Generation Z Young People’s Perception of Sexist Female Stereotypes about the Product Advertising in the Food Industry: Influence on Their Purchase Intention

Previous studies have generated important insights into consumer behavior. However, no study has addressed how to persuade young people belonging to Generation Z to increase the purchase intention of food products from a gender perspective. Drawing on ambivalent sexism theory, this paper explores the influence of the attitude toward advertising and the ethical judgment to predict consumers’ food product purchase intention. We applied a quantitative method, partial least squares structural equation modeling, to 105 individuals. Two advertisements with different food products and female role stereotype categories are using: (1) women in a traditional role or housewife’s role (benevolent sexism), and (2) women in a decorative role or physical attractiveness (hostile). However, the results show that attitude toward advertising has a direct and positive influence on purchase intention in advertisement with benevolent sexism. In addition, the effect of ethical judgment on consumers’ food product purchase intention is not significant. In the advertisement with hostile sexism, both—attitude toward advertising and ethical judgment—directly and positively impact purchase intention. The study provides a novelty conceptual model in the food industry for Generation Z and recommendations on the use of female sexist stereotypes in food and beverage advertising.

How do spouses’ levels of ambivalent sexism predict allocations of household chores? Probing why women still perform most of the work in the U.S.

This study’s main objective was to examine whether, in a U.S. sample, ambivalent sexism would show stronger associations with heterosexual husbands and wives’ housework division (hours and proportion) than have previous gender-ideology measures. Unlike earlier conceptions of sexism emphasizing hostile and negative stereotypical views toward women, ambivalent sexism combines the two dimensions of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism (seemingly positive views and behaviors toward women that nevertheless convey underlying paternalistic and patronizing motivations). We hypothesized that male and female respondents high in both hostile and benevolent sexism would report the typical pattern of wives’ housework exceeding their husbands’, whereas those lower in hostile or benevolent sexism would report less housework being performed by wives. Married individuals (N = 249) were recruited via advertisements on Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) platform and announcements at a university to complete an online survey. Several variables were measured, including own and spouse’s housework hours, hostile and benevolent sexism, and demographic control variables previously associated with housework allocation. An interaction emerged for women, in which those high in benevolent, but low in hostile, sexism reported performing the highest proportion of housework, whereas those low in both forms of sexism performed the lowest proportion. These results provided full or partial support for different aspects of our hypotheses. Men reported greater housework (hours and proportion) the more hours their wife worked outside the house. Discussion examines implications for ambivalent sexism theory, housework sharing, and conceptions of sexism.

Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

Chivalry vs. Patriarchy: Exploring the Psychological Mechanisms of Physical Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

<p>Two leading theories propose different reasons for men’s and women’s intimate partner violence (IPV). The gendered theory proposes that society’s patriarchal norms of male dominance and female subordination cause men’s IPV towards women. From this perspective, violence against ‘wives’ is condoned by society, and women only perpetrate IPV in self-defence against men’s primary violence. Conversely, the chivalrous theory of IPV explains women’s IPV perpetration in terms of society’s chivalrous norms, which protect women from male violence and emboldens women to physically assault male partners. From this perspective, women’s violence is not considered harmful to men. As gendered theory and chivalrous theory both reference stereotyped gender attitudes (sexism) towards women, I used the ambivalent sexism inventory (ASI) to test the competing theories efficacy in explaining IPV perpetration by heterosexual men and women. The ASI conceptualises sexist attitudes towards women as comprised of two parts: hostile sexism (reflecting the hostility towards women outlined by gendered theory), and benevolent sexism (reflecting the benevolence towards women outlined by chivalrous theory). Gendered theory states that society condones violence towards women. Thus, men’s attitudes approving of male-perpetrated IPV should mediate the relationship between men’s hostile sexism and IPV, if gendered theory predictions are correct. Alternatively, chivalrous theory poses that society does not approve of violence towards women. Thus, attitudes disapproving of men’s IPV against women and approving of women’s IPV towards men should mediate the relationship between benevolent sexism and IPV if chivalrous theory is correct. I hypothesized men’s increased hostile sexism would predict men’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against women, and men’s increased benevolent sexism would predict men’s decreased IPV perpetration through decreased approval of IPV against women. Further, I hypothesised that women’s increased hostile sexism would predict women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men, and women’s benevolent sexism would predict increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of IPV against men. North American men and women (N = 688) filled out an online questionnaire measuring experiences of IPV as victims and/or perpetrators, approval of male and female IPV perpetration, and hostile and benevolent sexism. Multi-group structural equation modelling tested the extent to which positive attitudes toward intimate partner violence mediated the association between sexism and IPV perpetration for men and for women. Results found that, for both men and women, increased hostile sexism predicted greater IPV perpetration through greater approval of men’s IPV against women. Furthermore, increased benevolent sexism predicted women’s increased IPV perpetration through increased approval of men’s IPV against women. Men’s increased benevolent sexism did not predict men’s lower IPV perpetration or disapproval of IPV against women. However, men’s and women’s ambivalent sexism also predicted greater approval of women’s IPV towards men. Results did not fully support patriarchal or chivalrous predictions, instead aligning well with ambivalent sexism theory which posits a more inclusive and holistic understanding of the relationship between sexism and IPV perpetration. Reducing all forms of sexism and men’s and women’s positive attitudes toward the use of IPV are identified as important targets for IPV treatment and prevention.</p>

The Role of Ambivalent Sexism, Punitiveness, and Ability to Recognize Violence in the Perception of Sex Offenders: A Gender-Perspective Analysis

Sexual violence is a public health problem that affects not just the victim, but the offender and the surrounding communities. Research shows that public perceptions regarding the perpetrators of such offenses are of critical importance since citizens’ insights are a major force in the creation and implementation of sex offender policies. This study aimed to analyze, from a gender perspective, public perceptions about sex offenders in an Italian population sample (N = 768; 62.0% women, M = 32.8 years old). To do so, the Perceptions of Sex Offenders Scale (PSO) (α = 0.82) was used. The explanatory variables included in the study were the General Punitiveness Scale (GPS), the short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), and the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI), as well as awareness about subtle forms of violence. Results showed that women reported higher levels of sex offenders’ risk perception. At the same time, it was found that men outscored women on the endorsement of stereotypes toward such perpetrators. Finally, findings revealed similarities and differences between women and men regarding correlates of perceptions about sex offenders. Implications for research and public policy in this area are discussed.

Role of Ambivalent Sexism on Approval of Violence and Intention to Intervene in Media Campaigns Designed to Prevent Intimate Partner Violence

<p>This study aimed to investigate the effect of manipulating actor gender and relationship status in violence prevention campaign posters upon the relationship between ambivalent sexism and 1) approval of intimate partner violence (IPV), 2) intention to intervene as a bystander, and 3) understanding of IPV. The bystander literature was used to inform the design of the posters. The study employed a between-subjects design where participants (N=421) completed an online survey where they had to view one of four different poster conditions which displayed a victim telling two friends about how they were assaulted the previous night. Poster conditions were varied on the gender of the victim and perpetrator (male or female) and on the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator (stranger or intimate partner). The participants completed the Conflict Tactics Scale – 2 and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory before viewing the posters. After viewing the posters participants then completed the Bystander Attitudes Scale, Beliefs about Relationship Aggression Scale and an Understanding of IPV scale. Structural Equation Modelling was employed to analyse the data. The analysis revealed that there were no significant moderating roles of relationship status, victim gender, or participant gender on the relationship between ambivalent sexism and approval of violence, intention to intervene, or understanding of IPV. The study concluded that a multifaceted approach is needed to reduce IPV effectively beyond the use of media campaign posters alone.</p>

Role of Ambivalent Sexism on Approval of Violence and Intention to Intervene in Media Campaigns Designed to Prevent Intimate Partner Violence

<p>This study aimed to investigate the effect of manipulating actor gender and relationship status in violence prevention campaign posters upon the relationship between ambivalent sexism and 1) approval of intimate partner violence (IPV), 2) intention to intervene as a bystander, and 3) understanding of IPV. The bystander literature was used to inform the design of the posters. The study employed a between-subjects design where participants (N=421) completed an online survey where they had to view one of four different poster conditions which displayed a victim telling two friends about how they were assaulted the previous night. Poster conditions were varied on the gender of the victim and perpetrator (male or female) and on the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator (stranger or intimate partner). The participants completed the Conflict Tactics Scale – 2 and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory before viewing the posters. After viewing the posters participants then completed the Bystander Attitudes Scale, Beliefs about Relationship Aggression Scale and an Understanding of IPV scale. Structural Equation Modelling was employed to analyse the data. The analysis revealed that there were no significant moderating roles of relationship status, victim gender, or participant gender on the relationship between ambivalent sexism and approval of violence, intention to intervene, or understanding of IPV. The study concluded that a multifaceted approach is needed to reduce IPV effectively beyond the use of media campaign posters alone.</p>

The Short-Term Effects of Gendered Primary Prevention Campaigns on Ambivalent Sexism and Beliefs about the Acceptability of Intimate Partner Violence

<p>This study aimed to explore the effects of portrayed gender roles in media campaigns on participants’ endorsement of sexism and approval of intimate partner violence (IPV) across two studies. Study one (N = 227) used a within-subjects experimental design and consisted of two parts separated by a one-week period. In part one, participants completed an online questionnaire that consisted of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the Beliefs about Relationship Aggression Scale. In part two, participants randomly viewed a poster depicting heterosexual IPV or a non-violent control, then completed the measures. Study two (N = 380) aimed to replicate study one using a between-subjects experimental design, and followed the procedure of study one, part two. ANOVA revealed that participants approved of female to male violence significantly more than male to female violence, and this approval was more pronounced for males, indicating a chivalrous norm. Regression analyses revealed the more that females, but not males, endorsed benevolent sexism (BS), the less they approved of male aggression (no provocation). Contrarily, the more male and female participants endorsed BS, the more they approved of female aggression (total and infidelity). Hostile sexism was not related to approval. Across both studies, regression analyses revealed that exposure to a poster depicting male aggression did not significantly change participants’ approval of IPV or level of sexism. In contrast, it was found that participants who viewed a poster depicting female aggression approved of female aggression (total and infidelity) significantly less than participants who viewed a non-violent control poster, however, this was only observed in study two. Furthermore, regression analyses revealed that exposure to a poster depicting female aggression decreased participants’ endorsement of BS, with females decreasing the most relative to baseline, however, this was only observed in study one. The need for prevention campaigns to be informed by multifactorial frameworks, rather than single factor gendered theories, is discussed alongside other implications for policy and practice.</p>

Machismo and Caballerismo Linked with Perceived Social Discrimination and Powerlessness in U.S. Latino Men

Concepts from the Threat Appraisal and Coping Theory, Precarious Manhood Theory, and Ambivalent Sexism suggest that U.S. Latino men who perceive social discrimination and powerlessness may respond with machismo beliefs that serve as coping responses to empower themselves and reassert their manhood. Machismo beliefs include both aggressive “traditional machismo” and gentlemanly family-focused “caballerismo.” Because past research has revealed that individuals respond to social abuse with anger, prompting them to feel empowered but less empathetic, we hypothesized that Latino men who perceive social discrimination combined with a sense of powerlessness would report more traditional machismo and less caballerismo. We also hypothesized that this three-variable sequence would be stronger for men with high rather than low in Latino identity, since discrimination would be a more personal threat to their identity and manhood. Participants included 1,530 U.S. Latinos who completed online surveys to report demographics (age, education, employment, sexual orientation, partner status, household size), perceived social discrimination, powerlessness, traditional machismo, caballerismo, and Latino identity. Mediational analyses confirmed the three-variable sequence in which powerlessness mediated associations between social discrimination and (more) aggressive machismo, and (less) gentlemanly caballerismo. Also as hypothesized, moderated mediational analysis revealed that these three-variable sequences were stronger for men with high rather than low Latino identity. With recent increases in social discrimination against U.S. Latinos, present results caution that men may respond to these challenges with increased aggressive patterns of traditional machismo.