Running head: AMBIVALENT SEXISM IN PL, SA, AND THE UK 0 1 2 Post PRINT VERSION To cite print version: Zawisza, M., Luyt, R., & Zawadzka, A.M. (2013). Societies in transition: are they more sexist? A comparison between Polish, South African and British samples. Journal of Gender Studies, (ahead- of-print), 1-18. doi:10.1080/09589236.2013.803952 3 4 5 6 Societies in transition: are they more sexist? A comparison between Polish, 7 South African and British samples 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Running head: AMBIVALENT SEXISM IN PL, SA, AND THE UK 1 1 2 3 4 5 Abstract 6 This study investigates ambivalent sexism to women in student samples from two under-researched 7 transitional countries, Poland and South Africa, in comparison with the United Kingdom. Based on 8 ambivalent sexism theory, and in the light of socio-economic context, it was hypothesized that: (1) 9 the sample in Poland and South Africa would be more hostile- and benevolent-sexist than the 10 sample from the UK, (2) males would exhibit more hostile attitudes than females irrespective of 11 country, and (3) males would outscore females on benevolent attitudes in the relatively liberal UK 12 but underscore them in relatively conservative SA. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory was used to 13 measure benevolent and hostile sexism. The findings largely supported the hypotheses. The 14 participants in South Africa and Poland were more sexist than in the UK and men were more hostile- 15 sexist than women in all three countries. However, males outscored females on benevolent sexism 16 not only in the UK but also in South Africa and Poland. Moreover, the sample from Poland was 17 observed to be more sexist than the sample from South Africa. The findings are discussed in the light 18 of ambivalent sexism theory and the countries’ transitional context. 19 Keywords: ambivalent sexism, gender attitudes, transition to democracy, Poland, 20 South Africa, United Kingdom 21 Running head: AMBIVALENT SEXISM IN PL, SA, AND THE UK 2 1 Societies in transition: are they more sexist? A comparison between Polish, South 2 African and British samples 3 A great deal of research has examined gender attitudes cross-nationally (see Williams and 4 Best 1982, Williams et al. 1999, Glick et al. 2004), and, in particular, attitudes toward 5 women (see Tougas et al. 1995, Glick and Fiske 1996, Glick et al. 2000, Twenge 2001, Swim 6 and Campbell 2003). However, with a few exceptions, this research has neglected study of 7 gender attitudes in ‘transitional’ (see below) countries such as those from Central and Eastern 8 Europe (CEE) (for example Poland et al. 1999) and Africa (for example, South Africa, Glick 9 et al. 2000). In addition, the research has largely understood gender attitudes as a global 10 construct, failing to distinguish between hostile (HS) and benevolent (BS) sexism (that is 11 overt negativity and evaluatively positive but patronizing attitudes to women; see Glick and 12 Fiske 1996). Importantly, a discussion of how the dynamic socio-cultural context of 13 transitional countries may influence the manifestation of sexism has been neglected. The aim 14 of this paper is to address these gaps in the literature by examining both hostile and 15 benevolent sexism to women in transitional Poland (PL) and South Africa (SA) in contrast to 16 the relatively socio-politically stable UK. 17 Poland and SA were specifically selected as they have undergone socio-economic and 18 political transition during the same period after an interval of economic and political 19 isolation. Importantly, however, these countries differed in the emphasis afforded gender 20 issues during transition. The term ‘transition’, when applied to countries, traditionally refers 21 to instances characterized by constitutional reform including market-oriented changes (Falke 22 2002). While this normally involves movement from a centrally-planned to a free-market 23 economy (Cameron 2003) – as seen, for example, in CEE countries – it can also be observed 24 in post-colonial or post-authoritarian systems (Falke 2002). Thus, transition can include Running head: AMBIVALENT SEXISM IN PL, SA, AND THE UK 3 1 profound political reform within an already existing free-market economy, as was the case in 2 South Africa (Cameron 2003). According to Burgess and Steenkamp (1999, p.2) in SA: 3 (t)here are clear parallels to the situation in Eastern Europe. In the former communist 4 countries there was also a clear distinction between the elite (i.e., Communist Party members) 5 and the majority of the population. In Eastern Europe, economic and political freedom of the 6 majority of the population was also severely restricted. Moreover, the concentration in South 7 Africa of economic power in a few hands is in important respects similar to (pretransition) 8 Eastern Europe. 9 Of specific relevance here, and despite these similarities, varying emphasis was afforded 10 gender issues in SA and PL during their respective transitions. A comparison of these 11 provides a unique opportunity to analyze how the nature of transition – a history of legalized 12 inequality in SA as against the forced emancipation of communism in PL – may shape the 13 manifestation of benevolent and hostile sexism among men and women. 14 Our analysis goes beyond the predictions of Ambivalent Sexism Theory (AST, Glick 15 and Fiske 1996, Glick et al. 2000). This theory assumes that the origins of HS and BS are 16 biological (sexual dimorphism) and social (patriarchy) where the former lead to the latter and 17 result in ambivalent sexism cross-culturally (Glick et al. 2000). AST does acknowledge that 18 (t)he degree of hostile as compared with benevolent sexism may vary widely among societies 19 (from those in which women are treated as chattel to those dominated by an ideology of 20 chivalry) [...]’ (Glick and Fiske 1996, p.492). 21 Yet, it does not provide a clear account as to why levels of patriarchy (and thus sexism) differ 22 cross-culturally. For example, the authors do not test for possible significant differences in 23 sexisms between countries and, instead, focus more narrowly on the correlations between HS 24 and BS within countries. We also attempt to move beyond modernization theories. These 25 propose that technological advancements, and related economic changes, may result in 26 altered moral and cultural values, for example, greater gender liberalism (Inglehart and Norris Running head: AMBIVALENT SEXISM IN PL, SA, AND THE UK 4 1 2003). Specifically, we argue that despite modernization having taken place during the same 2 period in each country, the degree of gender liberalism differs, as mentioned above, as a 3 consequence of the varying emphasis afforded to gender issues in each. 4 Our analysis thus focuses on two key questions: (1) what is the level of hostile and 5 benevolent sexism in PL and SA as compared to that in the UK, and (2), how do men 6 compare to women concerning their benevolent and hostile sexist attitudes toward women in 7 each of the three countries? Additionally, our data will enable indirect confirmation of 8 previous findings reporting the UK’s relative gender egalitarianism and SA’s relative gender 9 conservatism (Glick et al. 2000), as well as provide an examination of potential changes over 10 time across these two countries. 11 The manifestation of sexism toward women around the world 12 According to AST (Glick et al. 2000), sexist gender attitudes are ambivalent as they consist 13 of two complementary and positively related ideologies: Hostile Sexism (HS) defined as ‘an 14 adversarial view of gender relations in which women are perceived as seeking to control 15 men’ (Glick and Fiske 2001, p. 109) and Benevolent Sexism (BS) defined as positive but still 16 patronising beliefs about women (Glick and Fiske 2001). The function of both types of 17 sexism serves hierarchy stabilization and therefore the maintenance of gender inequality 18 (Glick and Fiske 2001, Sibley et al. 2007a, Becker 2010). Egalitarian gender attitudes, on the 19 other hand, reflect ideologies which promote gender equality (McDaniel 2008). Cross- 20 national research on ambivalent sexism reveals a ‘regional’ pattern: out of 19 countries, 21 Australia, England, the Netherlands, and the United States where amongst the least sexist 22 whilst Botswana, Cuba, Nigeria, and SA scored most sexist (Glick et al. 2000). In addition, 23 gender inequality, as assessed by the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) and the Gender- 24 Related Development Index (GDI), correlates with HS and BS and is highest amongst the Running head: AMBIVALENT SEXISM IN PL, SA, AND THE UK 5 1 latter group of countries (Glick et al. 2000). 2 However, the findings concerning SA are now more than 10 years old, and they have 3 also never been systematically compared against PL. Due to the similarities and differences 4 in their respective transitions we argue that varied levels of benevolent and hostile sexism 5 will be observed in these two countries. The UK, on the other hand, may not be considered a 6 country undergoing, or recently having undergone, transition. That is to say, its relatively 7 stable democratic political system has spanned some 300 years in comparison to PL and SA’s 8 mere 20. It is also well-researched and has consistently scored amongst the most egalitarian 9 countries worldwide (Williams and Best 1990, Glick et al. 2000, Glick et al. 2004). The UK 10 has therefore been included in this study as a useful benchmark against which the less well- 11 researched transitional countries of PL and SA may be compared. It should, however, be 12 acknowledged that levels of gender equalitarianism in the UK are exceeded in North 13 European countries.