Support for Women in Politics: the Role of Gender System Justification, Gender Inequality Perception and Sexism

Objective. Analysis of relationships between gender system justification, perceived gender inequality and ambivalent sexism in support for female candidates for the presidential post in Russia. Background. Human and gender development indices in Russia are considered to be very high in world rankings, however, promotion of women in politics and top management remains at a very low level, the Russian population is still prone to various biases towards women and their roles in society. Analysis of psychological mechanisms and factors restraining women’s empowerment is crucial to understand the lack of positive social change and barriers to quality attainment. Study design. The study examined relationships between gender system justifications, perceived gender inequality, hostile and benevolent sexism and respondents’ gender in support for female political candidates for presidency. Correlational online study using analysis of moderated mediation was conducted. Participants. Sample: N=1011 Russian respondents (48% male, 52% female) from 18 to 75 years old (M=35,1; SD=11,94). Measurements. Measures of system justification by J. Jost and A. Kay, Ambivalent sexism inventory by P. Glick and S. Fiske (both adapted to Russian by E. Agadullina), a question on perceived gender inequality in Russia («How would you evaluate gender inequality in Russia?») and a question about willingness to see a woman as a president of Russia («Would you like to see a woman as a president of Russia?»). Results. The direct association between gender system justification and support for a female politician was not found, however, indirect association through perceived gender inequality is significant: gender system justification leads to underestimation of inequality which in turn undermines willingness of the population to support female politicians. Ambivalent (benevolent and hostile) sexism hinders support for female politicians; benevolent (but not hostile) sexism contributes to underestimation of gender inequality in the society. Respondents’ gender does not moderate the studied relationships. Conclusions. Gender inequality perceived at low level as well as sexist attitudes are key factors restraining support for women in stereotypically unconventional fields (such as politics). Prevalence of sexist attitudes is one of the possible reasons why positive change is decelerated.

1. Gendernoe ravnopravie, uchastie zhenshchin v politicheskoi zhizni – Levada-Tsentr [Elektronnyi resurs] [Gender equality, women’s participation in politics - Levada-Center]. URL: https://www.levada.ru/2022/03/08/gendernoe-ravnopravie-uchastie-zhenshhin-v-politicheskoj-zhizni/ (Accessed 26.04.2022).
2. OBShchESTVENNOE MNENIE-2017 [PUBLIC OPINION-2017]. Moscow. Levada-Center. 2018. 244 p.
3. Sokhranit' prekrasnyi pol. Populyarizatsiya traditsionnykh tsennostei i zapros na “sil'nuyu ruku” menyayut predstavleniya rossiyan o zhenshchine v politike. Analiticheskii obzor VTsIOM [Elektronnyi resurs] [Analytical review. To save fair sex. Popularization of traditional values and request for “strong hand” change beliefs of Russians about a woman in politics]. URL: https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/sokhranit-prekrasnyj-pol (Accessed 26.04.2022).
4. Agadullina E., Ivanov A., Sarieva I. How Do Russians Perceive and Justify the Status Quo: Insights From Adapting the System Justification Scales // Frontiers in Psychology. 2021. Vol. 12. P. 4698.
5. Agadullina E.R. Sexism towards women: Adaptation of the ambivalent sexism scale (P. Glick and S. Fisk) on a Russian sample // Psychology, Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2018. 15. № 3. P. 447–463.
6. Bahamondes J., Sibley C.G., Osborne D. “We Look (and Feel) Better Through System-Justifying Lenses”: System-Justifying Beliefs Attenuate the Well-Being Gap Between the Advantaged and Disadvantaged by Reducing Perceptions of Discrimination // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2019. Vol. 45. № 9. P. 1391–1408.
7. Barreto M., Ellemers N. The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities // European Journal of Social Psychology. 2005. Vol. 35. № 5. P. 633-642
8. Bauer N.M. Emotional, Sensitive, and Unfit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation and Support Female Candidates // Political Psychology. 2015. Vol. 36. № 6. P. 691–708.
9. Bock J., Byrd-Craven J., Burkley M. The role of sexism in voting in the 2016 presidential election // Personality and Individual Differences. 2017. Vol. 119. P. 189–193.
10. Bohner G., Ahlborn K., Steiner R. How sexy are sexist men? Women’s perception of male response profiles in the ambivalent sexism inventory // Sex Roles. 2010. Vol. 62. № 7–8. P. 568–582.
11. Bosak J. [et al.]. Be an advocate for others, unless you are a man: Backlash against gender-atypical male job candidates // Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 2016. Vol. 19. № 1. P. 156.
12. Brown E.R., Diekman A.B. Differential effects of female and male candidates on system justification: Can cracks in the glass ceiling foster complacency? // European Journal of Social Psychology. 2013. Vol. 43. № 4. P. 299–306.
13. Cassidy B.S., Krendl A.C. A Crisis of Competence: Benevolent Sexism Affects Evaluations of Women’s Competence // Sex Roles. 2019. Vol. 81. № 7–8. P. 505–520.
14. Celis K., Lovenduski J. Power struggles: Gender equality in political representation // European Journal of Politics and Gender. 2018. Vol. 1. № 1–2. P. 149-166
15. Connor R.A., Fiske S.T. Not Minding the Gap: How Hostile Sexism Encourages Choice Explanations for the Gender Income Gap // Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2018. Vol. 43. № 1. P. 22–36.
16. Cristofaro V. de [et al.]. Can moral convictions against gender inequality overpower system justification effects? Examining the interaction between moral conviction and system justification // British Journal of Social Psychology. 2021. Vol. 60. № 4. P. 1279–1302.
17. Ditonto T. Direct and indirect effects of prejudice: sexism, information, and voting behavior in political campaigns // Politics, Groups, and Identities. 2019. Vol. 7. № 3. P. 590–609.
18. Dolan K., Lynch T. Making the connection? Attitudes about women in politics and voting for women candidates // Politics, Groups, and Identities. 2014. Vol. 3. № 1. P. 111–132.
19. Eagly A.H., Koenig A.M. The Vicious Cycle Linking Stereotypes and Social Roles // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2021. Vol. 30. № 4. P. 343–350.
20. Glick P. [et al.]. Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000. Vol. 79. № 5. P. 763–775.
21. Glick P., Fiske S.T. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996. Vol. 70. № 3. P. 491–512.
22. Glick P., Fiske S.T. An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality // American Psychologist. 2001. Vol. 56. № 2. P. 109–118.
23. Hayes A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression Approach. New York: Guilford, 2018. 714 Pp.
24. Heilman M.E. [et al.]. Penalties for Success: Reactions to Women Who Succeed at Male Gender-Typed Tasks // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004. Vol. 89. № 3. P. 416.
25. Heilman M.E., Okimoto T.G. Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit // Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007. Vol. 92. № 1. P. 81–92.
26. Jost J.T. An Experimental Replication of the Depressed-Entitlement Effect Among Women // Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1997. Vol. 21. № 3. P. 387–393.
27. Jost J.T., Banaji M.R. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness // British Journal of Social Psychology. 1994. Vol. 33. № 1. P. 1–27.
28. Jost J.T., Kay A.C. Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005. Vol. 88. № 3. P. 498–509
29. Kaiser C.R. [et al.]. Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2013. Vol. 104. № 3. P. 504–519
30. Kay A.C. [et al.]. Panglossian Ideology In The Service Of System Justification: How Complementary Stereotypes Help Us To Rationalize Inequality // Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2007. Vol. 39. P. 305–358.
31. Kray L.J. [et al.]. The effects of implicit gender Role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs Strengthen masculinity to preserve the status quo // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2017. Vol. 112. № 1. P. 98–115.
32. Laurin K., Gaucher D., Kay A. Stability and the justification of social inequality // European Journal of Social Psychology. 2013. Vol. 43. № 4. P. 246–254.
33. Lepeley M.T. [et al.]. The wellbeing of women in entrepreneurship: A global perspective / M.T. Lepeley, K. Kuschel, N. Beutell, N. Pouw, E.L. Eijdenberg. Routledge, 2019. 452 Pp.
34. Lombardo E., Meier P., Verloo M. The discursive politics of gender equality: Stretching, bending and policymaking / E. Lombardo, P. Meier, M. Verloo. Routledge, 2009. 240 Pp.
35. Major B. From Social Inequality to Personal Entitlement: The Role of Social Comparisons, Legitimacy Appraisals, and Group Membership // Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1994. Vol. 26. P. 293–355.
36. Malul M. (Mis)perceptions about the Gender Gap in the Labor Market // Forum for Social Economics. Routledge, 2021. P.1–9.
37. 37. Masser B., Viki G.T., Power C. Hostile sexism and rape proclivity amongst men // Sex Roles. 2006. 54. № 7–8. P. 565–574.
38. Mendoza-Denton R., Park S.H., O’Connor A. Gender stereotypes as situation–behavior profiles // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2008. Vol. 44. № 4. P. 971–982.
39. O’Brien L.T., Major B.N., Gilbert P.N. Gender Differences in Entitlement: The Role of System-Justifying Beliefs // Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2012. Vol. 34. № 2. P. 136–145.
40. Okimoto T.G., Brescoll V.L. The price of power: Power seeking and backlash against female politicians // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2010. Vol. 36. № 7. P. 923–936.
41. Palumbo R. [et al.]. Age and gender differences in facial attractiveness, but not emotion resemblance, contribute to age and gender stereotypes // Frontiers in Psychology. 2017. Vol. 8. P. 1704.
42. Plant E.A. [et al.]. The gender stereotyping of emotions // Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2000. Vol. 24. № 1. P. 81–92.
43. Psaki S.R., McCarthy K.J., Mensch B.S. Measuring Gender Equality in Education: Lessons from Trends in 43 Countries // Population and Development Review. 2018. Vol. 44. № 1. P. 117–142.
44. Radke H.R.M. [et al.]. Beyond Allyship: Motivations for Advantaged Group Members to Engage in Action for Disadvantaged Groups // Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2020. Vol. 24. № 4. P. 291–315.
45. Ratliff K.A. [et al.]. Engendering support: Hostile sexism predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election // Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2017. Vol. 22. № 4. P. 578–593.
46. Rudman L.A. [et al.]. Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2012. Vol. 48. № 1. P. 165–179.
47. Saguy T., Reifen-Tagar M., Joel D. The gender-binary cycle: the perpetual relations between a biological-essentialist view of gender, gender ideology, and gender-labelling and sorting // Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2021. Vol. 376. № 1822. P. 20200141
48. Sanbonmatsu K. Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice // American Journal of Political Science. 2002. Vol. 46. № 1. P. 20.
49. Schmitt M.T. [et al.]. The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review // Psychological Bulletin. 2014. Vol. 140. № 4. P. 921–948.
50. Skewes L., Fine C., Haslam N. Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash // PLOS ONE. 2018. Vol. 13. № 7. P. e0200921.
51. United Nations Development Programme The next frontier Human development and the Anthropocene Human Development Report 2020. New York, 2020. 412 Pp.
52. United Nations Development Programme TACKLING SOCIAL NORMS A game changer for gender inequalities 2020 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES. 2020. P. 1–36
53. Wang C., Naveed A. Can Women Empowerment Explain Cross-Country Differences in Inequality? A Global Perspective // Social Indicators Research. 2021. Vol. 158. № 2. P. 667–697.