Korumacı ve Düşmanca Cinsiyetçiliğin Kadınların Sözel ve Sayısal Performansı Üzerindeki Etkileri

Öz

Çalışmada amaç, kadınların bilişsel performansları (BP) üzerinde korumacı ve düşmanca cinsiyetçiliğin (KC ve DC) etkilerini ve bu etkide rol oynayan değişkenleri incelemektir. KC ve DC’ye maruz kalmanın BP’ye etkisine dair üç farklı görüşten ikisinde (kalıpyargıların aktivasyonu ile istenmeyen düşünceler görüşleri), KC’ye maruz kalmanın BP’de düşüşe yol açacağı öngörülür ancak bunun nedeni olarak öne sürdükleri açıklamalar açısından bu görüşler birbirinden ayrılır. Üçüncü görüşte (öfke temelli tepki görüşü) ise DC’ye maruz kalmanın BP’yi yükselteceği öngörülür. Verisi Belçika’da kadın öğrencilerden toplanan önceki bir çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre, istenmeyen düşünceler görüşü geçerlidir (Dardanne, Dumont ve Bollier, 2007). Mevcut çalışma ise, bu sonuçların geçerliliğinin Türkiye bağlamında sınandığı iki deneyi içermektedir. Birinci deneyde 80, ikinci deneyde 159 kadın katılımcıdan veri toplanan araştırmanın her iki deneyinde de katılımcılar üç koşuldan birine (KC, DC ve Kontrol) atandı ve bu deneylerde BP, sözel ve sayısal testleriyle ölçüldü. İlk deneyde yer alan katılımcılar arasından DC koşulundakilerin sözel puanının KC koşulundakilerden yüksek olduğu görüldü. Cinsiyetçiliğe maruz kalmanın sözel puanla ilişkisinde cinsiyetçilikle özdeşleşme ve benlik saygısı değişkenlerinin düzenleyici rolü sınandı ancak anlamlı olmadığı görüldü. DC’nin bilişsel performansı artıracağına dair öngörü, sadece öfke-temelli tepki görüşünde var olduğundan, bu görüşü daha detaylı incelemek üzere, 2. deneyde katılımcıların öfke ve diğer duyguları da ölçüldü. Sözel puanının diğer iki koşula kıyasla DC koşulunda daha yüksek olduğu ve cinsiyetçiliğe maruz kalmanın sözel puanla ilişkisinde öfke duygusunun aracılık ettiği görüldü.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Düşmanca cinsiyetçilik
• korumacı cinsiyetçilik
• sözel performans
• sayısal performans
• öfke

Effects of Benevolent and Hostile Sexism on Women's Verbal and Quantitative Performance

Abstract

The effects of benevolent and hostile sexism (BS and HS) on women's cognitive performance (CP), and the role of several variables in this effect were examined. There are different predictions about the effects of BS and HS on women’s CP: Both the “activation of stereotypes” and "mental intrusions” views predicted that the exposure to BS will lead to decrease in CP, but they rationalized it differently. “Anger-based reaction” view predicted that exposure to HS would increase CP. Previously; a study conducted in Belgium supported the mental intrusions view (Dardanne, Dumont & Bollier, 2007). The current study reported the results of two experiments in which the validity of the earlier results were re-tested in a Turkish context. Data were collected from 80 female in the first experiment and 159 female in the second one and participants were assigned to one of those conditions: BS, HS or Control in both of the experiments and verbal and quantitative tests were used for measuring CP. In the Experiment#1, verbal performance was higher in the HS condition than BS condition. This relationship was found to be moderated by neither gender identification nor self-esteem As the anger-based reaction view was the only one predicting a higher CP in the HS condition, the participants' anger and other emotions were measured in Experiment 2 to examine this view in more detail. Verbal performance was found to be higher in HS condition than the other conditions, and anger mediated the relationship between verbal performance and the exposure to HS.

Keywords

• Hostile sexims
• benevolent sexism
• verbal performance
• quantitative performance
• anger

References

1. Balkıs M, Duru E (2010) Akademik erteleme eğilimi, akademik başarı ilişkisinde genel ve performans benlik saygısının rolü. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27: 159-170.
2. Baron RM, Kenny, DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
3. Barreto M, Ellemers N (2005) The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35: 633-642.
4. Becker JC, Wright SC (2011) Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101: 62-77.
5. Bodenhausen GV, Sheppard LA, Kramer, GP (1994) Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24: 45-62.
6. Bohner G, Ahlborn K, Steiner R. (2010) How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response profiles in the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Sex Roles, 62: 568-582.
7. Borgogna, NC, Aita, SL (2020). Are sexist beliefs related to mental health problems?. The Social Science Journal, 1-15.
8. Bosson JK, Pinel EC, Vandello JA (2010) The emotional impact of ambivalent sexism: Forecasts versus real experiences. Sex Roles, 62: 520-531.

9. Brannon L (2016) Gender: Psychological Perspectives (6. baskı). New York, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
10. Burgess KD (2013) The effect of hostile and benevolent sexism on women's cardiovascular reactivity to and recovery from a laboratory stressor (Unpublished Master Thesis). University of South Florida, Florida.
11. Connelly K, Heesacker M (2012) Why is benevolent sexism appealing? Associations with system justification and life satisfaction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36: 432-443.
12. Corning AF (2002) Self-esteem as a moderator between perceived discrimination and psychological distress among women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49: 117-126.
13. Dardenne B, Dumont M, Bollier T (2007) Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: consequences for women's performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93: 764-779.
14. Dumont M, Sarlet M, Dardenne B (2010) Be too kind to a woman, she’ll feel incompetent: Benevolent sexism shifts self-construal and autobiographical memories toward incompetence. Sex Roles, 62: 545-553.
15. Eliezer D, Major B, Mendes WB (2010) The costs of caring: Gender identification increases threat following exposure to sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46: 159-165.
16. Expósito F, Herrera MC, Moya M, Glick P (2010) Don't rock the boat: Women's benevolent sexism predicts fears of marital violence. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34: 36-42.
17. Fernández S, Saguy T, Halperin E. (2015) The paradox of humiliation: The acceptance of an unjust devaluation of the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41: 976-988.
18. Frijda NH, Kuipers P, Ter Schure E (1989) Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 212-228.
19. Glick P, Fiske ST (1996) The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 491-512.
20. Glick P, Fiske ST, Mladinic A, Saiz JL, Abrams D, Masser B et al. (2000) Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 763-775.
21. Günsoy C (2011) Linguistic gender bias as a result of uncertainty: The moderating roles of group identification and sociostructural variables (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
22. Hamilton HR, DeHart T (2020) Cheers to equality! Both hostile and benevolent sexism predict increases in college women’s alcohol consumption. Sex Roles, 83: 675-684.
23. Heatherton TF, Polivy J (1991) Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60: 895-910.
24. Jones K, Stewart K, King E, Morgan WB, Gilrane V, Hylton K (2014). Negative consequence of benevolent sexism on efficacy and performance. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 29: 171-189.
25. Kilianski SE, Rudman LA (1998) Wanting it both ways: Do women approve of benevolent sexism? Sex Roles, 39: 333-352.
26. Lemonaki E, Manstead AS, Maio GR (2015) Hostile sexism (de) motivates women's social competition intentions: The contradictory role of emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54: 483-499.
27. Luhtanen R, Crocker J, (1992) A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18: 302-318.
28. McCoy SK, Major B, (2003) Group identification moderates emotional responses to perceived prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 1005-1017.
29. Moradi B, Subich LM (2004) Examining the moderating role of self-esteem in the link between experiences of perceived sexist events and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51: 50-56.
30. Moya M, Glick P, Expósito F, De Lemus S, Hart J (2007) It's for your own good: Benevolent sexism and women's reactions to protectively justified restrictions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1421-1434.
31. Nosek BA, Banaji MR, Greenwald AG (2002) Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6: 101-115.
32. Rosenberg M (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press.
33. Sakallı N (2001) Beliefs about wife beating among Turkish college students: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and sex differences. Sex Roles, 44: 599-610.
34. Sakallı-Uğurlu N (2002) Çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 17: 47-58.
35. Sakallı-Uğurlu, N (2010) Ambivalent sexism, gender, and major as predictors of Turkish college students’ attitudes toward women and men’s atypical educational choices. Sex Roles, 62: 427-437.
36. Sakalı‐Uğurlu N, Glick P (2003) Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey. Journal of Sex Research, 40: 296-302.
37. Sakallı-Uğurlu N, Ulu S (2003) Evlilikte kadına yönelik şiddete ilişkin tutumlar: Çelişik duygulu cinsiyetçilik, yaş, eğitim ve gelir düzeyinin etkileri. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 6: 53-65.
38. Schmader T (2002) Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38: 194-201.
39. Schmader T, Johns M (2003) Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 440-452.
40. Schwarz N (1990) Situated cognition and the wisdom of feelings: Cognitive tuning. In The wisdom in feeling, In (Eds. LF Barrett ve P Salovey):144-166. New York, Guilford Press.
41. Spencer SJ, Steele CM, Quinn DM (1999) Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35: 4-28.
42. Swim JK, Hyers LL, Cohen LL, Ferguson MJ (2001) Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57: 31-53.
43. Thacker RA (1992) A descriptive study of behavioral responses of sexual harassment targets: Implications for control theory. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5: 155-171.
44. Travaglia LK, Overall NC, Sibley CG (2009) Benevolent and hostile sexism and preferences for romantic partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 47: 599-604.
45. World Economic Forum (2018) The Global Gender Gap Report. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-gender-gap-report-2018 (10 Ocak 2021’de ulaşıldı).
46. Yumşak Ş (2004) Görme ve ortopedik engelli ergenlerin özsaygı düzeyleri ile kendilerine yönelik toplumsal tutumları algılamalarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
47. Zawadzki MJ, Danube CL, Shields SA (2012) How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles, 67: 605-616.