Social Dominance, Sexual Double Standards, and Violence Against Women in Tight and Loose Cultures

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Nida Jamshed, Andrew L Stewart, Nicole M. Overstreet
{"title":"Social Dominance, Sexual Double Standards, and Violence Against Women in Tight and Loose Cultures","authors":"Nida Jamshed, Andrew L Stewart, Nicole M. Overstreet","doi":"10.1177/00220221221104950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sexual double standards are associated with adverse consequences for women, including violence. However, little research examines sexual double standards across cultures that vary in tight or loose sexuality norms. Therefore, using social dominance theory, this study examined sexual double standards and violence against women in the United States of America (U.S., a loose culture) and Pakistan (a tight culture). We hypothesized that social dominance orientation is associated with violence against women via endorsement of sexual double standards for both the U.S. and Pakistan. We recruited 315 people in total from the U.S. (N = 169; women = 56.3%; Mage = 29 ± 5.6 years) and Pakistan (N = 138; women = 73%; Mage = 26 ± 5.3 years). After establishing measurement invariance for our measures, we used structural equation modeling to analyze our theoretical model in two cultural settings. Multigroup path models found support for social dominance theory’s proposition that people higher on social dominance orientation justify violence against women through their endorsement of sexual double standards in both countries, above and beyond more general attitudes toward women (i.e., ambivalent sexism). We also found that the processes (i.e., social dominance and sexual double standards) supporting violence against women are similar in the two countries. A sexual double standard is found to be strong predictor of justification of violence even after controlling for gender, ambivalent sexism, and cultural tightness/looseness for both countries. Discussion focusses on a sexual double standard may be a risk factor for violence against women in different parts of the world.","PeriodicalId":48354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","volume":"53 1","pages":"1145 - 1165"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221104950","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Sexual double standards are associated with adverse consequences for women, including violence. However, little research examines sexual double standards across cultures that vary in tight or loose sexuality norms. Therefore, using social dominance theory, this study examined sexual double standards and violence against women in the United States of America (U.S., a loose culture) and Pakistan (a tight culture). We hypothesized that social dominance orientation is associated with violence against women via endorsement of sexual double standards for both the U.S. and Pakistan. We recruited 315 people in total from the U.S. (N = 169; women = 56.3%; Mage = 29 ± 5.6 years) and Pakistan (N = 138; women = 73%; Mage = 26 ± 5.3 years). After establishing measurement invariance for our measures, we used structural equation modeling to analyze our theoretical model in two cultural settings. Multigroup path models found support for social dominance theory’s proposition that people higher on social dominance orientation justify violence against women through their endorsement of sexual double standards in both countries, above and beyond more general attitudes toward women (i.e., ambivalent sexism). We also found that the processes (i.e., social dominance and sexual double standards) supporting violence against women are similar in the two countries. A sexual double standard is found to be strong predictor of justification of violence even after controlling for gender, ambivalent sexism, and cultural tightness/looseness for both countries. Discussion focusses on a sexual double standard may be a risk factor for violence against women in different parts of the world.
社会支配、性别双重标准与松紧文化中的女性暴力
性别双重标准会给妇女带来包括暴力在内的不利后果。然而,很少有研究考察跨文化的性双重标准,这些标准在严格或宽松的性规范上有所不同。因此,本研究运用社会支配理论,考察了美国(宽松文化)和巴基斯坦(严格文化)的性双重标准和对妇女的暴力行为。我们假设社会支配倾向与针对女性的暴力行为有关,因为美国和巴基斯坦都认同性别双重标准。我们从美国共招募了315人(N = 169;女性= 56.3%;年龄= 29±5.6岁)和巴基斯坦(N = 138;女性= 73%;年龄= 26±5.3岁)。在为我们的测量建立测量不变性之后,我们使用结构方程模型来分析我们的理论模型在两种文化环境下的应用。多群体路径模型支持社会支配理论的命题,即社会支配倾向较高的人通过支持两个国家的性别双重标准来证明对妇女的暴力行为是正当的,而不仅仅是对妇女的一般态度(即矛盾的性别歧视)。我们还发现,在这两个国家,支持暴力侵害妇女的过程(即社会主导地位和性别双重标准)是相似的。研究发现,即使在控制了两国的性别、矛盾的性别歧视和文化的紧密/松散之后,性别双重标准仍然是暴力正当性的有力预测因素。讨论的重点是性双重标准可能是世界不同地区对妇女施暴的一个风险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology publishes papers that focus on the interrelationships between culture and psychological processes. Submitted manuscripts may report results from either cross-cultural comparative research or results from other types of research concerning the ways in which culture (and related concepts such as ethnicity) affect the thinking and behavior of individuals as well as how individual thought and behavior define and reflect aspects of culture. Review papers and innovative reformulations of cross-cultural theory will also be considered. Studies reporting data from within a single nation should focus on cross-cultural perspective. Empirical studies must be described in sufficient detail to be potentially replicable.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信