy: 3 to +3
*p<.001, all two tailed

619
Variable

Male

ASI variables
Hostile sexism
Benevolent sexism*
Protective
Paternalism*
Christian orthodoxy (untransformed)

Christian orthodoxy. A log transformation of the reflected

distribution significantly reduced the skewness (skewness=
1.07), and the transformed data were used to test hypotheses involving the Christian Orthodoxy Scale.
Hypothesis Testing
We predicted that gender would moderate the relationship
between religiosity and ambivalent sexism. Because the
MANOVA indicated significant differences between genders on benevolent sexism, as well as protective paternalism, one-way ANOVAs were conducted on each of these
ambivalent sexism variables as was reported above.
Additionally, t tests confirmed significant differences
between males and females on the benevolent sexism (t=
3.90, p<.001), and protective paternalism (t=6.25, p<.001)
subscales. Zero order correlations were calculated by
gender, and are displayed in Table 2. It should be noted
that, following the reflection of the Christian orthodoxy
distribution detailed above, high scores now indicate a low
agreement with traditional Christian doctrine, and low
scores indicate a high agreement with traditional Christian
doctrine. This has the effect of reversing the direction of the
correlation; the negative correlation coefficient between
Christian orthodoxy and protective paternalism for males is
indicating that as males in this sample increased in
agreement with traditional Christian doctrine, they also
increased in their endorsement of protective paternalism
items on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Table 3).

Female

SD

SD

2.69
2.93
3.77

.64
.59
.77

2.71
2.63
3.17

.72
.73
.78

69.20

8.67

70.81

4.58

In light of the positive relationship between Christian

orthodoxy and protective paternalism for males but not for
females, a regression was run to test the moderating effect
of gender on the relationship between Christian orthodoxy
and protective paternalism. After centering the Christian
orthodoxy variable, an interaction term was created
between participant gender and Christian orthodoxy. Gender was entered on the first step, Christian orthodoxy was
entered on the second step, and the interaction term was
entered on the third step. Tests for multicollinearity
indicated the absence of multicollinearity between the
independent variables. The interaction term was significant
(R2 =.18, p<.01). In order to probe the interaction in post
hoc tests, a simple slopes analysis was conducted. Simple
slopes were calculated using guidelines provided by
Holmbeck (2002) and plotted using guidelines by Dawson
(2009). The unstandardized simple slope for men was
.449 (t(301)=2.375, p<.05), and the unstandardized
simple slope for women was .145 (t(301)=1.033, p = ns)
(see Fig. 1). These results support the hypothesis that
gender moderates the relationship between Christian orthodoxy and protective paternalism.

Discussion
Previous research has found a relationship between ambivalent sexism and religiosity. The present research aimed to
address the conceptual shortcomings in defining religiosity

Table 2 Correlations between ASI and religious variables by sex.

Variable

1. Hostile sexism (HS)

2. Benevolent sexism (BS)

3. Protective paternalism
5. Christian orthodoxy total (log reflected)

.04
.06
.14

.12

.14*

.067

.09

.55**
.13

.65**

.26*

.132*
.129*
.204

.12
.07

Intercorrelations for male participants (n=92) are presented below the diagonal, and intercorrelations for female participants (n=245) are
presented above the diagonal
*p<.05, **p<.01

620
Table 3 Interaction of gender
and christian orthodoxy in predicting protective paternalism.

Protective paternalism scale

endpoints: 0 to 5; Christian
Orthodoxy: 3 to +3
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615622

Variable
Step 1
Gender
Step 2
Gender
Christian orthodoxy
Step 3
Gender
Christian orthodoxy
Interaction of gender & christian orthodoxy

across previous studies, which have often conceptualized of

religion in simplistic ways and failed to measure the impact
of religious beliefs/doctrine. Additionally, this study attempted to identify a moderator of the relationship between
religious belief and ambivalent sexism. To this end, we
hypothesized that gender would moderate the relationship
between religious belief and ambivalent sexism.
This hypothesis was supported. Results suggested that as
mens sexist views increased, their agreement with core
tenets of Christianity increased. However, this was not the
case for women. The finding that gender moderates the
relationship between religiosity and sexism is not a new
finding in itself, as McFarland (1989) also identified gender
as a moderator. McFarland found that, after controlling for
fundamentalism, the relationship between religious orientation and sexism ceased to be significant for women; in
other words, there was no significant relationship between
religious orientation and sexism for women. Our study
parallels this finding.

Fig. 1 Interaction of participant gender and Christian orthodoxy in

predicting protective paternalism.

SEB

Sig.

.60***

.10

.32***

5.86

.00

.60***
.07

.10
.11

.32***
.03

5.88
.59

.00
.56

.81***
1.04*
.59*

.13
.40
.24

.44***
.50*
.49*

6.19
2.59
2.52

.00
.01
.01

Several other points of interest emerged from this study.

First, there were no statistically significant gender differences on the measure of hostile sexism, which is quite
unusual (e.g., Feather and Boeckmann 2007). This finding
is likely due to the political conservatism of the sample.
Several of the items of the hostile sexism subscale refer to
support for or antagonism toward the feminist agenda. In
many evangelical circles, the feminist agenda is understood
primarily through a political, rather than social lens. It is
associated primarily with the pro-choice movement, which
is unpopular in the evangelical subculture. In this sample,
the lack of support for the feminist movement may reflect a
political opinion that is equally likely to be held by both
males and females. Also of note, hostile sexism and
benevolent sexism are not correlated for this sample. As
just discussed, the possibility that the hostile sexism items
are measuring, in part, a political attitude, may have
resulted in further distinction between hostile and benevolent sexism within this sample. Finally, the very low
correlations between hostile sexism and orthodoxy are
worth noting. In line with other research on religiosity
and sexism using the ASI (Burn and Busso 2005; Glick et
al. 2002), the relationship between religiosity, variously
operationalized, and sexism appears to be limited to
benevolent sexism.
A special note should be made of the emerging
significance of the protective paternalism subscale of the
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Burn and Busso (2005)
found that intrinsic religiosity and scriptural literalism did
account for unique portions of variance in the protective
paternalism scale, but not in either of the other two
subscales of benevolent sexism. In the present study,
protective paternalism was significantly related to Christian
orthodoxy for men. To our knowledge, this is the first study
to use a measure of religious doctrine, and it should not be
forgotten that this study was conducted within a limited
sample of self-identified evangelical Christians. Given
these results, the lack of correlation between hostile and
benevolent sexism in the current sample, and the lack of
significant correlations between religiosity and hostile

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615622

sexism, the question surfaces whether protective paternalism measures the same construct in this population as it
does in the population in which it was developed. Future
studies should assess whether Protective Paternalism is
correlated with other measures of sexism and gender
discrimination in a conservative, Christian sample, as it is
in more diverse populations.
As with any research, this study is limited in its
generalizability. The sample consisted of religious, primarily evangelical Christian adults at a private, liberal arts
university. The demographics of the sample, presented in
Table 1, reveal that the sample was primarily European
American and female. Additionally, because of the correlational design of the study, no causal conclusions can be
drawn. One cannot conclude from this study that Christian
orthodoxy causes ambivalent sexism in religious people.
However, one can conclude that religious beliefs interact
with gender with regards to protective paternalism.
The results of this study have several implications for
future research in this area. Studies looking at the relationship
between religious variables and ambivalent sexism should
include measures of orthodoxy in order to reach more nuanced
conclusions. And of course, this study should be replicated in
a more diverse group. Due to the limitations of sampling,
results are not generalizable to non-Christian adults, or to
adults of other Christian groups that may differ in significant
ways from evangelical Christians. Replication of this research
should also take into consideration other factors such as
SES, ethnicity, and education levels, as the current sample
was primarily middle- to upper-middle class, European
American, and highly educated.
It is unlikely that we will find a magic bean
responsible for ambivalent sexism. Rather, it is more likely
that this deeply rooted ideology is the result of complex
interactions between gender, personality, culture, religion,
SES, and many other factors. As we begin to understand
ambivalent sexism more deeply, however, perhaps some of
its causes can be targeted with the ultimate goal of reducing
ideology that serves to reinforce traditional gender roles and
limit womens equality.

References
Burn, S. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural
literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29,
412418.
Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and
ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223
230.
Dawson, J. (2009). Interpreting interaction effects. Retrieved from
http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm.
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1993). Are people prejudiced against
women?: Some answers from research on attitudes, gender
stereotypes, and judgments of competence. In W. Stroebe & M.

621
Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5,
pp. 135). New York: Wiley.
Feather, N. T., & Boeckmann, R. J. (2007). Beliefs about gender
discrimination in the workplace context of affirmative action:
Effects of gender and ambivalent attitudes in an Australian
sample. Sex Roles, 57, 3142.
Forbes, G. B., Doroszewicz, K., Card, K., & Adams-Curtis, L. (2004).
Association of the thin body ideal, ambivalent sexism, and selfesteem with body acceptance and the preferred body size of
college women in Poland and the United States. Sex Roles, 50,
331345.
Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L., Jobe, R. L., White, K. B., Revak, J.,
Zivcic-Becirevic, I., & Pokrajac-Bulian, A. (2005). Body
dissatisfaction in college women and their mothers: Cohort
effects, developmental effects, and the influences of body size,
sexism, and the thin body ideal. Sex Roles, 53, 281298.
Forbes, G. B., Collinsworth, L. J., Jobe, R. L., Braun, K. D., & Wise,
L. M. (2007). Sexism, hostility toward women, and endorsement
of beauty ideals and practices: Are beauty ideals associated with
oppressive beliefs? Sex Roles, 57, 265273.
Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent
sexism? Sex Roles, 44, 177188.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator
and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115134.
Fullerton, J. T., & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimensional measure
of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 21, 317326.
Gallagher, S. K., & Smith, C. (1999). Symbolic traditionalism and
pragmatic egalitarianism: Contemporary evangelicals, families,
and gender. Gender and Society, 13, 211233.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491512.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and
benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender
inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109118.
Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two
faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes
toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
13231334.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B.,
Lopez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy:
Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763775.
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, C. (2002). Education and Catholic
religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward
women and men. Sex Roles, 47, 433441.
Hill, P., & Hood, R. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity.
Birmingham: Religious Education.
Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational
and meditational effects in studies of pediatric populations.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(1), 8796.
Hunsberger, B. (1989). A short version of the Christian orthodoxy
scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 360365.
Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (1994). Religious
fundamentalism and integrative complexity of thought: A
relationship for existential content only? Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 335346.
Mahalik, J. R., & Lagan, H. D. (2001). Examining masculine gender
role conflict and stress in relation to religious orientation and
spiritual well-being. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 24
33.
Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism: The
relationships among hostility, benevolence, and neosexism.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 503517.

622
Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling:
The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial
candidates. Sex Roles, 51, 609615.
McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientation and the targets of
discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28,
324336.
Ozorak, W. E. (1996). The power, but not the glory: How women
empower themselves through religion. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 35, 1729.
Pancer, S. M., Jackson, L. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Lea, J.
(1995). Religious orthodoxy and the complexity of thought about

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615622

religious and nonreligious issues. Journal of Personality, 63, 213
232.
Pargament, K. I. (2002). The bitter and the sweet: An evaluation of the
costs and benefits of religiousness. Psychological Inquiry, 13,
168181.
Reich, K. H. (1997). Do we need a theory of religious development for
women? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 7,
6786.
Thompson, E. H., Jr. (1991). Beneath the status characteristic: Gender
variations in religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 30, 381394.

Copyright of Sex Roles is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.