Investigation of senses of sexism and religiosity in terms of sports variable

Yıl 2016, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 1, 91 - 97, 02.05.2016

Gulsum Bastug , Erkan Bıngol Duygu Yaralı

https://doi.org/10.15314/tjse.41788

Cited By: 1

Öz

The purpose of this study was to investigate senses of sexism and religiosity in terms of sports variable.  Totally 192 university students including 121 males and 71 females with an average age of 21.72 ± 1.90 voluntarily participated in the research. “Ambivalent Sexism Inventory” was used in order to measure the attitudes of students participated in the research towards sexism whereas “Religiosity Scale” was used to determine their sense of religiosity. For the assessment of the results, frequency, t-test and correlation statistical processes were carried out.As a result; a significant difference was found between individuals doing and not doing exercises in terms of their sexism and religiosity levels. A significant difference was also found between hostile sexism, benevolent sexism and benevolent patriarchy attitudes of individuals doing and not doing exercises. It was determined that average of hostile sexism, benevolent sexism and benevolent patriarchy attitudes of individuals doing exercises was higher than that of individuals not doing exercises. A significant difference was determined between hostile sexism, benevolent sexism and heterosexual intimacy properties in terms of gender variable. It was observed that hostile sexism property of females was lower than that of male participants. On the other hand, benevolent sexism property of females was higher than that of male participants. A significant difference was not found between doing exercises variable, gender variable as well as religiosity variable, however, a positive relationship was found between religiosity and benevolent sexism, heterosexual intimacy, benevolent, supplementary attitude towards genders. As the level of religiosity increases, the average of benevolent sexism, heterosexual intimacy, benevolent patriarchy, supplementary attitude towards genders also increases.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Patriarchy; Religiosity; Sexism; sports

Kaynakça

• Glick P, Fiske ST. The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996; 70: 491–512.
• Sakallı-Uğurlu N. Ambivalent sexism inventory: a study of reliability and validity, Journal of Turkish Psychology, 2002; 17: 47–58.
• Mutlu K. The religiosity scale: the discussion of methodology in sociology. Islamic Research, 1989; 3: 194–199.
• Ferdman BM. The color and culture of gender in organizations: Attending to race and ethnicity. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 17–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999.
• Emmons RA, Paloutzian RF. The Psychology of Religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 2002; 54(1): 377–402.
• Allport GW, Ross JM. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1967; 5, 432-443.
• Loewenthal K. M.The psychology of religion. Boston, MA: Oneworld Publications, 2000.
• Hood RW, Spilka B, Hunsberger B, Gorsuch RL. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach, New York: Guilford, 1996.
• Çukur CŞ, de Guzman MRT, Carlo G. Religiosity, Values, and Horizontal and Vertical Individualism-Collectivism: A Study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines. The Joumal of Social Psychology, 2004; 144(6): 613-634.
• Alport GW. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1954.
• Glick P, Fiske ST. An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications of gender inequality. American Psychologist, 2001; 56(2): 109– 118.
• Diehl C, Koenig M, Ruckdeschel K. Religiosity and gender equality: comparing natives and Muslim migrants in Germany. Ethics and Racial Studies, 2009; 32: 278–301.
• Burn SM, Busso J. Ambivalent sexism, scriptural literalism, and religiosity. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2005; 29: 412–418.
• Glick P, Sakallı-Uğurlu N, Ferreira MC, Aguiar de Souza M. Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2002; 26: 291–296.
• Bridges JS, Etaugh C. Black and White college women’s maternal employment outcome expectations and their desired timing of maternal employment. Sex Roles, 1996; 35: 543-562.
• Tsuzuki Y, Matsui T. Factors influencing intention to continue work throughout the life span among Japanese college women: A path analysis. College-Student-Journal, 1997; 31: 216–223.
• Etaugh C. Demographic predictors of college students’ attitudes toward working mothers. Journal of College Student Development, 1989; 30: 465–466.
• Willetts-Bloom M, Nock SL. The influence of maternal employment on gender role attitudes of men and women. Sex Roles, 1994; 30: 371–389.
• Mavric F, Kahrovic I, Muric B, Radenkovic O. The Effects of Regular Physical Exercise on the Human Body. Physical Culture, 2014; 68(1): 29-38.
• Sakallı-Uğurlu N, Yalçın ZS, Glick F. Ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and empathy as predictors of Turkish students’ attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Roles, 2007: 57, 889–895.
• Taşdemir N, Sakallı-Uğurlu N. The Relationships between Ambivalent Sexism and Religiosity among Turkish University Students. Sex Roles, 2010; 62: 420–426.
• Chisango T, Mayekiso T. An investigation of the sexist application of the morality concept of Tsika in the Shona culture of Zimbabwe. International Journal of Psychology, 2013; 48(6): 1237–1245.
• Zaikman Y, Marks MJ. Ambivalent Sexism and the Sexual Double Standard. Sex Roles, 2014; 71: 333–344.
• Bang E, Lewis Hall ME, Anderson TL, Willingham MM, Ethnicity, Acculturation, and Religiosity as Predictors of Female College Students’ Role Expectations. Sex Roles, 2005; 53: 3-4.
• Ahrold TK, Meston CM. Ethnic Differences in Sexual Attitudes of U.S. College Students: Gender, Acculturation, and Religiosity Factors. Arch Sex Behav, 2010; 39: 190–202.