8/20/2019 Maltby Et Al. (2010)

1/9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Religion and Sexism: The Moderating Role of Participant

Gender

Lauren E. Maltby   & M. Elizabeth L. Hall   &

Tamara L. Anderson   & Keith Edwards

Published online: 27 March 2010# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract   The present study examined the relationship

 between gender, religious belief and ambivalent sexism.Specifically, this study tested the hypothesis that participant 

gender moderates the relationship between religious belief 

and ambivalent sexism. Three-hundred thirty seven Evan-

gelical Christian undergraduate students from the South-

western United States were administered the Ambivalent 

Sexism Inventory and the Christian Orthodoxy Scale.

Results showed that gender moderated the relationship

 between Christian orthodoxy and Protective Paternalism.

This finding suggests the importance of intervening

variables, such as gender, in understanding the relationship

 between religion and sexism.

Keywords   Religion . Gender . Ambivalent sexism .

Mediator 

Introduction

The research to be described in this article investigated the

role of gender in the relationship between religiosity and

ambivalent sexism. We report the results of a questionnaire

study that included measures of religious belief (The

Christian Orthodoxy Scale; Fullerton and Hunsberger 

1982; Hunsberger   1989), and a measure of ambivalent 

sexism (The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory; Glick and

Fiske   1996). The study makes a new contribution by

focusing on how the relationship between religious beliefs

and ambivalent sexism differs depending on gender.Glick and Fiske’s (1996) reconceptualization of preju-

dice against women as ambivalent in nature revolutionized

research in the area of sexism. The introduction of 

 benevolent sexism and the concept of ambivalence toward

members of a target group are ideas that have already borne

much fruit both theoretically and empirically. The present 

research aims to explore the relationship of religion to

ambivalent sexism with a specific emphasis on gender as a

 possible moderator of this relationship.

Ambivalent Sexism

Despite being more liked than men in the United States,

women still experience discrimination (Eagly and Mladinic

1993; Glick et al.   2000). Based on research in the United

States, Glick and Fiske identified the two components of 

this ambivalence toward women as hostile and benevolent 

sexism. They defined hostile sexism as antagonism. It is an

attitude toward gender relations in which women are

 perceived to be using sexuality or feminist ideology to

control men, and characterizes women as   “inferior in

ways that legitimize men’s social control”   (Glick et al.

1997, p. 1323). Benevolent sexism on the other hand is a

 belief which characterizes women   “as pure creatures who

ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose

love is necessary to make a man complete”   (Glick and

Fiske 2001, p. 109). Although benevolent sexism may be

experienced as subjectively positive by the perpetrator,

such idealization of women implies that they are best 

suited for domestic roles and are weaker than men (i.e., to say

that women  need   protection and provision implies that they

are incapable of protecting and providing for themselves).

Although Glick and Fiske’s theory was originally generated

L. E. Maltby (*) : M. E. L. Hall : T. L. Anderson : K. Edwards

Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University,

13800 Biola Avenue,

La Mirada, CA 90639, USA

e-mail: Lauren.Maltby@gmail.com

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615 – 622

DOI 10.1007/s11199-010-9754-x

8/20/2019 Maltby Et Al. (2010)

2/9

from research within the United States, their construct has

 been validated in 19 countries worldwide (Glick et al. 2000).

Although hostile sexism is a single factor construct,

 benevolent sexism consists of three subfactors: gender 

differentiation, heterosexual intimacy, and protective pater-

nalism. Gender differentiation is the belief that women have

many positive traits that complement those of men, namely

nurturing traits. This belief may serve to justify traditionaldivisions of labor (such as men working outside the home,

and women working inside the home). Heterosexual

intimacy is the belief that in order to be truly happy one

must engage in a heterosexual, romantic relationship. Both

gender differentiation and heterosexual intimacy have

received less theoretical attention from researchers, and

therefore are not included in this study. Protective pater-

nalism is the belief that men ought to protect and provide

for women, much as a father does for his children (Glick 

and Fiske 1996). Traditional divisions of labor, an elevation

of women’s nurturing characteristics, and a strong valuing

of marriage are commonly associated with conservativereligions. It is no wonder, then, that researchers have looked

to religion as a possible source of ambivalent sexism.

Ambivalent Sexism and Religiosity

A wealth of research has been conducted on ambivalent 

sexism and its relationship to outcomes in the workplace in

several countries, including Australia and England (Feather 

and Boeckmann 2007; Masser and Abrams 2004). Research

has also focused on the relationship of ambivalent sexism

and body esteem/beauty ideals (Forbes et al.  2005; Forbes

et al. 2007; Forbes et al.  2004; Franzoi 2001), although this

research has been focused on the United States with one

exception (Forbes et al.   2004) that compared American

 participants with participants from Poland. However, the

 body of research on ambivalent sexism and religiosity is

relatively smaller. The existing body of research has

suggested a relationship between religiosity and ambivalent 

sexism. For example, Glick et al. (2002) administered the

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory to participants in Spain and

found that Catholic religiosity uniquely predicted benevo-

lent, but not hostile, sexism. They posited that active

 participation in the Catholic church may be one way of 

reinforcing traditional gender roles and benevolently sexist 

ideologies.

There are several methodological problems in the small

 body of existing research on religion and ambivalent 

sexism. The first is encountered in the aforementioned

study, where religious variables are conceptualized in

simplistic ways. Glick et al. (2002) conceived of religiosity

solely in terms of practice, and gave respondents only four 

choices: nonbelievers, nonpracticing Catholics, practicing

Catholics, or adherents of another faith. The researchers’

conceptualization of religiosity, even of faith or practice in

Catholicism, is too narrow; it fails to isolate any practices

or beliefs within the religious practices of Catholics that 

may significantly shape their attitudes toward gender 

relations.

A study by Christopher and Mull (2006) also conceptu-

alized religion in problematic ways: conservative ideologies

are conflated with religious beliefs and doctrine. Buildingon the work of Masser and Abrams (1999), who found a

small but significant correlation (r =.22) between BS and a

Protestant-ethic orientation in a British sample, Christopher 

and Mull’s study examined various types of conservative

ideology. The researchers randomly sampled 246 homes in

Michigan and administered the Ambivalent Sexism Inven-

tory (ASI), a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale, a

Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, and a Protestant 

Work Ethic (PWE) scale. Results revealed that conservative

ideology variables together (SDO, RWA and PWE)

accounted for significant variability in both hostile and

 benevolent sexism. Specifically, SDO and PWE weresignificantly related to hostile sexism, whereas RWA

was related to benevolent sexism. The authors concluded

that   “the effects of   religiosity   [italics added] are greater 

on benevolent sexist attitudes than hostile sexist attitudes”

(p. 228).

This conclusion was reached in the absence of any

actual measures of religious beliefs. Although the

measure of Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) appears

religiously affiliated by name, the construct is defined

as measuring   “how significant work is in a person’s life,

irrespective of religious affiliation or depth of religious

commitment ”  (p. 225). Neither are RWA (which is rooted

in a commitment to maintaining tradition) nor SDO (which is

concerned with maintaining a social group hierarchy) reli-

gious in nature. Although certain religious beliefs may be

related to other conservative ideologies, religious doctrine is

not synonymous with conservative (but nonreligious) ideo-

logies. In order to draw conclusions about the relationship

 between religion and ambivalent sexism, research must 

include religious variables themselves, not just associated

(but nonreligious) constructs.

Burn and Busso’s (2005) research does not fall prey to

this same error, as they explored the relationship between

scriptural literalism, religiosity and ambivalent sexism.

They hypothesized a positive correlation between benevo-

lent sexism and scriptural literalism, as well as benevolent 

sexism and intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, or the way in

which individuals orient themselves to their religion.

Intrinsic religiosity is an orientation wherein one’s religious

 belief is the   “orienting center of one’s life and motivation”

(McFarland,   1989, p. 325), whereas extrinsic religiosity

reflects an orientation toward religion where   “one uses

religion for ulterior motives”   (McFarland   1989, p. 325)

616 Sex Roles (2010) 62:615 – 622

8/20/2019 Maltby Et Al. (2010)

3/9

such as status, social support, or comfort. In their American

sample, scriptural literalism significantly predicted benev-

olent sexism and protective paternalism. However, contrary

to their hypotheses, once intrinsic religiosity was entered

into the multiple regression, scriptural literalism ceased to

 be a significant predictor of benevolent sexism. Intrinsic

religiosity and scriptural literalism did account for unique

 portions of variance in the protective paternalism subscale, but not in either of the other two benevolent sexism

subscales. In all cases,   “correlations were modest and

stronger findings may have been obtained with a broader,

more diverse sample” (p. 417). These results would suggest 

that religious beliefs (such as scriptural literalism in this

case) may serve to reinforce the protective paternalism

component of benevolent sexism, but also suggest that 

individual differences (such as intrinsic religiosity) mediate

the relationship between ambivalent sexism and religious

 beliefs. Burn and Busso’s significant findings highlight a

third methodological shortcoming in research on ambiva-

lent sexism and religiosity: the mediators and moderators of this relationship, in the form of individual differences or 

 participant characteristics, are seldom explored.

The importance of individual differences when examin-

ing the relationship between sexism and religiosity is

exemplified in a study by McFarland (1989) of American

undergraduate students. Both intrinsically and extrinsically

oriented people may behave similarly in terms of their 

religion (e.g., attending services, reading sacred texts,

financial donations). However, the motives and meaning

of these behaviors vary greatly depending on the individual.

McFarland found intrinsic religiosity to be negatively

correlated to sexist attitudes toward women, and extrinsic

religiosity to be positively correlated. The intrinsic/extrinsic

distinction in operationalizing religious variables allowed

for more nuanced understandings of the relationship

 between religiosity and sexism.

McFarland also included in his study a measure of 

fundamentalism, or a cognitively rigid style of holding

 beliefs. McFarland found that when he controlled for 

fundamentalism in women, the relationship between both

intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity and sexism disappeared

(although this was not found to be true for men). This

finding suggests that gender may moderate the relationship

 between religiosity and sexism.

Participant Gender 

McFarland‘s findings that gender mediated the relationship

 between intrinsic/extrinsic religiosity and sexism is consis-

tent with other research, which has found gender differ-

ences on a variety of religious variables. Results from

numerous studies have suggested that women are more

religious than men (Mahalik and Lagan   2001; Ozorak 

1996; Reich   1997; Thompson   1991). Their increased

involvement in religious practices may contribute to

varying functions of religiosity in maintaining or counter-

acting ambivalent sexism. Consequently, gender differences

are likely to present themselves in the present study as well.

Furthermore, because sexism affects the genders differently,

one might expect differences between the genders in the

relationship between religious beliefs and ambivalent sexism.

The Present Study

Studies exploring the moderators of the relationship

 between ambivalent sexism and religiosity are lacking.

Although religiosity and conservative ideology have been

shown to correlate positively with ambivalent sexism,

conceptual shortcomings in defining religiosity across these

studies make it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.

Specifically, a review of these studies makes clear the need

to differentiate conservative, but nonreligious ideologies,and religious beliefs (i.e., doctrine), as well as participant 

factors that may function as moderators. In addition, this

study is the first to study the moderating effect of gender in

the relationship between religiosity and sexism, in the

context of ambivalent sexism theory.

This study aims to address the methodological short-

comings in previous studies by using a measure specifically

designed to assess religious doctrine (orthodoxy), as well as

test the hypothesis that gender will moderate the relationship

 between orthodoxy and ambivalent sexism. Specifically, we

hypothesize that a positive relationship will be found between

orthodoxy and ambivalent sexism in men, but not in women.

This will be tested using a multiple regression approach for 

moderation, as outlined by Frazier et al. (2004). This

 prediction is based on McFarland’s (1989) finding that 

men’s, but not women’s religiosity predicted sexism.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected from 337 undergraduate students at a

 private, evangelical liberal arts university in the Southwest-

ern United States. At the time of admission, all students

endorsed affiliation with the evangelical Christian faith

tradition. Evangelicalism is a conservative form of Chris-

tianity characterized by engagement with contemporary

culture while attempting to maintain a biblically based

identity, mission, and lifestyle (Gallagher and Smith 1999).

Evangelical Christianity maintains sub-cultural boundaries

while encouraging connection to the larger culture of which

it is a part. Participants were predominantly 18 – 20 years old,

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615 – 622 617

8/20/2019 Maltby Et Al. (2010)

4/9

with an average age of 18.45, and a standard deviation of 

1.67. The participants were primarily European American

(70.3%), with other participants identifying as Hispanic/Latin

American (10.4%), Asian/Asian American (8.6%), African

American (2.7%), Middle-Eastern (.3%), Pacific Islander 

(1.2%), Other (1.8%) and a remaining 4.7% did not identify

their ethnicity. This sample also contained a majority of 

women (245 women vs. 92 men). Participants were compen-sated with course credit in an introductory psychology

course. Packets were distributed in class, and students took 

them home to be completed at their leisure before the next 

class meeting; students who did not wish to participate

merely returned the blank packet. All participants identified

as Christian in their application materials, and attended a

religiously-affiliated school. All packets contained the meas-

ures described below, and all measures used in this study can

 be found in their entirety in the published literature.

Measure

The Christian Orthodoxy Scale

The degree to which participants hold to doctrine that is

essential to Christian faith was assessed using the 24-item The

Christian Orthodoxy Scale (Fullerton and Hunsberger  1982;

Hunsberger   1989). Fullerton and Hunsberger originally

standardized the scale on 2,297 participants, including urban

and rural high school students, university students, and

 parents of university students. An example item from this

scale would be,  “God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

Participants indicate the degree to which they agree with a

given item on an 6-point Likert scale, ranging from -3

(disagree strongly) t o 3 (agree strongly). After reverse-

scoring 12 items, scores are calculated by summing the total

and adding this to a constant of four. This scale has

demonstrated adequate validity and reliability in previous

research (Hill and Hood   1999; Pancer et al.   1995;

Hunsberger et al.  1994). Alpha for our sample was .80.

 Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

Ambivalent sexism was assessed using Glick and Fiske’s

(1996) Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), a self-report 

questionnaire containing 22 items, 11 of which test 

 benevolent sexism, and 11 of which test hostile sexism.

Participants rate their agreement with these statements on a

6-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (very strongly disagree)

to 5 (very strongly agree). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory

has undergone extensive psychometric testing (Glick and

Fiske 2001). After reverse-scoring six items, the hostile and

 benevolent subscale scores are calculated for each participant 

 by averaging the 11 items comprising each scale. The

subscales of benevolent sexism are then calculated by

averaging the values for each of the items comprising each

subscale. For a specific listing of which items comprise

which scale, please refer to Glick and Fiske (1996). Alpha

coefficients for benevolent sexism (Cronbach’s  α=.70) and

hostile sexism (Cronbach’s  α=.76) were adequate.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Because previous research has found gender differences in

the ambivalent sexism variables, the means and standard

deviations of all study variables were calculated separately

for each gender (see Table   1). A one-way multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to deter-

mine gender differences on ambivalent sexism variables.

MANOVA results revealed significant differences between

males and females on the dependent variables, Wilks’

Λ=.819,   F (7, 256)= 8.086,   p

8/20/2019 Maltby Et Al. (2010)

5/9

Christian orthodoxy. A log transformation of the reflected

distribution significantly reduced the skewness (skewness=

1.07), and the transformed data were used to test hypoth-

eses involving the Christian Orthodoxy Scale.

Hypothesis Testing

We predicted that gender would moderate the relationship between religiosity and ambivalent sexism. Because the

MANOVA indicated significant differences between gen-

ders on benevolent sexism, as well as protective paternal-

ism, one-way ANOVAs were conducted on each of these

ambivalent sexism variables as was reported above.

Additionally,   t    tests confirmed significant differences

 between males and females on the benevolent sexism (t =

3.90, p

8/20/2019 Maltby Et Al. (2010)

6/9

across previous studies, which have often conceptualized of 

religion in simplistic ways and failed to measure the impact 

of religious beliefs/doctrine. Additionally, this study attemp-

ted to identify a moderator of the relationship between

religious belief and ambivalent sexism. To this end, we

hypothesized that gender would moderate the relationship

 between religious belief and ambivalent sexism.This hypothesis was supported. Results suggested that as

men’s sexist views increased, their agreement with core

tenets of Christianity increased. However, this was not the

case for women. The finding that gender moderates the

relationship between religiosity and sexism is not a new

finding in itself, as McFarland (1989) also identified gender 

as a moderator. McFarland found that, after controlling for 

fundamentalism, the relationship between religious orienta-

tion and sexism ceased to be significant for women; in

other words, there was no significant relationship between

religious orientation and sexism for women. Our study

 parallels this finding.

Several other points of interest emerged from this study.

First, there were no statistically significant gender differ-

ences on the measure of hostile sexism, which is quite

unusual (e.g., Feather and Boeckmann  2007). This finding

is likely due to the political conservatism of the sample.

Several of the items of the hostile sexism subscale refer to

support for or antagonism toward the feminist agenda. Inmany evangelical circles, the feminist agenda is understood

 primarily through a political, rather than social lens. It is

associated primarily with the pro-choice movement, which

is unpopular in the evangelical subculture. In this sample,

the lack of support for the feminist movement may reflect a

 political opinion that is equally likely to be held by both

males and females. Also of note, hostile sexism and

 benevolent sexism are not correlated for this sample. As

 just discussed, the possibility that the hostile sexism items

are measuring, in part, a political attitude, may have

resulted in further distinction between hostile and benevo-

lent sexism within this sample. Finally, the very lowcorrelations between hostile sexism and orthodoxy are

worth noting. In line with other research on religiosity

and sexism using the ASI (Burn and Busso  2005; Glick et 

al.   2002), the relationship between religiosity, variously

operationalized, and sexism appears to be limited to

 benevolent sexism.

A special note should be made of the emerging

significance of the protective paternalism subscale of the

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. Burn and Busso (2005)

found that intrinsic religiosity and scriptural literalism did

account for unique portions of variance in the protective

 paternalism scale, but not in either of the other two

subscales of benevolent sexism. In the present study,

 protective paternalism was significantly related to Christian

orthodoxy for men. To our knowledge, this is the first study

to use a measure of religious doctrine, and it should not be

forgotten that this study was conducted within a limited

sample of self-identified evangelical Christians. Given

these results, the lack of correlation between hostile and

 benevolent sexism in the current sample, and the lack of 

significant correlations between religiosity and hostile

Variable B SEB   β   t Sig.

Step 1

Gender    −.60*** .10   −.32***   −5.86 .00

Step 2

Gender    −.60*** .10   −.32***   −5.88 .00

Christian orthodoxy   −.07 .11   −.03   −.59 .56

Step 3

Gender    −.81*** .13   −.44***   −6.19 .00

Christian orthodoxy   −1.04* .40   −.50*   −2.59 .01

Interaction of gender & christian orthodoxy .59* .24 .49* 2.52 .01

Table 3   Interaction of gender 

and christian orthodoxy in pre-

dicting protective paternalism.

Protective paternalism scale

endpoints: 0 to 5; Christian

Orthodoxy:  −3 to +3

* p

8/20/2019 Maltby Et Al. (2010)

7/9

sexism, the question surfaces whether protective paternal-

ism measures the same construct in this population as it 

does in the population in which it was developed. Future

studies should assess whether Protective Paternalism is

correlated with other measures of sexism and gender 

discrimination in a conservative, Christian sample, as it is

in more diverse populations.

As with any research, this study is limited in itsgeneralizability. The sample consisted of religious, primar-

ily evangelical Christian adults at a private, liberal arts

university. The demographics of the sample, presented in

Table   1, reveal that the sample was primarily European – 

American and female. Additionally, because of the corre-

lational design of the study, no causal conclusions can be

drawn. One cannot conclude from this study that Christian

orthodoxy causes ambivalent sexism in religious people.

However, one can conclude that religious beliefs interact 

with gender with regards to protective paternalism.

The results of this study have several implications for 

future research in this area. Studies looking at the relationship between religious variables and ambivalent sexism should

include measures of orthodoxy in order to reach more nuanced

conclusions. And of course, this study should be replicated in

a more diverse group. Due to the limitations of sampling,

results are not generalizable to non-Christian adults, or to

adults of other Christian groups that may differ in significant 

ways from evangelical Christians. Replication of this research

should also take into consideration other factors such as

SES, ethnicity, and education levels, as the current sample

was primarily middle- to upper-middle class, European – 

American, and highly educated.

It is u nlik ely that we will f in d a   “magic bean”

responsible for ambivalent sexism. Rather, it is more likely

that this deeply rooted ideology is the result of complex

interactions between gender, personality, culture, religion,

SES, and many other factors. As we begin to understand

ambivalent sexism more deeply, however, perhaps some of 

its causes can be targeted with the ultimate goal of reducing

ideology that serves to reinforce traditional gender roles and

limit women’s equality.

References

Burn, S. M., & Busso, J. (2005). Ambivalent sexism, scriptural

literalism, and religiosity.  Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29,

412 – 418.

Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and

ambivalent sexism.   Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 223 – 

230.

Dawson, J. (2009).   Interpreting interaction effects.   Retrieved from

http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm.

Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1993). Are people prejudiced against 

women?: Some answers from research on attitudes, gender 

stereotypes, and judgments of competence. In W. Stroebe & M.

Hewstone (Eds.),   European review of social psychology   (Vol. 5,

 pp. 1 – 35). New York: Wiley.

Feather, N. T., & Boeckmann, R. J. (2007). Beliefs about gender 

discrimination in the workplace context of affirmative action:

Effects of gender and ambivalent attitudes in an Australian

sample.  Sex Roles, 57 , 31 – 42.

Forbes, G. B., Doroszewicz, K., Card, K., & Adams-Curtis, L. (2004).

Association of the thin body ideal, ambivalent sexism, and self-

esteem with body acceptance and the preferred body size of 

college women in Poland and the United States.   Sex Roles, 50,

331 – 345.

Forbes, G. B., Adams-Curtis, L., Jobe, R. L., White, K. B., Revak, J.,

Zivcic-Becirevic, I., & Pokrajac-Bulian, A. (2005). Body

dissatisfaction in college women and their mothers: Cohort 

effects, developmental effects, and the influences of body size,

sexism, and the thin body ideal.  Sex Roles, 53, 281 – 298.

Forbes, G. B., Collinsworth, L. J., Jobe, R. L., Braun, K. D., & Wise,

L. M. (2007). Sexism, hostility toward women, and endorsement 

of beauty ideals and practices: Are beauty ideals associated with

oppressive beliefs?  Sex Roles, 57 , 265 – 273.

Franzoi, S. L. (2001). Is female body esteem shaped by benevolent 

sexism? Sex Roles, 44, 177 – 188.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator 

and mediator effects in counseling psychology research.  Journal 

of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 115 – 134.

Fullerton, J. T., & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimensional measure

of Christian orthodoxy.   Journal for the Scientific Study of   

 Religion, 21, 317 – 326.

Gallagher, S. K., & Smith, C. (1999). Symbolic traditionalism and

 pragmatic egalitarianism: Contemporary evangelicals, families,

and gender.  Gender and Society, 13, 211 – 233.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory:

Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.   Journal of   

 Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491 – 512.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and

 benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender 

inequality.   American Psychologist, 56 , 109 – 118.

Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two

faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudestoward women.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,

1323 – 1334.

Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B.,

Lopez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy:

Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures.   Journal of   

 Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763 – 775.

Glick, P., Lameiras, M., & Castro, C. (2002). Education and Catholic

religiosity as predictors of hostile and benevolent sexism toward

women and men.  Sex Roles, 47 , 433 – 441.

Hill, P., & Hood, R. (Eds.). (1999).   Measures of religiosity.

Birmingham: Religious Education.

Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational

and meditational effects in studies of pediatric populations.

 Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27 (1), 87 – 96.

Hunsberger, B. (1989). A short version of the Christian orthodoxyscale.  Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28 , 360 – 365.

Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (1994). Religious

fundamentalism and integrative complexity of thought: A

relationship for existential content only?   Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 335 – 346.

Mahalik, J. R., & Lagan, H. D. (2001). Examining masculine gender 

role conflict and stress in relation to religious orientation and

spiritual well-being.   Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 24 – 

33.

Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism: The

relationships among hostility, benevolence, and neosexism.

 Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 503 – 517.

Sex Roles (2010) 62:615 – 622 621

8/20/2019 Maltby Et Al. (2010)

8/9

Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling:

The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial

candidates.  Sex Roles, 51, 609 – 615.

McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientation and the targets of 

discrimination.   Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28,

324 – 336.

Ozorak, W. E. (1996). The power, but not the glory: How women

empower themselves through religion.  Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, 35, 17 – 29.

Pancer, S. M., Jackson, L. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Lea, J.(1995). Religious orthodoxy and the complexity of thought about 

religious and nonreligious issues.  Journal of Personality, 63, 213 – 

232.

Pargament, K. I. (2002). The bitter and the sweet: An evaluation of the

costs and benefits of religiousness.   Psychological Inquiry, 13,

168 – 181.

Reich, K. H. (1997). Do we need a theory of religious development for 

women? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 7 ,

67 – 86.

Thompson, E. H., Jr. (1991). Beneath the status characteristic: Gender 

variations in religiousness.   Journal for the Scientific Study of    Religion, 30, 381 – 394.

622 Sex Roles (2010) 62:615 – 622

8/20/2019 Maltby Et Al. (2010)

9/9

Copyright of Sex Roles is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.