Abstract
Believing that reduced discrimination against women directly corresponds to increased discrimination against men, referred to as a zero-sum perspective (ZSP), may inhibit further attempts toward gender equality. Based on a sample of 313 men and women, we developed and tested both a general measure and a domain-specific measure of the ZSP of gender status then examined sociodemographics (age, education, political orientation, religious beliefs, and past experience with discrimination) and social dominance orientation as predictors of the ZSP of shifts in gender status. Hostile and modern sexism were examined as potential mediators of this relationship. Structural equation models were computed to examine predictive paths separately for men and women. Although some similarities were found, results showed important differences in predictive paths for women and men, and supported the expected mediating role of sexism in the relationships between sociodemographic predictors and the ZSP. Findings have implications for targeting intervention efforts to enhance a win-win or non-zero-sum perspective that may facilitate efforts toward reducing gender discrimination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles, 62, 453–467. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9707-4.
Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. (2011). Seeing the unseen attention to daily encounters with sexism as a way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 227–242. doi:10.1177/0361684310397509.
Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. (2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: Differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Social Psychology, 43, 127–137. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000091.
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). The gender pay gap: Have women gone as far as they can? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 7–23. doi:10.5465/AMP.2007.24286161.
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Michniewicz, K. S., & Lenes, J. G. (2012). American men’s and women’s beliefs about gender discrimination: For men, it’s not quite a zero-sum game. Masculinities and Social Change, 1, 210–239. doi:10.4471/mcs.2012.14.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980.
Cokley, K. O., Tran, K., Hall-Clark, B., Chapman, C., Bessa, L., Finley, A., et al. (2010). Predicting student attitudes about racial diversity and gender equity. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 187–199. doi:10.1037/a0020467.
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2011). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2011 (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60–226). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dhont, K., Van Hiel, A., & Hewstone, M. (2014). Changing the ideological roots of prejudice: Longitudinal effects of ethnic intergroup contact on social dominance orientation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17, 27–44. doi:10.1177/1368430213497064.
Fitzpatrick Bettencourt, K. E., Vacha-Haase, T., & Byrne, Z. S. (2011). Older and younger adults’ attitudes toward feminism: The influence of religiosity, political orientation, gender, education, and family. Sex Roles, 64, 863–874. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9946-z.
Gaunt, R. (2012). “Blessed is he who has not made me a women”: Ambivalent sexism and Jewish religiosity. Sex Roles, 67, 477–487. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0185-8.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, Y. R. (2002). Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles, 47, 433–441. doi:10.1023/A:1021696209949.
Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., et al. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713.
Kehn, A., & Ruthig, J. C. (2013). Perceptions of gender discrimination across six decades: The moderating roles of gender and age. Sex Roles, 69, 289–296. doi:10.1007/s11199-013-0303-2.
Kilmartin, C., Smith, T., Green, A., Heinzen, H., Kuchler, M., & Kolar, D. (2008). A real time social norms intervention to reduce male sexism. Sex Roles, 59, 264–273. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9446-y.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.
Maltby, E. L., Hall, M. E. L., Anderson, T. L., & Edwards, K. (2010). Religion and sexism: The moderating role of participant gender. Sex Roles, 62, 615–622. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9754-x.
Nash, J. F. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18, 155–162. doi:10.2307/1907266.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741.
Roets, A., Van Hiel, A., & Dhont, K. (2012). Is sexism a gender issue? A motivated social cognition perspective on men’s and women’s sexist attitudes toward own and other gender. European Journal of Personality, 26, 350–359. doi:10.1002/per.843.
Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99, 323–338. doi:10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338.
Shook, N. J., Hopkins, P. D., & Koech, J. M. (2016). The effect of intergroup contact on secondary group attitudes and social dominance orientation. Group Processes & Intergroup relations, 19, 328–342. doi:10.1177/1368430215572266.
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172. doi:10.1177/0146167206294745.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199.
Tasdemir, N., & Sakalli-Ugurlu, N. (2010). The relationship between religiosity and ambivalent sexism among Turkish students. Sex Roles, 62, 420–426. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9693-6.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus a change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849. doi:10.1177/0146167295218007.
Wilkins, C. L., Wellman, J. D., Babbitt, L. G., Toosi, N. R., & Schad, K. D. (2015). You can win but I can’t lose: Bias against high-status groups increases their zero-sum beliefs about discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.10.008.
Zawadzki, M. J., Shields, S. A., Danube, C. L., & Swim, J. K. (2014). Reducing the endorsement of sexism using experiential learning: The workshop activity for gender equity simulation (WAGES). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 75–92. doi:10.1177/0361684313498573.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ruthig, J.C., Kehn, A., Gamblin, B.W. et al. When Women’s Gains Equal Men’s Losses: Predicting a Zero-Sum Perspective of Gender Status. Sex Roles 76, 17–26 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0651-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0651-9