Gender Equality 1 Running head: GENDER EQUALITY AND GENDER HOSTILITY
Gender Equality and Gender Hostility among University Students: A Multi-National Analysis* Leila B. Dutton, Ph.D. Family Research Laboratory University of New Hampshire 126 Horton Social Science Center Durham, NH 03824
[email protected] Murray A. Straus, Ph.D. Family Research Laboratory University of New Hampshire 126 Horton Social Science Center Durham, NH 03824
[email protected] (603) 862-2594 Rose A. Medeiros, M.A. Family Research Laboratory University of New Hampshire 126 Horton Social Science Center Durham, NH 03824
[email protected] Submitted for review to Gender & Society, June 2006. Please contact first author prior to citing.
* Authors’ Note: Parts of this paper were presented at the 6th Biennial Convention of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, June, 2006. We would like to express deep appreciation to the members of the International Dating Violence Research Consortium who provided important advice and suggestions, translated and administered the questionnaire, and permitted use of their data for this article. Even with this data and assistance, the project would not have been possible without the dedicated and skilled contribution of the project staff at the University of New Hampshire. These include Doctors Chiara Sabina, Emily M. Douglas, Patricia C. Ellerson, and Ignacio Luis Ramirez (NIMH-funded Post-Doctoral Research Fellows) and Sarah A. Savage (Graduate Research Assistant). Thanks also to Dr. Carlos Cuevas for his advice on numerous statistical matters. For publications on this and related issues and members of the Dating Violence Research Consortium, log into http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2. Financial support was provided by National Institute of Mental Health (Grant #T32MH15161) and by the University of New Hampshire.
Gender Equality 2 Abstract This study assessed the extent of women’s hostility toward men and men’s hostility toward women among 18,093 university students who participated in the International Dating Violence Study in 27 nations. Results revealed a high prevalence of low-level hostility among both sexes. We also tested the theory that inequality generates antagonism, hypothesizing that there would be less hostility between women and men in more equal societies. Results from multi-level modeling revealed that the more equal women’s status, the less hostile women were towards men. In contrast, greater gender equality was not related to less hostility among men.
Gender Equality 3 Gender Equality and Gender Hostility among University Students: A Multi-National Analysis Q: If your dog is barking at the back door and your wife is yelling at the front door, which do you let in first? A: The dog of course. At least he’ll shut up after you let him in. (Unknown, 2006) Q: Why did God make men before women? A: You need a rough draft before you have a final copy. (Unknown, 2006) These “jokes” illustrate the hostility toward the other sex (what we call gender hostility in this paper) that permeates American society and many other societies. Hostility toward men (HTM) by women and hostility toward women (HTW) by men probably interferes with a wide range of relationships with persons of the other sex, including strangers, acquaintances, family members, and intimate partners. It may reduce marital satisfaction and increase the rate of divorce. Research indicates gender hostility is related to sexual aggression (Dutton and Straus 2005; Christopher, Owens, and Stecker 1993; Malamuth 1986) and partner violence (Dutton and Straus 2005; Yodanis and Straus 1996). The results of research on women’s HTM and men’s HTW can provide a better understanding of the prevalence of and social conditions associated with the phenomenon and might be used to improve female-male relationships. It can also help guide efforts to alleviate individual- and societal-level problems that result from such hostility. The current study investigated the prevalence of gender hostility among university students in 27 nations. Based on the principle that inequality generates antagonism (Coser 1967; Dahrendorf 1959), we also tested the hypothesis that the more equal the status of women and men in these nations, the lower the level of hostility between women and men.
Gender Equality 4 The Concept of Gender Hostility Researchers typically conceptualize gender hostility as an attitude or personality characteristic (Burt 1980; Christopher, Owens, and Stecker 1993; Hoffman and Moon 1999; Straus and Yodanis 1996). Check (1988) stated that HTW is the same as general hostility except that it is directed toward women. He defined general hostility as a trait as well as a state, which may be experienced as a feeling rather than a behavior such as aggression. Modifying Buss’s definition of general hostility (1961 cited in Check 1988), Check defined HTW as “typically implicit, consisting of the mulling over of past attacks from women, rejections from women, and deprivations from women, and may be inferred when aggression against a woman is motivated by a desire to hurt rather than by a desire to attain some extrinsic reinforcer” (p. 39). Similarly, Check, Elias, and Barton (1988) conceptualized HTM as the same as general hostility except that it is directed specifically toward men. Straus and Yodanis (1996), the authors of the measures of HTM and HTW used in the current study, conceptualized gender hostility as a variable comprised of negative beliefs about (e.g., men are rude) and negative emotions directed toward (e.g., women irritate me a lot) the other sex. Most of the research on gender hostility has focused on men’s HTW, particularly as it relates to sexual and physical aggression against women. A relatively small number of studies have investigated women’s HTW (e.g., Cowan 2000; Cowan et al. 1998) and men’s HTM (e.g., Glick et al. 2004). The focus of the current study, however, is on women’s HTM and men’s HTW and we therefore limited our review of the literature to studies assessing hostility toward the other sex (i.e., gender hostility).
Gender Equality 5 Individual Variables Associated with Gender Hostility Research on men’s HTW developed out of feminist research in the 1980s examining variables that investigators expected would predict men’s sexual aggression against women. These studies have found that men’s HTW is associated with perpetration of sexual aggression against women (Dutton and Straus 2005; Christopher, Owens, and Stecker 1993; Forbes, AdamsCurtis, and White 2004; Lisak and Roth 1988; Malamuth 1986; McCollaum and Lester 1997; Senn and Radtke 1990; Smith and Steward 2003). There is, however, some research that has failed to find a direct link between men’s HTW and sexual aggression (Calhoun et al. 1997; Lackie and de Man 1997; Walker 1994). Some of the rape-related attitudes, beliefs, and cognitions that are associated (either directly or indirectly) with gender hostility include sex-role stereotyping (Lackie and de Man 1997), rape myth acceptance (Christopher, Owens, and Stecker 1993; Lonsway and Fitzgerald 1995; Marshall and Hambley 1996; Senn and Radtke 1990), adversarial sexual beliefs (Christopher, Owens, and Stecker 1993; Malamuth 1987), and acceptance of interpersonal violence (Walker 1994). Dutton and Straus (2005) found that higher levels of gender hostility were associated with an increased probability of minor and severe levels of sexual coercion of a dating partner. Some studies have examined the association of men’s HTW with their perpetration of physical violence. Yodanis and Straus (1996) found no correlation between men’s HTW and assault of a female partner but did find a positive correlation between women’s HTM and their assault of a male partner. That is, the higher the women’s HTM, the more physical assaults against a male partner reported. As with the research on sexual aggression, results from studies examining the link between gender hostility and partner violence suggest that the relationship
Gender Equality 6 can be contingent on other variables. For example, Parrott and Zeichner (2003) found that among male participants who held negative attitudes toward women, higher trait anger led to a greater likelihood of physical assault. Glick and Fiske (1996) developed the Ambivalent Sexism Measure to assess hostile and benevolent prejudices and stereotypes about women. They conceptualize hostile sexism and benevolence toward women (which they call benevolent sexism) as complementary components of sexism common in past and current societies. Hostile sexism is characterized as “an adversarial view of gender relations where women are perceived as seeking to control men, whether through sexuality or feminist ideology” (Glick et al. 2000, p. 764). The Hostile Sexism scale includes items that assess concerns about power relations, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality. In a cross-national study with Turkish and Brazilian samples, they found that hostile sexism was associated with greater tolerance for wife abuse among both women and men (Glick et al. 2002). Glick and Fiske (1999) also developed the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory to measure hostile and benevolent prejudices and stereotypes about men. The Hostility toward Men subscale assesses resentment of paternalism, compensatory gender differentiation, and heterosexual hostility. They found that women’s HTM was associated with ascription of negative traits to men as a group as well as hostile attitudes toward women as a group. Research has shown that higher levels of gender hostility are associated with men’s negative evaluations of women in non-traditional roles (Glick et al. 1997) and less support for a father’s involvement with their children among women (Hoffman and Moon 1999). Gender hostility is also related to lower educational attainment among women and men in Spain (Glick,
Gender Equality 7 Lameiras, and Castro 2002) and Turkish men’s preference for marrying a virgin (Sakalli and Glick 2003). The results from these studies examining the relationship of gender hostility with an array of important variables reveal the broad impact that gender hostility has on women, men, and their relationships with each other. They underscore the importance of assessing the extent of gender hostility. They also indicate that gender hostility is a cross-cultural phenomenon. Cross-Cultural Research on Gender Hostility and Gender Inequality Although some studies outside the U.S. and Canada have examined gender hostility (e.g., Aromaki, Haebich, and Lindman 2002), few have investigated it with samples from more than two nations. Glick and colleagues (Glick et al. 2000; Glick et al. 2004) conducted a multinational study of hostility and benevolence toward men as well as women. Across 19 geographically and culturally diverse nations ((i.e., Australia, Cuba, Italy, Syria, Taiwan), Glick et al. (2000) found that hostile and benevolent sexism were pervasive across cultures. Their results indicate that both aspects of sexism are recognizable and coherent ideologies across countries. In nations where males expressed hostile sexism more strongly, women were more hostile toward men (Glick et al. 2004). According to Glick et al. (2004), these results suggest women’s HTM reflects their resentment of men’s HTW. Glick and colleagues (Glick et al. 2000; Glick et al. 2004) conducted the only two multinational studies of which we are aware that examined the relationship between gender equality and gender hostility. Glick et al. (2000) found that gender equality was associated with hostile sexism in 16 nations. They used two United Nations measures, the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) and the Gender-related Development Index (GDI). The GEM assesses women’s status relative to men’s in the political and economic spheres whereas the GDI measures
Gender Equality 8 women’s achievement compared to men’s with respect to life expectancy, knowledge, and standard of living. They found that higher scores on the GEM and the GDI were related to lower hostile sexism scores for men. Similarly, in a study with samples from 19 nations, Glick et al. (2004) found that higher GEM and GDI scores were associated with lower levels of HTM among women. Thus, results from these studies indicate that the less equal women and men are, the higher the levels of women’s HTM and men’s HTW. Although nearly all of the samples included in the studies by Glick and colleagues (Glick et al. 2000; Glick et al. 2004) were comprised of college students, a few were representative samples of adults. Thus, the heterogeneity of their overall sample makes it particularly difficult to generalize their results, even to college students. Further, their samples were limited to 19 nations whereas the samples for the current study include data from university students in 27 national settings. In summary, researchers conceptualize gender hostility as an attitude or personality characteristic that involves negative beliefs and feelings about the other sex. Gender hostility is associated with a wide range of undesirable behaviors and attitudes including sexual aggression, partner violence, and negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Despite the considerable body of research on these issues, few studies have investigated the extent of women’s HTM and men’s HTW, and none have done so cross-nationally. Only two multi-national studies examined the relationship of gender equality to gender hostility (Glick et al. 2000; Glick et al. 2004) and both found that higher levels of gender equality are related to lower levels of gender hostility. These studies used measures of gender hostility that assess perceptions of women as seeking to control men or that men unfairly hold power on both social and relational levels. Some of these
Gender Equality 9 perceptions may be realistic beliefs, not indicators of hostility. Our study used more general measures of gender hostility that assess negative beliefs and feelings about the other sex. Hypotheses The first purpose of the present study was to assess the extent of women’s HTM and men’s HTW with a sample of university students in 27 diverse national settings. The second purpose was to examine the relationship of gender equality to women’s HTM and men’s HTW across national settings. Using correlational analyses and multi-level modeling, we tested the following hypotheses: 1. The higher men’s HTW, the higher women’s HTM. 2. The greater the degree of equality between women and men in a national setting, the lower women’s HTM. 3. The greater the degree of equality between women and men in a national setting, the lower men’s HTW. Method The International Dating Violence Study This study uses data from the International Dating Violence Study. The study was conducted by members of a research consortium located at universities in every major world region except sub-Saharan Africa. A detailed description of the study, including the questionnaire and all other key documents, is available on the website http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2. Appropriate authorities at each university reviewed and approved the procedures to protect the rights and safety of the participants.
Gender Equality 10 Sample The total sample included 19,369 university students (13,783 females, 6,131 males, and 74 who did not specify their gender). We removed the data from participants who did not indicate their gender (less then 1% of the sample) from the dataset. We also removed data from participants who provided questionable responses (e.g., response sets) to some of the items (6.6%, n = 1,276). Thus, the final sample consisted of 18,093 students (12,394 females, 5,699 males) from 60 universities at 27 national settings. The 27 national settings included in this study are listed in Table 1. In some nations, data were collected at more than one site. Sites were chosen to provide diverse representation within each nation. For example, there is one sample from Belgium that is Flemish and another that is French speaking. In Great Britain, there is one sample from England and another from Scotland. The number of participants in each nation ranged from 123 (Iran) to 4,503 (United States) with a median of n = 434 (Brazil). Characteristics of the students in each national setting are also provided in Table 1, including the sample size, percent of participants who were female, mean age, and mean score on the measure of socially desirable responding. Because the questionnaires were primarily administered in psychology, social work, sociology courses, which have predominantly female students, 68.5% of the sample is female. The number of males was low in some settings. For example, there were only 28 males from Iran and 30 from Romania. Procedure The members of the International Dating Violence Research Consortium administered the questionnaire to students at their university. There is a core questionnaire that each member agreed to translate and back-translate. Prior to administering the questionnaire, each consortium member explained to students that the purpose of the study was to learn more about dating
Gender Equality 11 relationships. Potential participants were also told that the questionnaire includes questions on sensitive issues, including sexual relationships. Students were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality of their responses and told that the session would take approximately an hour. (The actual time to finish ranged from 30 minutes to 1 hour.) The same information was printed on the cover page of the questionnaire. The questionnaires were typically administered in classes taught by members of the consortium and other classes for which they could make arrangements. Therefore, it is a convenience sample of students taking primarily social science courses. Approximately 90% of the students surveyed were in first- and second-year classes, which included non-major students who were taking the course to meet general education requirements or as an elective. Thus, the sample is similar to those of research in psychology and other fields that consist of students in social sciences courses who participate in research for class credit. As is characteristic of such research, the results from this study describe what was found for students in the particular classes in our sample and do not necessarily represent all students in each national setting. To respect the privacy and the voluntary nature of participation, the instructions emphasized that respondents were free to not participate by putting a blank questionnaire in the box. The percentage of students who chose to participate ranged from 42% to 100%, with the most typical percentage in the 85-95% range. Students were also told they could omit any question they did not wish to answer. Of those who answered the questionnaire, there were few omissions. In some settings, however, especially those where completing a questionnaire by marking an optically scanned answer sheet was a novel experience, some students did not finish the questionnaire because of time constraints. Measures of Gender Hostility
Gender Equality 12 Participants completed the 5-item short forms of the Gender Hostility Scales, which Yodanis and Straus (1996) created in response to the limitations inherent in Check’s (1985) Hostility Toward Women Scale and Check et al.’s (1988) Hostility Toward Men Scale (for a discussion of the limitations, see Yodanis and Straus, 1996). The full-length scales include 33 items to measure HTM and 33 items to assess HTW. Yodanis and Straus (1996) derived a 5-item short form of each scale from the 33-item scales using data from female respondents to select items for the HTM scale and from male respondents to select items for the HTW scale. The short form scales are made up of the five items that had the highest correlations with the total scale score. The items with the highest correlation were the same for women’s HTM and men’s HTW for three of the five items (i.e., Men/Women are rude; Men/Women irritate me a lot; Men/Women treat men/women badly). Yodanis and Straus (1996) found that both short forms correlated highly with the full scale. The short forms were included in the Personal and Relationships Profile (Straus et al. 1999; Straus and Mouradian 1999), which was part of the International Dating Violence Study questionnaire. For both scales, respondents indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each statement on a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree). The scale scores are the mean score of the items answered. Therefore, women’s HTM and men’s HTW mean scale scores could range from 1 to 4. For both measures, if participants answered at least four out of five of the items, their score was the mean for the items to which they did respond. If they answered fewer than four items, a score was not computed. With the individuallevel data, women’s mean HTM scale score was 2.06 (SD = .48, n = 12,054) and men’s mean HTW scale score was 1.90 (SD = .51, n = 5,282. Thus, on average, participants disagreed more
Gender Equality 13 than they agreed with the gender hostility items and women’s HTM scores were slightly higher than men’s HTW scores. Reliability. The current study provided an opportunity to examine the cross-national reliability of the women’s HTM and men’s HTW scales. For women’s scores on the HTM scale, the alpha coefficient of internal consistency ranged from .46 (Guatemala) to .77 (Germany) whereas for men’s scores on the HTW scale, alphas ranged from .55 (India) to .83 (New Zealand). For the women’s HTM scale, alphas were below .70 for 19 of 27 settings. These settings were Belgium, Brazil, China, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Iran, Lithuania, South Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Switzerland, and Taiwan. For the men’s HTW scale, in 12 out of 27 national settings the alphas were below .70, the value conventionally used for an acceptable alpha. These settings included Brazil, China, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, South Korea, Switzerland, and Taiwan. The low reliability coefficients in many of the national settings indicate that the items making up the scales are not as closely correlated with each other as in the United States. Individual-level Variables Gender. As indicated previously, approximately two-thirds of the students in the sample were female. There was, however, considerable variation among national settings. The percent of students who were female ranged from 42.6% in Guatemala to 90.4% in Romania (see Table 1). Socially Desirable Responding. In research that uses self-report data, it is important to take into account the tendency of some respondents to minimize reporting socially undesirable behavior. This study used the Social Desirability scale of the Personal and Relationships Profile (Straus et al. 1999; Straus and Mouradian 1999), which is a 13-item scale adapted from
Gender Equality 14 Reynolds’s (1982) short form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The scale measures the degree to which a respondent tends to avoid disclosing undesirable behavior. The items in the scale consist of behaviors that are undesirable but true of almost everyone, such as “I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way.” Consequently, the more of these minimally undesirable behaviors a respondent denies, the less likely they are to disclose more seriously undesirable information such as hostile attitudes about the other sex. As with the gender hostility scales, respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with each statement using a 4-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree). Each respondent received a mean score on this measure with possible scores ranging from 1 to 4. The mean scores by national setting ranged from 2.44 (SD = .29) (South Korea) to 2.84 (SD = .38) (Mexico), with an overall mean of 2.61 (SD = .35) (see Table 1). Age. The students ranged in age from 18 to 55. The average age was 22.9 years (SD = 6.3), but there were two national settings where the students were notably older (i.e., Switzerland and Israel; see Table 1). The majority of participants (80.7%), however, were between 18 and 23 years old. Because mean age varied by national context, we controlled for this variable in the multivariate analyses at the national level. Iran was not included in the national-level analyses, which controlled for age, because participants were not asked their age. National-Level Variables Gender Equality. We assessed gender equality using the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) and the Gender-related Development Index (GDI). The GEM and GDI are composite indices of women’s status relative to men’s, as given in the Human Development Report 2005, an independent report commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme (http://hdr.undp.org/). The GEM assesses gender equality in three domains: economic
Gender Equality 15 participation and decision-making, political participation and decision-making, and control of economic resources. Scores on the GEM can range from 0 to 1 with higher scores reflecting a higher status of women in economic and political life. In our sample, Sweden had the highest score (.85) and Iran had the lowest (.32). There were no data for the following seven countries: Belgium, Brazil, China, Taiwan, Guatemala, Hong Kong, and India. The GDI assesses average achievement in three dimensions from the Human Development Index: life expectancy, knowledge, and standard of living. The GDI compares females and males on these three measures. The greater the difference between women and men, the lower the GDI. GDI scores can range from 0 to 1. In the current study, Sweden had the highest score (.95) whereas India had the lowest (.59). Scores for the GDI were not available for Taiwan, the Russian Federation, or Singapore. Data Analysis To test the hypothesis that the higher the level of men’s HTW, the higher the level of women’s HTM, we used the national-level data (the mean scores for each national context) to calculate the correlation between women’s and men’s gender hostility scores. To test the second and third hypotheses about the relationship of gender equality to gender hostility, we conducted multi-level modeling used the HLM 6.0 program (Raudenbush et al. 2004). This technique permits simultaneous consideration of individual-level (Level 1) and social-context level (Level 2) influences on a variable of interest without violating assumptions of independence or losing variability. HLM permits examination of how group influences interact with individual characteristics by running a series of nested linear models that take hierarchical structure into account. We estimated four models to assess the degree to which gender equality predicted gender hostility at the national level. In the first and second models, we tested the ability of
Gender Equality 16 gender empowerment to predict men’s HTW and women’s HTM. In the third and fourth models, we assessed the ability of gender-related development to predict men’s HTW and women’s HTM. For all multi-level analyses, we included age and socially desirable responding as control variables at the individual level. All models tested were slopes-as-outcomes models and all variables except age were grand-mean centered. Results Prevalence of Gender Hostility We examined the percent of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with each gender hostility item, starting with the three items that were the same in both the HTM and HTW scales. More females (23.9%) than males (14.4%) felt that the other sex was rude. For the other two items, about the same proportion of men and women felt that the other sex treated them badly (25.2% of males and 21.0% of females), and that the other sex irritated them (13.5% of males and 13.4% of females). On the two items that are unique to the HTW scale, relatively few men (13.0%) agreed that they “often feel resentful of women,” but one out of four (25.4%) indicated that they were “easily frustrated by women.” For the two items that are unique to the HTM scale, more than a quarter of the women (27.9%) endorsed the item “Men respect women (reverse-scored),” and almost a third (31.6%) felt that “Men are more dishonest than women.” Table 2 shows the percentage of students who agreed or strongly agreed with none, one, two, three, four, or all five of the items. Results from a Pearson chi-square analysis indicated that there were significant differences in the percent of females and males with scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on the gender hostility measures, χ2(5) = 118.35, p < .005. More females (59%) than males (49.1%) agreed or strongly agreed with at least one item in the gender hostility scale. Thus, close
Gender Equality 17 to two-thirds of the women and approximately half of the men in the sample expressed some degree of gender hostility. Examination of more extreme scores reveals that 7.2% of females and 5.0% of males agreed or strongly agreed with four or five items, indicating that a noteworthy minority of participants reported a high level of gender hostility, with the percentage for women somewhat higher than for men. Cross-National Differences in Gender Hostility To assess whether the scales were measuring gender hostility rather than general hostility, we conducted factor analyses of the gender hostility items using an oblique rotation method, one with the data from females and another with the data from males. The results clearly showed a HTW factor for males and a HTM factor for females, with all five items loading .30 or above on the respective factor with no complex items (see Table 3). Among males, the HTW factor accounted for 23.17 % of the variance and for females, the HTM factor accounted for 1.54 % of the variance. Because factor analysis identifies the proportion of variance in a set of variables that is explained by an underlying variable (Manly 2005), use of factor scores provides a more reliable measure of HTW and HTM than simple sum or mean scores. Thus, we used the factor scores as the dependent variables. Gender hostility factor scores for each national context are presented in rank order in Table 4. The variation between countries on gender hostility scores was great for both females and males. For women, the highest HTM score was .53 (South Korea) whereas the lowest was .89 (Netherlands). For men, the highest HTW score was .42 (Greece) and the lowest was -.87 (Netherlands). For the most part, national settings that were high in women’s HTM were also high in men’s HTW; for example, the rankings for females and males in India were the same (2nd). Overall, the factor scores were significantly correlated (r = .75, p < .001). Thus, we found
Gender Equality 18 support for the hypothesis that the higher men’s HTW, the higher women’s HTM. Even with a correlation of .75, however, there are some important exceptions. For example, in Greece, women’s HTM ranked 16th whereas men’s HTW ranked first. Relationship of gender equality to gender hostility. We estimated four models to test the hypotheses about the relationship of gender equality to gender hostility across national settings, controlling for individual’s age and level of socially desirable responding. The effects of the Level 1 variables (age and socially desirable responding) were held constant across nations. That is, the effects of age and socially desirable responding on individual’s gender hostility were constrained to be the same in all countries. The general equation for the four models was: Level 1:
Gender Hostility(γ00) = β0 + β1(age) + β2(SD) + e
Level 2:
β0 = γ00 + γ01 (Gender Equality) + μ0 β1 = γ10 β2 = γ20
For all models, we report the final estimation of fixed effects with robust standard errors, which provides a conservative estimate of the standard errors. Results for the four models are presented in Table 5. Control Variables. The rows labeled Social Desirability in Table 5 show that in all four models tested, scores on the social desirability scale were associated with significantly lower scores on the gender hostility measures. This shows that unwillingness to disclose socially undesirable behavior explains part of the variation in gender hostility, and confirms the importance of controlling for this variable. The row for age in the upper left panel of Table 5 shows that for men, each additional year of age is associated with a lower score on the HTW scale. Age, however, was not related women’s to HTM.
Gender Equality 19 Gender Empowerment Measure. The significant negative coefficient reported in the top right panel of Table 5 for the GEM (which indicates degree of economic and political equality) shows that the higher the level of empowerment, the lower women’s HTM. Thus, we found support for the hypothesis that gender equality in a national setting would be associated with less HTM among females. Figure 1 is a scatter plot with the bivariate regression line. The key to the abbreviations for each nation is provided in Table 1. The scatter plot shows the score of each of the 19 national settings with respect to both gender empowerment and women’s HTM. In contrast, the results for men, provided in the top left panel of Table 5, shows that the GEM was not associated with scores on the HTW measure. Thus, we did not find support for the hypothesis that gender equality would be associated with lower HTW among men. Gender Development Index (GDI). For both females and males, results from analyses of the GDI were similar to those with the GEM. For women, the lower right panel of Table 5 shows that higher gender-related development (which indicates degree of equality in life expectancy, knowledge, and standard of living) was associated with lower levels of HTM. This is consistent with the hypothesis that gender equality in a nation is associated with lower levels of HTM among women. Figure 2 graphs this relationship and shows the score of each of the national settings with respect to both gender-related development and women’s HTM for each of the 23 national settings for which GDI data were available. As with the gender empowerment variable, we found that gender-related development was not related to men’s HTW. Again, we did not find support for the hypothesis that more gender equality would be associated with less HTW among men. Discussion This study investigated the extent of gender hostility in a large sample of female and
Gender Equality 20 male university students in 27 diverse national settings. Based on the theory that gender hostility is partly a reflection of the inequality between women and men, we tested the hypothesis that the more equality between women and men, the less HTM by women and HTW by men. Prevalence of Gender Hostility The results revealed a high rate of low-level gender hostility: nearly two thirds of females and one-half of males endorsed one or more components of hostility toward the other sex. On the other hand, more extreme gender hostility (as indicated by endorsing four or all five of the items in the gender hostility scales) was found for only a small percentage of students (7.2% of females and 5% of males). That males reported less HTW than women reported HTM might reflect at least partial achievement of feminist efforts to make negative remarks about women socially unacceptable. Or it may be that, given women’s continuing subordinate position, women have more reason for hostility than men. Only one previous study of which we are aware directly compared women’s and men’s levels of gender hostility. With a sample of U.S. university students and using the long form of the same measure used in the current study, Straus and Yodanis (1996) found approximately 60% of the women agreed or strongly agreed with at least one item in the Hostility to Men scale. Similarly, nearly 60% of men agreed or strongly agreed with at least one item in the Hostility to Women scale. Results from this study and the current one suggest that low levels of negative beliefs and emotions about the other sex are widespread. We also obtained very similar results to Straus and Yodanis (1996) regarding the percent of students who agreed with particular items, as well as level of item endorsement. In the 1996 study, nearly a third of female participants agreed that “Men are more dishonest than women” and almost the same proportion of women in the current study agreed with this item. A quarter of
Gender Equality 21 males in the 1996 study and a third of males in the current study agreed with “Women treat men badly.” In both studies, the item that females and males endorsed the least was about being irritated by the other sex. Among women, 18.2% in the 1996 study and 13.4% in the present study agreed with the statement “Men irritate me a lot.” Similarly, 21.6% of men in the 1996 study and 13.5% of men in the current study agreed with the item “Women irritate me a lot.” The similarity of our results with those from a small U.S. sample suggests that there are certain negative beliefs and emotions about the other sex that are held cross-nationally among both women and men. We found that the higher the score on the social desirability scale, the lower the scores for HTM among women and HTW among men. Methodologically, this indicates the importance of controlling for socially desirable responding when investigating gender hostility with selfreport data. Substantively, it suggests that there is recognition by both women and men that these beliefs and emotions are socially unacceptable. As suggested above, because women’s rights have advanced to a considerable extent in most of the nations in this study, men’s outward expression of HTW may not be tolerated to the degree it once was. Interrelation of Women’s HTM and Men’s HTW The hypothesis that hostility toward the other sex by one gender is associated with hostility by the other was supported at the national level. This result is consistent with the idea that hostile thoughts and emotions increase the probability of aggressive behavior directed at the object of hostility (Berkowitz 1993), and that being the recipient of aggressive acts evokes anger, hostility, and retaliation (Kernsmith 2005; Swan et al. 2005). Glick and Fiske (1999) argue that women respond to male structural power by developing both hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Women may resent men’s power and higher status and become hostile toward them (Glick
Gender Equality 22 and Fiske 1999). The root causes of both women’s HTM and men’s HTW likely derive, at least in part, from various macro-level influences, such as patriarchal social structure. When addressing the micro-level causes of gender hostility, however, it is important to consider how hostility might beget hostility. That is, if one sex is hostile toward the other, reciprocation of hostility is not a surprising result. Such reciprocal hostility probably serves to perpetuate gender hostility directly and by making it more difficult to change to more egalitarian social arrangements. Thus, in addition to addressing the macro-level causes of gender hostility, it may be necessary for both women and men to critically examine their beliefs and emotions about the other sex, especially considering the diverse and often serious consequences of such hostility. Gender Equality and Gender Hostility The results supported the hypothesis that a higher degree of gender equality in a national setting is associated with less HTM among women. For example, the lowest rates of women’s HTM were in the Netherlands and Sweden where gender equality is high. In contrast, women’s HTM was high in countries where women’s status is relatively low such as South Korea and India. The results, however, did not support the hypothesis that more gender equality is related to less HTW among men. The difference between the results for women and men may reflect the pervasive pattern of gender inequality in most societies; that is, women have more to be hostile about. For example, in more egalitarian nations, women experience fewer restrictions on career options and more employers pay women the same as men for the same work. In such a society, women are likely to feel less oppressed by men and to consequently hold fewer negative attitudes about them. On the other hand, the absence of a relationship between gender equality and male HTW may occur because, although both women and men gain from equality, men may not perceive that that they also gain from gender equality; for example, the percent of wives
Gender Equality 23 contributing cash income to the family increased by 71% between 1970 and 2001 and much of the gain in average household income of American families in this period resulted from the married women’s contribution of family income (Raley, Mattingly, and Bianchi 2006). Among men who do recognize the advantage of gender equality for family income, some may nonetheless resent the concomitant increase in their child-care and household responsibilities. Similar to our study, Glick et al. (2000) examined the relationship of hostile sexism to gender equality with a sample of over 15,000 female and male respondents in 19 nations. They used the same measures of equality as in our study. In contrast to our results, they found that the higher the degree of gender equality, the lower men’s hostile sexism. They did not examine the relationship between gender equality and women’s HTM. Another study by Glick et al. (2004) assessed the relationship of men’s hostile sexism and women’s HTM with gender equality in 15 countries and found that gender equality was related to less gender hostility among women and men, with the relationship stronger for women. Our results may differ from Glick et al.’s (Glick et al. 2000; Glick et al. 2004) because we measured related but distinct constructs. The scales we used assessed negative emotions and beliefs whereas their measures assessed issues of personal and structural power and control. Also, their sample was more heterogeneous than ours and included adult, community, and nationally representative samples as well as university student sub-samples. Although Glick et al. (2004) found that gender equality was related to less HTW by males and we did not, both studies found that gender equality was related to less HTM by females. The reasons for the specific levels of gender hostility in each national setting are undoubtedly influenced by numerous factors that interact in complex ways. The rapidity of change in gender roles may be one such factor. Greece (where women’s HTM was highest) and
Gender Equality 24 South Korea (where men’s HTW was highest) are two countries where rapid social change from extremely traditional to more egalitarian gender roles occurred in more recent years. In contrast, the change to more equal gender roles in the Netherlands, which had the lowest level of gender hostility for both women and men, occurred over a much longer span of time. Limitations There are a number of limitations of this study that should be considered when interpreting the results. Data from university sites in the same national setting were grouped together (e.g., three sites in the Russian Federation, six in Canada, 17 in the U.S.). Gender hostility may vary considerably across sites and thus the validity of averaging rates across different sites in a particular national setting may be questioned. As mentioned previously, reliability coefficients for the HTM and HTW scales were low for a large number of national settings. Future research with international samples should focus on participant’s understanding and interpretation of the scale items and the meaningfulness of the gender hostility construct. The results describe what was found for the students in classrooms at universities in each national setting. Almost all were in social science classes, and they may be different from physical or biological science students, but it is unlikely that social science students have a higher level of gender hostility than other students. Similarly, the sample consists of students who, by definition, differ from the general population. Compared to the general population, students may be more hostile because of their age (Aromaki, Haebich, and Lindman 2002) or less hostile because of their higher level of education (Glick, Lameiras, and Castro 2002). The Level 2 (national social-context effect) coefficients are based on a relatively small number of nations (18 and 23). It cannot be assumed that similar relationships would be found if
Gender Equality 25 there were more nations in the sample. Because the individual-level (Level 1) coefficients are based on data from 19,093 students, they do not share this limitation. Conclusions and Implications The results regarding the prevalence of gender hostility reveal that at least some degree of hostility is widespread among both women and men, and across nations. Fortunately, the results regarding the relationship between gender equality and gender hostility suggest one of the steps that can be taken to mitigate this problem. It is likely that further efforts to achieve gender equality in economic, political, educational, and quality of life spheres will bring a concomitant reduction in gender hostility. This in turn has ramifications for reducing other serious social problems because gender hostility is associated with issues such as partner violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Research has found that sexual assault perpetrators are more hostile toward women than non-perpetrators (Dutton and Straus 2005; Malamuth et al. 1991; Malamuth et al. 1995). Moreover, research has found that lower educational and occupational status of women is associated with higher rates of sexual violence against women (Baron and Straus 1989; Whaley 2001; Yodanis 2004). HTW may be a variable that mediates the relationship between gender inequality and sexual violence (Dutton and Straus 2005). There is also a place for more direct efforts to reduce gender hostility, especially as part of sexual assault and partner violence prevention. This will take considerably more information about the nuances of gender hostility than is now available because it appears that the problems women and men have with the other sex are not identical. If so, intervention efforts should target these yet-to-be identified sex-specific aspects of gender hostility. Another complication is that individuals who possess hostile attitudes about the other sex are not likely to be purely hostile. In
Gender Equality 26 a sample of females and males from 19 nations, Glick et al. (2000) found that participants reported both hostile and benevolent stereotypes and prejudices toward the other sex. This will not be an easy task because we know little about the ways in which women evaluate men (Glick and Fiske 1999). Although more is known about men’s attitudes toward women, it is important that researchers learn more about women’s attitudes regarding those who are their “strongest foes and most intimate partners” (Glick and Fiske 1999, p. 534). This can help identify gender-specific interventions that are probably needed. An increasing amount of research has found high rates of both physical aggression by women against male partners (Dutton and Straus 2005; Fiebert and Gonzalez 1997; Fiebert 2004; Straus 1999, 2005) and sexual aggression by women (Dutton and Straus 2005; Fiebert and Tucci 1998; Fiebert 2000). Research indicates that these women possess traits similar to men who are physically and sexually aggressive (Capaldi and Gorman-Smith 2003; Medeiros and Straus 2006; Moffitt et al. 2001). Prevention and treatment efforts need to be developed to address the attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of these women, including HTM (Medeiros and Straus 2006; Smithey and Straus 2004). The 7.2% of females and 5% of the males who agreed with four or five of the five gender hostility items may be students who are more likely to sexually and physically aggress against dating partners and others. These extremely hostile cases are those most in need of help. However, the public health principle that removing a risk factor with a small effect size, but which is broadly prevalent (low-level gender hostility), can have a larger effect on the health of a population than removing a risk factor which has more damaging effects on individuals, but occurs relatively rarely, such as more extreme gender hostility (Rose 1985). This principle suggests that efforts to mitigate lower levels of gender hostility, not just extreme cases, can make
Gender Equality 27 the largest contribution to improving the quality of interactions between women and men because they represent about half the students studied, and perhaps an even larger percentage of the general population.
Gender Equality 28 References Aromaki, Anu S., Kim Haebich, and Ralf E. Lindman. 2002. Age as a modifier of sexually aggressive attitudes in men. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43:419-423. Baron, Larry, and Murray A. Straus. 1989. Four theories of rape in American society: A statelevel analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press. Berkowitz, Leonard. 1993. Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Burt, M. R. 1980. Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (2):217-230. Calhoun, Karen S., Jeffrey A. Bernat, Gretchen A. Clum, and Cynthia L. Frame. 1997. Sexual coercion and attraction to sexual aggression in a community sample of young men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 12 (3):392-406. Capaldi, Deborah M., and Deborak Gorman-Smith. 2003. The development of aggression in young male/female couples. In Adolescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications, edited by P. Florsheim. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Check, J. V. P. 1985. The Hostility Toward Women Scale, University of Manitoba, Canada, Winnipeg. ———. 1988. Hostility toward women: Some theoretical considerations. In Violence in intimate relationships, edited by G. W. Russell. New York: PMA. Check, James V. P., Barbara Elias, and Susan A. Barton. 1988. Hostility toward men in female victims of male sexual aggression. In Violence in intimate relationships, edited by G. W. Russell. New York: PMA. Christopher, F Scott, Laura A Owens, and Heidi L Stecker. 1993. An examination of single men's and women's sexual aggressiveness in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10 (2):511-527. Christopher, F. Scott, Laura A. Owens, and Heidi L. Stecker. 1993. Exploring the darkside of courtship: A test of a model of male premarital sexual aggressiveness. Journal of Marriage and the Family 55 (2):469-479. Coser, Lewis A. 1967. Continuities in the study of social conflict. NY: Free Press. Cowan, Gloria. 2000. Women's hostility toward women and rape and sexual harassment myths. Violence Against Women 6 (3):238-246. Cowan, Gloria, Charlene Neighbors, Jann DeLaMoreaux, and Catherine Behnke. 1998. Women's hostility toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 22 (2):267-284. Dahrendorf, Ralph. 1959. Class and class conflict in industrial society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Dutton, Leila B., and Murray A. Straus. 2005. The relationship between hostility toward the other sex and sexual coercion. Paper read at 10th International Conference on Family Violence, September, at San Diego, CA. ———. 2005. The relationships between gender hostility and partner violence and injury. Paper read at 9th International Family Violence Research Conference, July, at Portsmouth, NH. Fiebert, Marin S., and Denise M. Gonzalez. 1997. College women who initiate assaults on their male partners and the reasons offered for such behavior. Psychological Reports 80:583590.
Gender Equality 29 Fiebert, Martin S. 2000. References examining men as victims of women's sexual coercion. Sexuality & Culture 4 (3):81-88. ———. 2004. References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: an annotated bibliography. Sexuality and Culture 8 (3-4):140-177. Fiebert, Martin S., and Lisa M. Tucci. 1998. Sexual coercion: Men victimized by women. The Journal of Men's Studies 6 (2):127-133. Forbes, Gordon B., Leah E. Adams-Curtis, and Kay B. White. 2004. First and second generation measures of sexism, rape myths, and related beliefs, and hostility toward women. Violence Against Women 10 (3):236-261. Glick, Peter, Jeffrey Diebold, Barbara Bailey-Werner, and Lin Zhu. 1997. The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23 (12):1323-1334. Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. 1996. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (3):491512. ———. 1999. The Ambivalence Toward Women Inventory. Psychology of Women Quarterly 23:519-536. Glick, Peter, Susan T. Fiske, Antonio Mladnic, Jose L. Saiz, Dominic Abrams, Barbara Masser, Bolanle Adetoun, and Johnstone E. Osagie. 2000. Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (5):763-775. Glick, Peter, Maria Lameiras, and Yolanda Rodriguez Castro. 2002. Education and Catholic religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward women and men. Sex Roles 47 (9/10):433-441. Glick, Peter, Maria Lameiras, Susan T. Fiske, Thomas Eckes, Barbara Masser, Chiara Volpato, Anna Maria Manganelli, Jolynn C. X. Pek, Li-li Huang, Nuray Sakalli-Uurlu, Yolanda Rodriguez Castro, Maria Luiza D'Avila Pereira, Tineke M. Willemsen, Annetje Brunner, Iris Six-Materna, and Robin Wells. 2004. Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 (5):713-728. Glick, Peter, Nuray Sakalli-Uurlu, Maria C. Ferreira, and Marcos A. de Souza. 2002. Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward wife abuse in Turkey and Brazil. Psychology of Women Quarterly 26:292-297. Hoffman, Charles D., and Michelle Moon. 1999. Women's characteristics and gender role attitudes: Support for father involvement with children. Journal of Genetic Psychology 160 (4):411-418. Kernsmith, Poco. 2005. Exerting power or striking back: a gendered comparison of motivations for domestic violence perpetration. Victims and Violence 20 (2):173-185. Lackie, Leandra, and Anton F. de Man. 1997. Correlates of sexual aggression among male university students. Sex Roles 37 (5/6):451-457. Lisak, David, and Susan Roth. 1988. Motivational factors in nonincarcerated sexually aggressive men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 (5):795-802. Lonsway, Kimberly A., and Louise F. Fitzgerald. 1995. Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (4):704-711.
Gender Equality 30 Malamuth, N. M., R. J. Sockliskie, M. P. Koss, and J. S. Tanaka. 1991. Characteristics of aggressors against women: Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59 (5):670-681. Malamuth, Neil. 1986. Predictors of naturalistic sexual aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1):953-962. Malamuth, Neil M. 1987. A multidimensional approach to sexual aggression: Combining measures of past behavior and present likelihood. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 528:123-132. Malamuth, Neil M., Daniel Linz, Christopher L. Heavey, Gordon Barnes, and Michele Acker. 1995. Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men's conflict with women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (2):353-369. Manly, Bryan F. J. 2005. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Marshall, W.L., and Laura Sona Hambley. 1996. Intimacy and loneliness, and their relationship to rape myth acceptance and hostility toward women among rapists. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 11 (4):586-592. McCollaum, Bruce, and David Lester. 1997. Sexual aggression and attitudes toward women and mothers. Journal of Social Psychology 137 (4):538-539. Medeiros, Rose A., and Murray A. Straus. 2006. Risk factors for physical violence between dating partners: Implications for gender-inclusive prevention and treatment of family violence. In Family approaches to domestic violence: a practioners guide to genderinclusive research and treatment, edited by J. C. Hamel and T. Nicholls: Springer (also available at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2). Moffitt, T.E., Avshalom Caspi, M Rutter, and Phil A. Silva. 2001. Sex differences in antisocial behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Parrott, Dominic J., and Amos Zeichner. 2003. Effects of trait anger and negative attitudes towards women on physical assault in dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence 18 (5):301-307. Raley, S. B., M. J. Mattingly, and S. M. Bianchi. 2006. How dual are dual-income couples? Documenting change from 1970 to 2001. Journal Of Marriage And The Family 68 (1):11-28. Raudenbush, Stephen W., Anthony S. Bryk, Yuk Fai Cheong, and Richard T. Congdon Jr. 2004. HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Reynolds, William M. 1982. Development of reliable and valid short forms of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 38 (1):119-125. Rose, Geoffrey. 1985. Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology 14 (1):32-38. Sakalli, Nuray, and Peter Glick. 2003. Ambivalent sexism and attitudes toward women who engage in premarital sex in Turkey. The Journal of Sex Research 40 (3):296-302. Senn, Charlene Y., and Lorraine H. Radtke. 1990. Women's evaluations of and affective reactions to mainstream violent pornography, nonviolent pornography, and erotica. Violence and Victims 5 (3):143-155. Smith, Dave, and Sally Steward. 2003. Sexual aggression and sports participation. Journal of Sport Behavior 26 (4):384-395.
Gender Equality 31 Smithey, Martha, and Murray A. Straus. 2004. Primary prevention of intimate partner violence. In Crime prevention - New approaches, edited by H. Kury and J. Obergfell-Fuchs. Mainz/Germany: Weisser Ring Gemeinnutzige Verlags-GmbH. Straus, Murray A. 1999. The Controversy over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methodological, Theoretical, and Sociology of Science Analysis. In Violence in Intimate Relationships, edited by X. Arriaga and S. Oskamp. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ———. 2005. Women's violence toward men is a serious social problem. In Current controversies on family violence, edited by D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles and M. M. Cavanaugh. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Straus, Murray A., Sherry L. Hamby, Sue Boney-McCoy, and David Sugarman. 1999. The personal and relationships profile (PRP). Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Family Research Laboratory. Available in: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/. Straus, Murray A., and Vera E. Mouradian. 1999. Preliminary psychometric data for the personal and relationships profile (PRP): A multi-scale tool for clinical screening and research on partner violence. Paper read at American Society of Criminology, November 19, 1999, at Toronto, Ontario. Straus, Murray A., and Carrie L. Yodanis. 1996. Gender hostility and violence against dating partners. Paper read at XII World Meeting of the International Society for Research on Aggression, August, at Strasbourg, France. Swan, Suzanne C., Laura J. Gambone, Alice M. Fields, Tami P. Sullivan, and David L. Snow. 2005. Women who use violence in intimate relationships: The role of anger, victimization, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress and depression. Violence and Victims 20 (3):267-285. Unknown. Http://www.funnyhumor.com/jokes/556.html. Accessed March 7, 2006. Unknown. Http://wwwfunnyhumor.com/jokes/814.html. Accessed March 7, 2006. Walker, L. E. A. 1994. Abused women and survivor therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Whaley, Rachel B. 2001. The paradoxical relationship between gender inequality and rape: Toward a refined theory. Gender & Society 15 (4):531-555. Yodanis, Carrie. 2004. Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19 (6):655-675. Yodanis, Carrie L., and Murray A. Straus. 1996. You can't live with them and you can't live without them: Gender hostility and its measurement. Paper read at Annual Meeting of the Eastern Sociological Society, March, at Boston.
Gender Equality 32 Table 1 Characteristics of Students by National Setting (N = 27)
National Setting Asia and Middle East China (CHN) China-Hong Kong (HKG) India (IND) Iran (IRN) Israel (ISR) Singapore (SGP) South Korea (KOR) Taiwan (TWN) Oceania Australia (AUS) New Zealand (NZD) Europe Belgium (BEL) Germany (DEU) Greece (GRC) Great Britain (GBR) Hungary (HUN) Lithuania (LTU) Netherlands (NDL) Romania (ROU) Russian Federation (RUS) Sweden (SWE) Switzerland (CHE) North America Canada (CAN) United States (USA) Latin America Brazil (BRA) Guatemala (GTM) Mexico (MEX) Portugal (PRT) Total *Data not available.
% Female
n
Age M (SD)
Social Desirability Score M (SD)
2,223 954 366 123 443 281 312 295
63.5 70.6 62.8 77.2 80.4 68.3 63.1 69.5
21.40 (2.50) 23.87 (5.04) 21.54 (2.83) * 30.91 (8.96) 24.74 (3.79) 24.25 (3.84) 20.10 (1.84)
2.57 (.30) 2.55 (.29) 2.58 (.32) 2.54 (.32) 2.65 (.38) 2.53 (.30) 2.44 (.29) 2.48 (.26)
271 171
80.4 76.6
23.39 (7.12) 21.63 (5.65)
2.61 (.35) 2.49 (.32)
858 209 345 480 189 461 481 314 550 883 490
75.9 58.4 69.9 84.0 68.3 65.7 86.3 90.4 56.9 70.0 67.3
27.67 (11.16) 23.90 (3.82) 21.32 (3.07) 20.83 (4.48) 22.17 (2.38) 20.29 (2.31) 22.90 (6.57) 20.99 (2.50) 20.05 (2.87) 28.24 (7.38) 34.21 (10.50)
2.64 (.36) 2.47 (.31) 2.71 (.35) 2.57 (.36) 2.61 (.34) 2.49 (.31) 2.66 (.38) 2.78 (.37) 2.52 (.34) 2.63 (.36) 2.60 (.34)
1,400 4,503
70.2 65.6
21.67 (4.44) 21.68 (5.15)
2.62 (.36) 2.64 (.38)
434 311 262 484
65.2 42.4 81.3 64.3
21.28 (4.04) 19.51 (2.41) 20.76 (3.21) 21.61 (3.21)
2.66 (.38) 2.64 (.37) 2.84 (.38) 2.74 (.33)
18,093
68.5
22.87 (6.19)
2.61 (.35)
Gender Equality 33 Table 2 Percent of Women and Men who Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the Gender Hostility Items
Number of Items with which Participants Agreed 0 1 2 3 4 5
Men’s Hostility toward Women (n = 4,961a) % 50.9 25.0 12.7 6.5 3.1 1.9
Women’s Hostility toward Men (n = 11,504a) % 41.0 27.5 14.7 9.7 5.2 2.0
Total 100.0 100.0 2 χ (5) = 118.35, p < .005. a Sample sizes are reduced because 7.2% (n = 890) of the female and 12.9% (n = 738) of male participants did not respond to one or more of the five gender hostility items, therefore agreement scores could not be calculated.
Gender Equality 34 Table 3 Factor Analyses of Gender Hostility Items Males (n = 4,751) Factor 1 Women irritate me a lot I am easily frustrated by women I often feel resentful of women Women are rude Men treat women badly Men are rude Men respect women (reverse coded) Men are more dishonest than women Men irritate me a lot % variance accounted for:
Factor 2: HTW
.72 .69 .44 .30
23.17
Factor 3
.34 .59 .52 .47 .39 .33 6.90
1.08
Factor 2
Factor 3: HTM
Females (n = 10,821) Factor 1 Women irritate me a lot I am easily frustrated by women I often feel resentful of women Women are rude Women treat men badly Men treat women badly Men are rude Men are more dishonest than women Men irritate me a lot Men respect women (reverse scored) % variance accounted for:
.80 .77 .43 .31
29.36
.32 .40
7.40
-.64 -.60 -.54 -.46 -.48 1.54
Note: To improve interpretability, items that loaded less than .30 are not included.
Gender Equality 35 Table 4 Rank Order of Gender Hostility Factor Scores by National Setting (N = 27)
National Setting Greece India United States Taiwan South Korea Germany New Zealand China Mexico Great Britain Australia Russian Federation Hong Kong Brazil Lithuania Portugal Canada Singapore Israel Switzerland Romania Guatemala Hungary Iran Sweden Belgium Netherlands
Men’s Hostility toward Women .42 .19 .19 .16 .11 .08 .06 .06 .06 .04 .04 .02 -.02 -.04 -.05 -.06 -.08 -.08 -.12 -.21 -.26 -.30 -.34 -.36 -.37 -.47 -.87
Note: Median national setting is in bold.
National Setting South Korea India Taiwan Mexico Lithuania China Russian Federation Hong Kong United States Great Britain Romania Portugal Brazil Iran Guatemala Greece Singapore Germany Australia New Zealand Israel Canada Switzerland Hungary Belgium Sweden Netherlands
Women’s Hostility toward Men .53 .51 .48 .37 .27 .18 .18 .17 .15 .15 .12 .10 .10 .08 .07 .04 .00 -.03 -.07 -.17 -.17 -.19 -.20 -.22 -.52 -.53 -.89
Gender Equality 36 Table 5 Results for Slopes as Outcomes Models with Gender Hostility as the Dependent Variable and Gender Equality as the Level 2 Predictor Gender Empowerment (N = 19 national settings) Variable
Males’ HTW
Females’ HTM
Fixed Coefficients
Coef.
SE
df
t
Coef.
SE
df
t
Social Desirability Age Gender Empowerment Intercept
-.94 -.01 -.23 .15
.07 .00 .44 .10
3,343 3,343 18 18
-12.78*** -3.17** -.53 1.58
-.79 .00 -1.11 -.11
.06 .00 .43 .07
7,965 7,965 18 18
-13.04*** 1.07 -2.57* -1.49
Gender-Related Development (N = 23 national settings) Social Desirability Age Gender-related Development Intercept *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
-.96 -.00 -.29 -.02
.06 .01 .50 .15
4,313 4,313 22 22
-16.67*** -.57 -.57 -.11
-.76 .01 -1.77 -.16
.06 .00 .47 .11
10,078 10,078 22 22
-12.96*** 1.69 -3.75** -1.45
Gender Equality 37 Figure 1. Relationship of Gender Empowerment to Women’s Hostility toward Men across National Settings (N = 19)
1.0 .8 KOR
.6
M EX LTU
Women's HTM
.4 RUS ROU
.2
GRC
.0
GBR
USA DEU AUS NZLCHE CAN
ISR
HUN
-.2
PRT SGP
-.4
SWE
-.6 -.8
NDL
-1.0 .4
.5
.6
.7
Gender Empowerment
.8
.9
Gender Equality 38 Figure 2. Relationship of Gender-related Development to Women’s Hostility toward Men across National Settings (N = 23)
1.0 .8 .6
KOR
IND MEX
Women's HTM
.4
LTU
.2
CHN ROU BRA
GTM
.0 -.2
HKG GBR USA PRT GRC DEU AUS ISR NZL CAN CHE HUN
-.4
BEL SWE
-.6 -.8
NDL
-1.0 .5
.6
.7
.8
Gender-related Development
.9
1.0
