The aim of this study was to examine whether the two variables relationship status and role model have an influence on hostility towards males. 81 undergraduate psychology students of the Abertay University Dundee (UK) filled out two questionnaires. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory was used in the first questionnaire and the Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory in the second questionnaire to measure sexist attitudes.
It was predicted that participants’ relationship statuses and role models would influence their mean score on hostility towards males (HM). Results demonstrated that there was no influence of relationship status or role model on hostility towards males. It was concluded that sexism and ambivalent attitudes are influenced by a variety of factors which need further consideration in future research.
Table of Contents
1. Abstract
2. Method
2.1 Participants
2.2 Materials
2.3 Procedure
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. References
6. Appendices
6.1 Appendix A. Participants’ mean Score on Hostility towards Males by Role Model and Gender
6.2 Appendix B. Number of Participants by Role Model and Gender
Research Objectives and Key Themes
This study investigates whether relationship status and personal role models influence university students' levels of hostility towards males, utilizing the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory to assess these attitudes.
- Analysis of relationship status as a potential predictor of hostility towards males.
- Evaluation of the influence of gender role models on ambivalent sexist attitudes.
- Application of Social Identity Theory and Intergroup Contact Theory to explain attitudinal outcomes.
- Examination of the correlation between traditional gender ideologies and hostile/benevolent attitudes.
- Critique of participant demographics and methodology in the context of gender-egalitarian environments.
Excerpt from the Publication
Discussion
It was hypothesised firstly, that participants’ relationship statuses, and secondly, their kind of role model would influence the participants’ mean score on hostility towards males (HM). Both hypotheses had to be rejected. Participants in a relationship were slightly more hostile towards males than participants who were solo. Participants with the male role model and those with no role model scored the highest on HM, while participants with the female role model scored lower and finally, the mixed (male and female) role model scored the lowest.
The relationship of women towards men is a historical phenomenon because despite strong (status and power) inequalities a strong physical and psychological bound could persist (Glick & Fiske, 1999). Glick and Fiske (1999) state that “men's structural power and women's dyadic power” (p. 530) lead to ambivalent attitudes towards both genders. Ambivalent attitudes are hostility and benevolence towards males and females. (Glick & Fiske, 1999).
Hostility describes negative attitudes towards a gender, and benevolence positive but stereotyping beliefs about a gender. Both are interacting, as traditional (or sexists) attitudes are ambivalent, and both serve hierarchy stabilisations (Glick et al., 2000, 2004; Zawisza, Luyt, & Zawadzka, 2012).) Hostile and benevolent attitudes towards males and females can be described as “a compatible set of traditional gender ideologies” (Zawisza, Luyt, & Zawadzka, 2012, p. 456). The remaining strength of traditional gender and family roles, like the male breadwinner, are therefore closely connected to ambivalent attitudes (Glick & Fiske, 1999).
Summary of Chapters
Abstract: Provides a brief overview of the research aims, methodology, and findings regarding the influence of relationship status and role models on hostility towards males.
Method: Details the convenience sample of 81 psychology students, the demographic variables, and the materials used to measure hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes.
Results: Presents the statistical data and graphs comparing hostility scores across different relationship statuses and role models, noting a lack of significant differences.
Discussion: Interprets the findings through the lens of Social Identity Theory and Intergroup Contact Theory, discusses study limitations, and suggests future research directions.
References: Lists the academic sources and theoretical frameworks used to support the study's analysis and discussion.
Appendices: Contains supplemental data, including specific breakdowns of hostility scores and participant distribution by role model and gender.
Keywords
Hostility towards males, Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory, Relationship Status, Role Model, Social Identity Theory, Intergroup Contact Theory, Gender Ideology, Sexism, Traditionalism, Benevolence, University Students, Prejudice, Cognitive Dissonance, Gender Power Inequalities.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The study examines whether two specific variables—relationship status and individual role models—have a measurable influence on university students' level of hostility towards males.
What are the primary themes explored?
The paper explores ambivalent sexism, the role of social identity and interpersonal contact in shaping attitudes, and how traditional gender ideologies affect perceptions of men.
What is the research hypothesis?
The researchers hypothesized that both relationship status and the type of role model chosen by the participant would significantly influence their mean score on hostility towards males.
Which scientific methods were employed?
The study utilized a quantitative method involving 81 undergraduate psychology students who completed two online questionnaires based on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The body covers the theoretical foundations of ambivalent sexism, the statistical results of the surveys, and a discussion comparing findings to established theories like Social Identity Theory and Intergroup Contact Theory.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Key concepts include hostility towards males, ambivalent sexism, relationship status, gender role models, and gender ideologies.
Were the original hypotheses supported by the data?
No, both hypotheses were rejected as the statistical analysis (Mann-Whitney U test and ANOVA) showed no significant group differences regarding relationship status or role model influence.
How does the study explain the role of "Intergroup Contact"?
The study uses Intergroup Contact Theory to suggest that more frequent positive interactions with individuals of different genders and role models might lead to increased acceptance and reduced hostility.
What limitations were identified by the authors?
The authors note that the study was uncontrolled, used a small, female-dominated sample, and relied on a single question to determine gender role models, which may have impacted the precision of the results.
- Quote paper
- Max Korbmacher (Author), 2017, University Students’ Hostility towards Males: The Influence of Relationship Status and Role Model, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/370660
