Pengaruh Religiosity dan Social Dominance Orientation terhadap Dukungan Perempuan pada Benevolent Sexism
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Gender inequality persists not only through overt discrimination but also through subtler ideologies such as benevolent sexism, which idealizes women as needing men's protection while reinforcing dependency on traditional gender roles. Women often endorse this seemingly positive form of sexism, yet the psychological factors underlying such support remain underexplored, particularly in collectivistic, Muslim-majority societies such as Indonesia, where religiosity and orientation toward social hierarchy shape daily life. Prior studies have examined religiosity and social dominance orientation separately, while research integrating both constructs to explain Indonesian women's support for benevolent sexism remains limited. This study examined the effects of religiosity and social dominance orientation on women's support for benevolent sexism using a quantitative cross-sectional design. Participants were 205 women aged 18–25 years, mostly active university students, selected through purposive sampling. Data were collected using the Centrality of Religiosity Scale, the Short Social Dominance Orientation Scale, and the Benevolent Sexism subscale of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, then analyzed through multiple linear regression in Jamovi. Results showed that religiosity (B = 1.12, p < .001) and social dominance orientation (B = 1.20, p < .001) each positively and significantly predicted support for benevolent sexism. Together, the two variables simultaneously accounted for 72.4% of the variance in benevolent sexism (R² = .724, F(2, 202) = 266.00, p < .001). These findings indicate that women's acceptance of benevolent sexism is shaped by the centrality of religious values and preference for social hierarchy, not merely individual disposition. This study contributes to social psychology, psychology of religion, and gender studies, with practical implications for gender equality education engaging religious leaders and communities.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Austin, D. E. J., & Jackson, M. (2019). Benevolent and hostile sexism differentially predicted by facets of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.002
Barbeitos, G., & Modesto, J. G. (2023). The mediating role of social dominance orientation in the relations between political identity and sexism. Psocial, 9(1), 1–14. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/6723/672375605010/html/
Barreto, M., & Doyle, D. M. (2023). Benevolent and hostile sexism in a shifting global context. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00136-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00136-x
Connor, R. A., Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2018). Ambivalent sexism in the twenty-first century. In F. K. Barlow & C. G. Sibley (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (Concise student ed., pp. 356–383). Cambridge University Press.
Contu, F., Aiello, A., & Pierro, A. (2024). Epistemic uncertainty, social dominance orientation, and prejudices toward women in leadership roles: Mediation and moderation analyses. Social Sciences, 13(1), Article 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010054 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010054
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Cross, E. J., & Overall, N. C. (2018). Women's attraction to benevolent sexism: Needing relationship security predicts greater attraction to men who endorse benevolent sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2334 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2334
Davis, T. M., Settles, I. H., & Jones, M. K. (2022). Standpoints and situatedness: Examining the perception of benevolent sexism in Black and White undergraduate women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211043108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843211043108
Fisher, M. I., & Hammond, M. D. (2019). Personal ties and prejudice: A meta-analysis of romantic attachment and ambivalent sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1084–1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218804551 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218804551
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
Gul, P., & Kupfer, T. R. (2019). Benevolent sexism and mate preferences: Why do women prefer benevolent men despite recognizing that they can be undermining? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(1), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218781000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218781000
Haggard, M. C., Kaelen, R., Saroglou, V., Klein, O., & Rowatt, W. C. (2019). Religion's role in the illusion of gender equality: Supraliminal and subliminal religious priming increases benevolent sexism. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11(4), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000196 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000196
Hammond, M. D., Overall, N. C., & Sibley, C. G. (2024). Does powerlessness motivate men and women to endorse sexism? European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(7), 1354–1363. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3092 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3092
Hannover, B., Gubernath, J., Schultze, M., & Zander, L. (2018). Religiosity, religious fundamentalism, and ambivalent sexism toward girls and women among adolescents and young adults living in Germany. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02399 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02399
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N. S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., Stewart, A. L., & Chen, J. M. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
Hopkins-Doyle, A., Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & Calogero, R. M. (2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135
Howard, S., Oswald, D. L., & Kirkman, M. (2020). The relationship between God's gender, gender system justification and sexism. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 30(3), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1737420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2020.1737420
Huber, S., & Huber, O. W. (2012). The Centrality of Religiosity Scale (CRS). Religions, 3(3), 710–724. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel3030710 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel3030710
Jain, S., Kaur, M., & Jain, S. (2020). Hostile and benevolent sexism in India: Analysis across cultures. In S. Safdar, C. Kwantes, & W. Friedlmeier (Eds.), Wiser world with multiculturalism: Proceedings from the 24th Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. https://doi.org/10.4087/ozlb2447 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4087/OZLB2447
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2020). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976
Kishore, S. (2023). Exploring Indian women's understanding of benevolent sexism. International Journal of Indian Psychology, 11(2), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.25215/1102.037
Komnas Perempuan. (2026). Catatan Tahunan (CATAHU) 2025: Menguatkan data, mengatasi kerentanan, mendesak negara bersikap untuk keadilan korban. Komisi Nasional Anti Kekerasan terhadap Perempuan. https://komnasperempuan.go.id/catatan-tahunan-detail/catahu-2025-menguatkan-data-mengatasi-kerentanan-mendesak-negara-bersikap-untuk-keadilan-korban
Overall, N. C., & Hammond, M. D. (2018). How intimate relationships contribute to gender inequality: Sexist attitudes encourage women to trade off career success for relationship security. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217745096 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217745096
Radke, H. R. M., Hornsey, M. J., Sibley, C. G., & Barlow, F. K. (2018). Negotiating the hierarchy: Social dominance orientation among women is associated with the endorsement of benevolent sexism. Australian Journal of Psychology, 70(2), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12176 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12176
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
Sobiecki, J., & Kosakowska-Berezecka, N. (2025). The relationship between religiosity and ambivalent sexism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 13(2), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp/190893 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp/190893
Van Assche, J., Koç, Y., Roets, A., & Dhont, K. (2019). Religiosity or ideology? On the individual differences predictors of sexism. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.016
World Economic Forum. (2025, June 11). Global Gender Gap Report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2025/