Hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men: psychometric properties of the Russian version of the ambivalence toward men inventory

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men: psychometric properties of the Russian version of the ambivalence toward men inventory

V.S. Krivoshchekova,

O.A. Gulevicha,

A.S. Lyubkinaa

Abstract

The Russian adaptation of the scale for estimating ambivalent attitudes toward men by P. Click and S. Fiske is presented in the paper. The process of adaptation consisted of three stages and the full and short versions of the questionnaire were examined: the factor structure, the consistency of scales, and the structural and external validity were analyzed. In Study 1, an original inventory was translated into the Russian language and a confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the model of six factors, which formed two more general factors: hostility and benevolence, fitted the data well. However, further analysis indicated some problems with the formulation of items due to the cultural specifics. In Study 2, we examined the modified version of the Russian version of the AMI and created the short version. Results showed that this measure has adequate psychometric properties. In Study 3, we reproduced the results of the previous study on heterosexual and bisexual samples and examined the predictors of the AMI scales. The results demonstrated the stability of the factor structure of the scale in groups of people with different sex and sexual orientation, its internal consistency and validity. However, they showed that the short version of the questionnaire (12 statements) better corresponds to the empirical data than the long version (20 statements) does. The obtained results allow the Russian-language version of AMI to be considered as a reliable and valid tool for assessing ambivalent attitudes toward men.

Keywords: ambivalent sexism theory; ambivalence toward men inventory, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation.

Враждебные и доброжелательные аттитюды к мужчинам: адаптация шкалы амбивалентности к мужчинам на русский язык

В.С. Кривощеков", О.А. Гулевич", А.С. Любкина"

`Национальный исследовательский университет "Высшая школа экономики", 101000, Россия, Москва, ул. Мясницкая, д. 20

Резюме

В статье описана адаптация шкалы амбивалентных аттитюдов к мужчинам П. Глика и С. Фиск. Процесс адаптации состоял из трех этапов. В первом этапе принимали участие 302 человека с гетеросексуальной ориентацией, которые заполняли оригинальный вариант методики, переведенный на русский язык. Во втором этапе участвовали 157 человек с гетеросексуальной ориентацией, которые заполняли модифицированный вариант методики для измерения амбивалентных аттитюдов к мужчинам и методику для измерения амбивалентных аттитюдов к женщинам. В третьем этапе приняли участие 344 человека с гетеросексуальной и 107 человек с бисексуальной ориентацией, которые заполняли модифицированный вариант методики для измерения амбивалентных аттитюдов к мужчинам, а также опросники для измерения правого авторитаризма и ориентации на социальное доминирование. Результаты продемонстрировали, что русскоязычная версия опросника имеет двухфакторную структуру, обладает надежностью и валидностью. Однако короткая версия методики из 12 утверждений лучше соответствует эмпирическим данным, чем длинная версия опросника из 20 утверждений.

Ключевые слова: теория амбивалентного сексизма, шкала амбивалентности к мужчинам, правый авторитаризм, ориентация на социальное доминирование. adaptation ambivalent click

Кривощеков Владислав Сергеевич - бакалавр психологии, Национальный исследовательский университет "Высшая школа экономики".

Сфера научных интересов: аутгрупповые предрассудки, социальная идентичность, дискриминация, гендерные отношения.

Гулевич Ольга Александровна - профессор, департамент психологии, факультет социальных наук, Национальный исследовательский университет "Высшая школа экономики", доктор психологических наук.

Сфера научных интересов: психология межгрупповых отношений, политическая психология.

Любкина Анна Сергеевна - студент, Национальный исследовательский университет "Высшая школа экономики".

Biological sex is one of the most salient criteria for social categorization. When we meet a new person, we often perceive him/her as a man or as a woman. Social categorization leads to the attribution of stereotypical characteristics to a person causing a biased attitude toward them. Biased attitudes toward members of a certain gender group are called "gender prejudices". These have attracted the interest of psychologists over the past 40 years.

Initially, gender prejudice was understood as a clear negative attitude toward members of a certain gender group. However, about 20 years ago Peter Click and Susan Fiske (Click & Fiske, 2001) proposed the term "ambivalent attitudes toward men and women". They formulated a model according to which gender-based prejudices in society consist of two components - hostility and benevolence. In their opinion, hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men and women have a similar structure. Hostile gender prejudice reflects negative attitudes toward men and women, whereas benevolent prejudice reflects positive attitudes. Nevertheless, both hostility and benevolence set certain "frameworks" for the perception of men and women, and thus limit their opportunities in personal and professional spheres.

To measure ambivalent attitudes, Click and Fiske created two inventories - questionnaires for measuring ambivalent sexism (dual attitudes toward women) and ambivalent attitudes toward men (dual attitudes toward men). The original versions of the inventories were formulated in English. Later they were translated into other languages and began to be used in different countries. In this article, we will discuss the adaptation of the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory for the Russian-language sample. We will consider the factor structure of the questionnaire, the consistency of scales, and also structural and external validity.

The structure of the ambivalent attitudes toward men

According to the ambivalent sexism theory, attitudes toward men include two components - hostility toward men and benevolence toward men (Click & Fiske, 2001).

Hostility (HM) reflects the negative perception of men as weak people who, nevertheless, tend to dominate women in personal relationships and in society as a whole. It includes three components:

• resentment of paternalism - the perception that men seek to gain more power in society than women;

• compensatory gender differentiation - the perception that men are not able to cope with domestic problems without the help of women;

• heterosexual hostility - the perception that men tend to dominate women in personal, romantic and sexual relationships.

Benevolence toward men (BM) reflects a positive perception of men as protectors and providers who need women's care and are needed by women. It also includes three components:

• maternalism - the belief that men need women's care at home;

• complementary gender differentiation - the perception of men as protectors and providers who are willing to risk their lives for women;

• heterosexual intimacy - the perception that without a man the life of a woman cannot be full.

Thus, HM and BM have similar structures in which each component of the hostility corresponds to a component of benevolence. So, resentment of paternalism and maternalism reflect the idea of male domination in society, but female domination in the household; compensatory and complementary gender differentiations reflect the idea of men's helplessness at home, but their ability to protect women from outside threats; and, finally, heterosexual hostility and intimacy reflect the idea of male domination in personal relationships and the need of a man being crucial for a woman.

Based on the model of ambivalent attitudes, Click and Fiske created a questionnaire to measure benevolent and hostile attitudes toward men. The full version of the questionnaire was formulated in the late 1990s (Click & Fiske, 1999). It consists of 20 statements, which form six subscales, and the subscales form two main scales - Hostility toward men and Benevolence toward men. To date, the full version of the questionnaire has been used in studies in a number of European, North and South American and Asian countries, as well as in the Pacific region (Click & Fiske, 2001; Click et ah, 2004; Zawisza, Luyt, & Zawadzka, 2012).

However, recently researchers have attempted to create short versions of the AMI featuring 8 to 12 statements. The items of these questionnaires form the same two main scales, Hostility toward men and Benevolence toward men. Currently, short versions of the scales exist in Italy (Rollero, Click, & Tartaglia, 2014), Norway (Bendixen & Kennair, 2017), China and the USA (Lee, Fiske, Click, & Chen, 2010).

Studies have demonstrated cross-cultural differences in the parameters of the full version of the AMI (compliance indices, reliability indicators of scales), and also in the content of short versions. This may be because of both cross-cultural differences in the content of hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men, and the formulations of specific statements. Since different countries have their own individual histories of gender relations and varying discourses on gender issues, the content of hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men may vary from country to country. Such variability makes it necessary for a serious cross-cultural adaptation of the methodology.

Predictors of hostility and benevolence toward men

The expression of ambivalent attitudes toward men depends on a range of social and psychological factors. The social factors - the characteristics of society - include the degree of gender inequality in the country. The lower the level of gender equality, the more the country's residents support both hostility and benevolence toward men (Click et ah, 2004). Psychological factors - individual characteristics of people - are those known as Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a characteristic that describes a person's attitude to political power and the social norms prevalent in society. Over the past forty years, psychological studies have used the definition of RWA proposed by Bob Altemeyer. In his opinion, authoritarianism includes three interrelated components (Altemeyer, 1996, 1998):

• conventionalism, a commitment to traditions and social norms supposedly shared by the whole of society, and also the conviction that the rest of society is also obliged to follow these norms;

• authoritarian submission, a willingness to obey any government representatives who are considered legitimate in the social group to which an individual belongs;

* authoritarian aggression, a negative attitude toward all those who do not agree to submit to such authorities, and to those whom these authorities consider their enemies.

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a characteristic that describes the attitude of a person to the social hierarchy. The definition of this characteristic was suggested by the authors of the theory of social domination, Jim Sidanius and Filizia Pratto (Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar, & Levin, 2004) for a a person who holds a positive attitude towards social inequality and the domination of certain groups over others, regardless of the dimension by which it occurs (e.g. racial, ethnic, gender, age, socioeconomic, etc.).

Dozens of psychological studies have shown that Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation steadily predict prejudices against racial groups, ethnic minorities and migrants, gender prejudices, and prejudices toward homosexuals (Hodson & Dhont, 2015). The relationship between RWA and SDO with attitudes toward groups identified by race and ethnicity, as well as on the basis of sexual orientation, is unequivocal: the higher the RWA and the SDO, the greater the prejudices. At the same time, the relationship between these characteristics and gender prejudices is more complex.

A meta-analysis of research on ambivalent attitudes toward women showed that SDO better predicts hostile attitudes, whereas RW\ better predicts benevolent attitudes (Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007). A similar trend has been demonstrated in a New Zealand study of prejudice against men: SDO predicted both hostile and benevolent attitudes, whereas RWA was connected only to benevolent attitudes toward men (Sibley, Robertson, & Wilson, 2006).

This happens because benevolent attitudes toward men reflect the idea of the traditional family where a man performs the duties of protector and provider, while the woman takes care of her husband and children. At the same time, hostile attitudes toward men better reflect the perception of society as a hierarchical structure in which "each group should occupy the place it is intended for" (for men, it is the dominant place in a social hierarchy).

The theoretical notions about the structure and predictors of the ambivalent attitudes toward men described above were used during the adaptation of the questionnaire. This process involved three stages. At the first stage, the factor structure of the original version of the questionnaire was analyzed. At the second stage, the factor structure and external validity of the modified version of the questionnaire were considered. At the third stage, the factor structure, structural and external validity of the questionnaire were verified.

Study 1.

Sample. 302 people (61 men, = 22.6, SD^ = 4.8) with a heterosexual sexual orientation took part in the study. Respondents filled in an online form on the lka.si platform. The link to this questionnaire was distributed by social media through the VKontakte, Facebook, Instagram and Linkedln networks. The study was presented as a research into the relationship between men and women.

Participation in the study was completely voluntary and did not involve any financial compensation.

Methods. Respondents completed the Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory (AMI) (Click & Fiske, 1999). In the course of the study, the full English version of the questionnaire was translated into Russian. The final version consisted of 20 direct statements, 10 of which reflected hostility toward men, and 10 - benevolence toward men (Click & Fiske, 2001). Each scale consisted of three subscales. The scale of the hostile attitudes included statements reflecting resentment of paternalism, compensatory gender differentiation and heterosexual hostility; the scale of benevolence included statements reflecting maternalism, heterosexual intimacy and complementary gender differentiation. Respondents were asked to assess the degree of their agreement with each statement on a 6-point scale, from "disagree strongly" (0) to "agree strongly" (5). The scores for the each of the BM and HM scales were calculated. A high score for each scale indicated a high level of hostile or benevolent attitudes towards men.

Results and discussion

In the course of the study, we analyzed simple and hierarchical factor structures of the questionnaire. In the first case, the items of the questionnaire were combined into the factors of benevolent and hostile attitudes. In the second case, the items of the questionnaire were combined into six subfactors that in turn were the factors of benevolent and hostile attitudes. We used the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in MPlus 7.4 (MEM estimator) to investigate the fit of these models to the data.

The results of the study showed that the simple model does not correspond to the obtained data: j2 = 691.253***, CFI = .741, TLI = .709, RMSEA = .101, SRMR = 0.103, AIC = 1 8947.215, BIC = 19173.551. At the same time, the hierarchical model satisfied the "soft" matching criteria: x2 = 337.667***, CFI = .913, TLI = .889, RMSEA = .060, SRMR = .070, AIC = 18546.806, BIC = 18795.405.

However, further analysis of the results demonstrated that the relationship between individual items of the questionnaire and the subscales differed from that expected. During the analysis of the modification indexes it was found that:

• items 1 and 10, which are part of the subscale "Maternalism", were strongly associated with "Compensatory Gender Differentiation" and "Heterosexual Intimacy" respectively;

• items 8 and 17 from the subscale "Compensatory Gender Differentiation" and item 11 from the subscale "Resentment of Paternalism" were strongly associated with the subscale "Maternalism";

• items 2 and 14, which are part of the subscale "Heterosexual Hostility", were associated with the subscale "Resentment of Paternalism".

We assumed that this is due to the formulations of the statements. The AMI was created by American psychologists, who took the gender discourse of their country as their basis. Nevertheless, the discussion of the characteristics and responsibilities of men and women has cross-cultural specifics. As a result, the questionnaire was modified: in some cases, formulations of the statements were changed, and in others the content of the items was amended. A new version of the questionnaire was used at the next stage of the research.

Study 2.

Sample. 157 people (60 male, = 27.1, SD^ = 9.7) with a heterosexual sexual orientation took part in the study. Respondents filled in an online form on the lka.si platform. The link to this questionnaire was distributed through the VKontakte social network. The study was presented as a research into the relationship between men and women. Participation in the study was completely voluntary and did not involve any financial compensation.

Methods. To measure the ambivalent attitudes toward men, respondents filled out a modified version of the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. It included 20 direct statements, 10 reflecting hostile attitudes, and 10 reflecting benevolent ones. The scales of benevolence and hostility included three subscales. The full version of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix A. Respondents were asked to range the degree of their agreement with each statement on a 6-point scale from "disagree strongly" (0) to "agree strongly" (5). The scores for the two scales were calculated. A high score for each scale indicated a high level of hostile or benevolent attitudes towards men.

For the analysis of external validity, the Russian version of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Click & Fiske, 1996) in the adaptation of E. Agadullina (Agadullina, 2018) was used. It included 12 items, which formed two subscales: Hostile Sexism (HS) (e.g., "Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for `equality'; and "Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them"), and Benevolent Sexism (BS) (e.g., "No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman"; and "Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores."). Respondents were asked to rate all items on a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from "disagree strongly" (0) to "agree strongly" (5). A high score for each scale indicated a high level of hostile or benevolent attitudes towards women.

Results and discussion

The Factor Structure. In the study, we analyzed simple and hierarchical factor structures of the questionnaire (see Study 1). To verify these models, we conducted CFA in MPlus 7.4 (MLM estimator). The processing of the results was carried out in two stages.

First, the full version of the questionnaire was analyzed. The results of the study showed that the simple model does not correspond to the obtained data: x2 = 371.849***, CFI = .715, TLI = .679, RM SEA = .087, SRMR = .097, AIC = 10538.620, BIC = 10725.051. At the same time, the hierarchical model satisfied the "soft" matching criteria: x2 = 228.728***, CFI = .906, TLI = .896, RMSEA = .051, SRMR = .079, AIC = 10375.749, BIC = 10583.574. According to modification indexes, items loaded the expected subscales.

Then, based on the full version, the statements that were included in the short version were highlighted. The following considerations were taken into account: first, a short version should include statements reflecting all the subscales of the original questionnaire. Second, it should include an equal number of statements reflecting both hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men. Third, these statements should significantly load the corresponding scales.

In accordance with these principles, six statements were selected reflecting hostile attitudes (6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19), and six statements reflecting benevolent attitudes toward men (1, 3, 7, 12, 13, 20). The short version of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix B. During the CFA, hierarchical model was analyzed. The results showed that this model is a good fit with the data obtained from the whole sample: x2 = 64.575*, CFI = .953, TLI = .933, RMSEA = .051, SRMR = .056, AIC = 6255.972, BIC = 6390.447. Thus, the short version of the questionnaire has higher compliance rates than the full version does. Therefore, hereinafter the short version of the AMI was analyzed.

External Validity. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the scales of the AMI and ASI are presented in Table 1. The results indicate that the short scales of benevolent and hostile sexism toward men have good indicators of internal consistency. In addition, both BM and HM have strong positive associations with both BS and HS.

Thus, the results of this stage of the study demonstrated that the structure of the modified scales of the AMI correspond to the structure of the original version of the questionnaire, and the relationship between AMI and ASI is in line with the original studies of Click & Fiske (2001). However, the size of the sample did not allow analysis of the structural validity of this inventory. Therefore, in the next stage of the study, the factor structure and the structural validity of the AMI were analyzed, as well as an additional analysis of its external validity.

Study 3

Sample. The study involved 344 people (94 men, M^ = 24, SD^ = 7.9) with a heterosexual orientation and 107 people with a bisexual orientation (22 men, = 21.2, SD^ = 5.7). Respondents filled in an online form on the lka.si platform. The link to this questionnaire was distributed through social media via the VKontakte, Facebook, Instagram and Linkedln networks. The study was presented as a study of the process of forming impressions about other people. Participation in the study was completely voluntary and did not involve any financial compensation.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations: short version

	M	SD	a	1	2	3
1. Benevolence toward men	3.30	0.94	.75	-
2. Hostility toward men	3.03	0.93	.72	$ $ $	-
3. Benevolence toward women	2.99	1.14	.83	.58***	^Q* * *	-
4. Hostility toward women	3.04	1.06	.76.	37***	3^***

Methods. To measure the ambivalent attitudes toward men, respondents filled out a modified version of the AMI (see Study 2).

To verify the external validity of this questionnaire, we used Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation scales.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism. To measure RWA, the original questionnaire proposed by B. Altemeyer (Altemeyer, 2006), adapted by E. Agadullina, was used. The questionnaire included 22 statements; 12 were direct (e.g., "Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married", and "The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas") and 10 were reverse (e.g., "Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else", and "There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps"). Respondents were asked to range the degree of their agreement with each statement on a 9-point scale from "completely disagree" (1) to "completely agree" (9). Reverse statements were inverted. A high final score indicated a high level of rightwing authoritarianism.

Social Dominance Orientation. To measure SDO, the original questionnaire of D. Sidanius and F. Pratto (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), adapted by O. Gulevich, E. Agadullina and O. Khukhlaev (2018), was used. It included 16 statements, 8 were direct (e.g., "Some groups of people must be kept in their place", and "We should not push for group equality") and 8 were reverse (e.g., "No one group should dominate in society", and "Group equality should be our ideal"). Respondents were asked to range the degree of their agreement with each statement on a 7-point scale from "completely disagree" (1) to "completely agree" (7). The reverse statements were inverted. A high final score indicated a high level of social dominance orientation.

Results

The Factor Structure. The two previous stages of the study demonstrated that the hierarchical factorial structure of the questionnaire fits data better than the simple structure. Therefore, in the third stage of the study we analyzed only the hierarchical model.

The processing of the results was carried out, as in the previous study, in two stages. First, the full version of the questionnaire was analyzed. The results of the CFA showed that this model satisfied the "soft" matching criteria: x2 = 479.360*, CFI = .919, TLI = .905, RMSEA = .066, SRMR = .063, AIC = 29879.833, BIC = = 30159.413 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Structure of Ambivalent Sexism toward Men Inventory: full version with the loadings

Figure 2

Structure of Ambivalent Sexism toward Men Inventory: short version with the loadings

Then the short version was analyzed. The results showed that this model fits the data well: = 122.493*, CFI = .966, TLI = .951, RMSEA = .061, SRMR = .047,

AIC = 18003.987, BIC = 18135.554 (see Figure 2). Thus, the model of the short version of the AMI corresponds the obtained data better than the full version does.

Structural validity. To test, the structural validity of AMI a multigroup confirmatory analysis (MGCFA) was carried out for which the respondents were divided into subgroups. In one case, a comparison was made between scores on the scales between men and women, in another between people with different sexual selfidentifications (heterosexuals and bisexuals).

Within the framework of MGCFA, three levels of model matching were assessed. The configural invariance indicates that the scales in the different groups of respondents include the same judgments. The metric invariance indicates that the factor loadings of judgments are similar for different, groups. The scalar invariance indicates that, loadings of different, judgments make an equivalent, contribution to the latent, variable.

Results are presented in Table 2. They indicate that, the short, version of the AMI has a higher structural validity than the full version does. Furthermore, the short, version demonstrates complete invariance (at. all three levels) when comparing groups both gender and sexual orientation groups. Invariance criteria are based on ACFI which should be lower than 0.01. Thus, it. can be argued that, the model of ambivalent, sexism toward men demonstrates a stable factor structure for groups of men and women and het.ero- and bisexual people. Therefore, next., the external validity of the short, version was analyzed.

External Validity. Descriptive statistics and correlations between the scales of the short, version of the AMI are presented in Table 3. The results show that, the short scales of benevolent and hostile sexism toward men have good indicators of internal consistency.

Groups	Model	**	df	RMSEA [90% Cl]	SRMR	CFI	TLI	AIC	BIC	A*2	Adf	ACFI
	Full version of AMI
Gender groups (men, women)	Configurai inv.	691.136*	324	.071 [.064; .078]	.072	.909	.893	29765	30324	-	-	-
	Metric inv.	722.283*	342	.070 [.063; .077]	.080	.905	.895	29760	30245	31.147*	18	.003
	Scalar inv.	764.026*	354	.072 [.065; .079]	.081	.898	.890	29777	30213	41.743*	12	.007
Sexual Orientation (heterosexual, bisexual)	Configurai inv.	693.089*	324	.071 [.064; .078]	.070	.901	.884	29776	30335	-	-	-
	Metric inv.	736.167*	342	.071 [.064; .079]	.077	.894	.882	29783	30268	43.078*	18	.007
	Scalar inv.	769.242*	354	.072 [.065; .079]	.078	.888	.880	29792	30228	33.075*	12	.006
	Short version of AMI
Gender groups (men, women)	Configurai inv.	185.152*	92	.067 [.053; .081]	.053	.959	.941	17944	18305	-	-	-
	Metric inv.	210.361*	102	.069 [.055; .082]	.068	.952	.938	17949	18270	25.209*	10	.007
	Scalar inv.	218.632*	106	.069 [.056; .082]	.069	.950	.938	17949	18253	8.271	4	.002
Sexual Orientation (heterosexual, bisexual)	Configurai inv.	204.620*	92	.074 [.060; .087]	.050	.946	.923	17991	18353	-	-	-
	Metric inv.	218.256*	102	.071 [.058; .084]	.055	.945	.928	17984	18305	13.637	10	.002
	Scalar inv.	226.405*	106	.071 [.058; .084]	.056	.943	.929	17985	18289	8.149	4	.002

In general, respondents' levels of the endorsement of ambivalent attitudes toward men differ from the middle of the scale (2.5 points) for both benevolence (t = --2.4, p = .006) and hostility (t = 7.18, p < .001). At the same time, despite the weak expression of the effect (Cohen's d = 0.44), men are more benevolent toward men than women are (Mmen = 2.73, SDmen = 1.09; Mwomen = 2.21, SDwomen = 1.2; t = 4.3, p < .001). However, there are no gender differences in the level of hostility toward men.

Furthermore, heterosexual participants tend to endorse BM (Mbeterosexual = 2.6, SDhetero"ual =1.12; Mblsexual = 1.53, SDblsexual = 1.05; t = 9.1,p = .000) and HM (Mbeterosexual = 2.89, SDbeterosexual = 0.87; Mblsexual = 2.52, SDblsexual = 0.97; t = 3.6,p = .001) more than bisexual respondents do. The effect size (Cohen's d) for BM is large (0.97), whereas it is small for HM (0.41).

RWA and SDO are positively associated with both HM and BM. However, subsequent regression analysis showed that RWA better predicts both HM and BM than SDO does: the higher the level of RWA, the higher both hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men. Whereas, SDO weakly predicts BM only (see Table 4).

General Discussion

Studies in different countries state the existence of ambivalent gender attitudes. These attitudes include both hostility and benevolence toward members of different

Descriptive statistics and Spearman correlations: short version gender groups. Although the idea of ambivalent attitudes to the representatives of both sexes appeared in the scientific literature more than 20 years ago, different aspects of these attitudes attracted distinct attention from scientists. Until recently, ambivalent attitudes toward women were seen as more interesting than the ambivalent attitudes toward men. However, in recent years work has begun to be devoted to ambivalent attitudes toward men.

Table 3

	M	SD	a	1	2	3
1. BM	2.35	1.19	0.87	-
2. HM	2.81	0.90	0.79	47***	-
3. RWA	3.03	1.37	0.91	.65***	2Q***	-
4. SDO	3.10	1.18	0.89	20***	.12*	37***

* p < 0.05, ***p< 0.001 (2-tailed).

Predictors of Benevolent and Hostile Attitudes toward Men: short version (standard errors are reported in parentheses)

Table 4

	Dependent variables
	BM	HM
RWA	0.50*** (0.033)	0.19*** (0.032)
SDO	0.17*** (0.039)	0.039 (0.036)

***p< 0.001 (2-tailed).

The main tool for studying attitudes toward men is the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory, proposed by P. Click and S. Fiske. Today this questionnaire is used in Europe, Asia, America and Australia. However, cross-cultural differences in the consistency of individual scales and the correspondence to the two-component structure of the inventory to the data obtained suggest that ambivalent attitudes toward men have a cultural specificity. The present research has revealed the structure of Russian ambivalent attitudes toward men. In the course of the study, we created both short and long versions of the modified version of the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory for Russian-speaking participants, and analyzed the factor structure, the consistency of scales and the validity of the questionnaire. This study enabled the discovery of both general and specific attitudes in ambivalence toward men in Russia compared to other countries.

First, a two-factor structure of attitudes toward men, including benevolence and hostility, was reproduced on the Russian sample. Both components of the relationship were positively related. A similar link between hostility and benevolence has been found in other studies (Bendixen & Kennair, 2017; Click & Fiske, 2001; Click et al., 2004; Rollero et ah, 2014). It may be assumed that different components of the relationship can manifest to men exhibiting different behavior. BM may influence men who act as "protectors and providers", whereas HM may affect the evaluation of men who openly oppress women and violate them. A similar duality was found in the study of the relationship between ambivalent attitudes toward women and the evaluation of women performing different roles (Click & Fiske, 2001).

Second, our study has shown that the short version of the AMI including 12 statements corresponds to the obtained data better than the full version does. It matches quite well the answers of heterosexual and bisexual respondents of both genders. Thus, we recommend the use of the short version in the future studies. This version differs from short versions used in other countries. However, in our opinion, this does not create serious difficulties in conducting research, since the versions used in other countries also differ from each other.

Third, the gender gap was revealed by the expression of benevolent sexism. Russian men showed a higher degree of benevolent attitudes toward men than Russian women did. These results are consistent with data obtained in Poland, the United States and South Africa, but do not correspond to the results obtained in China and the United Kingdom. At the same time, we did not find any differences in the expressions of hostile sexism. These results are consistent with the results obtained in Poland and the USA, but contradict the results obtained in China, South Africa and the United Kingdom (Lee et al., 2010; Zawisza et al, 2012). Thus, Russian respondents were culturally closer to those in Poland and the US than to those in China, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

Fourth, we have revealed that the content of ambivalent attitudes toward men has a cultural specificity. In Russian discourse, the discussion of personal relationships between men and women is more likely to result from the domination in romantic rather than in sexual relations. Discussion of sexual domination is limited to cases of sexual harassment and sexual violence involving little-known or completely unfamiliar people. As a consequence, agreement or disagreement with original statements reflecting dominance in the sexual sphere was poorly combined with the reaction to statements related to close relations. After reformulating the statements related to sexual dominance, the items in the questionnaire became better loaded within the subscale of heterosexual hostility.

Moreover, it turned out that the connection of ambivalent attitudes toward men with ideological variables also has a cultural specificity. In the New Zealand study, SDO predicted both components of ambivalent attitudes, and RWA was only connected to BM, whereas in our study, RWA predicted both components, and SDO was only associated with benevolent attitudes. One of the possible explanations is that this happens due to different attitudes toward the position of men and women in society. It might be assumed that RWA better predicts both BM and HM in those countries where gender relations are considered in terms of traditions and the "wishes" of the authorities. At the same time, SDO better predicts attitudes toward men in countries where gender relations are perceived in terms of a social hierarchy that gives advantage to some and disadvantages the others.

In modern Russia, the gender hierarchy where men personify force and occupy a dominant position in public life, while women personify weakness and occupy a dominant position at home and need relations with men, is positioned as a traditional system of relations for the country. Several representatives of political power have recently expressed themselves as being in favor of this hierarchy, such as Leonid Slutsky (a politician who was recently accused of sexual harassment), Anna Kuznetsova (Childrens Rights Commissioner), Vitaly Milonov and Irina Yarovaya (politicians). As a consequence, RWA predicts both components of attitudes toward men more effectively than SDO does. Thus, our study suggests that for studying ambivalent attitudes toward men, it is necessary to take into account the gender discourse that prevails in society.

References

1. Agadullina, E. R. (2018). Sexism towards Women: Adaptation of the Ambivalent Sexism Scale (P. Click and S. Fisk) on a Russian Sample. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 15(3), 448-463.

2. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

3. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other "authoritarian personality". In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1177/0146167205275614

4. Altemeyer, B. (2006). The authoritarians. Winnipeg, MB: Author. Retrieved from http://theauthori- tarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

5. Bendixen, M., & Kennair, L. E. O. (2017). When less is more: Psychometric properties of Norwegian short-forms of the Ambivalent Sexism Scales (ASI and AMI) and the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance (IRMA) Scale. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 58, 541-550. doi: 10.1111/ sjop. 12392 Click, R, & Eiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism .Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 Click, R, & Eiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519-536. doi: 10.1111/ j. 1471-6402.1999,tb00379.x

6. Click, R, & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 115-188. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601 (01)80005-8

7. Click, R, Eiske, S. T., Masser, B., Manganelli, A. M., Huang, L., Castro, Y. R Wells, R. (2004). Bad

8. but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713-728. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713 Gulevich, O. A., Agadullina, E. R., & Khukhlaev, О. E. (2018). Approval of Group Hierarchy: Russian Version of Social Dominance Orientation Scale. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 15(3), 407-428.

9. Lee, T. L., Eiske, S. T., Click, R, & Chen, Z. (2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583-601. doi:10.1007/sl 1199-010-9770-x

10. Pratto, E, Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320. doi: 10.1080/10463280601055772

11. Pratto, E, Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741 Rollero, C., Click, P., & Tartaglia, S. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM, 21, l-ll.doi:10.4473/TPM21.2.3 Sibley, C. G., Robertson, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2006). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27, 755-768. doi:l 0.11 ll/j.1467-9221.2006.00531.x

12. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men's hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160-172. doi:10.1177/0146167206294745 Sidanius, J., Pratto, E, van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 845-880. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x Zawisza, M., Luyt, R., & Zawadzka, A. M. (2012). Ambivalence toward men: Comparing sexism among Polish, South African and British university students. Sex Roles, 66, 453-467. doi:10.1007/sl 1199-011-0112-4

Appendix A.

Russian full version of Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI)

Ниже ряд заявлений относительно мужчин и женщин и их отношений в современном обществе. Пожалуйста, укажите степень вашего согласия или несогласия с каждым заявлением, используя следующую шкалу:

0 = совершенно не согласен

1 = не согласен

2 = скорее не согласен

3 = скорее согласен

4 = согласен

5 = совершенно согласен

1. Даже если женщина работает, дома она должна окружать мужа постоянной заботой.

2. В семейных и романтических отношениях мужчины всегда стремятся быть главными.

3. В опасных ситуациях мужчины реже, чем женщины, "теряют голову".

4. В отношениях с женщиной мужчины часто стараются доказать свое превосходство.

5. Каждая женщина нуждается в мужчине, который в ней души не чает.

6. Без помощи женщин мужчины потеряются в этом мире.

7. Женщина не будет полностью удовлетворена жизнью без долгосрочных романтических отношений с мужчиной.

8. Когда мужчины болеют, они ведут себя как дети.

9. Мужчины стремятся занять более высокое положение в обществе, чем женщины.

10. Мужчины должны финансово обеспечивать женщин.

11. Большинство мужчин хотят традиционную семью, в которой жена прежде всего заботится о доме, муже и детях.

12. Каждая женщина нуждается в мужчине, которого она обожает.

13. Мужчины чаще, чем женщины подвергают себя опасности, чтобы защитить других.

14. Мужчины обычно стараются доминировать в разговоре с женщиной.

15. Даже мужчины, которые выступают за равноправие между мужчинами и женщинами, хотят, чтобы у мужчин сохранялось больше привилегий в обществе.

16. Без мужчины жизнь женщины нельзя назвать полноценной.

17. Мужчины как дети, без помощи женщин не смогли бы ориентироваться в мире.

18. Мужчины более склонны к риску, чем женщины.

19. Большинство мужчин стремятся доминировать над женщиной в личных отношениях.

20. Женщины должны заботиться о своих мужчинах дома, потому что мужчины часто забывают позаботиться о себе.

Обработка:

Шкала Враждебного отношения к мужчинам'.

• Враждебный патернализм: 9, 11, 15

• Компенсаторная гендерная дифференциация: 6, 8, 17

• Гетеросексуальная враждебность: 2, 4, 14, 19

Шкала Доброжелательного отношения к мужчинам:

• Материализм: 1, 10, 20

• Комплементарная гендерная дифференциация: 3, 13, 18

• Гетеросексуальная близость: 5, 7, 12, 16 Все утверждения прямые.

English Full Version of Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI)

1. Even if both members of a couple work, the woman ought to be more attentive to taking care of her man at home.

2. In family and romantic relationships, men always strive to dominate.

3. Men are less likely to fall apart in emergencies than women are.

4. In a relationship with a woman, men often try to prove their superiority.

5. Every woman needs a male partner who will cherish her.

6. Men would be lost in this world if women weren't there to guide them.

7. A woman will never be truly fulfilled in life if she doesn't have a committed, long-term relationship with a man.

8. Men act like babies when they are sick.

9. Men will always fight to have greater control in society than women.

10. Men are mainly useful to provide financial security for women.

11. Most men want a traditional family, in which the wife primarily takes care of domestic issues.

12. Every woman ought to have a man she adores.

13. Men are more willing to put themselves in danger to protect others.

14. Men usually try to dominate conversations when talking to women.

15. Even men who advocate equality between men and women want men to retain more privileges in society.

16. Women are incomplete without men.

17. When it comes down to it, most men are really like children.

18. Men are more willing to take risks than women.

19. Most men are trying to dominate in a personal relationship with a woman.

20. Women ought to take care of their men at home, because men would fall apart if they had to fend for themselves.

Calculations:

Hostility toward men:

• Resentment of paternalism: 9, 11, 15

• Compensatory gender differentiation: 6, 8, 17

• Heterosexual hostility: 2, 4, 14, 19 Benevolence toward men:

• Maternalism: 1, 10, 20

• Complementary gender differentiation: 3, 13, 18

Heterosexual intimacy: 5, 7, 12, 16 All statements are direct.

Appendix В.

Russian short version of Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI)

Ниже ряд заявлений относительно мужчин и женщин и их отношений в современном обществе. Пожалуйста, укажите степень вашего согласия или несогласия с каждым заявлением, используя следующую шкалу:

0 = совершенно не согласен

1 = не согласен

2 = скорее не согласен

3 = скорее согласен

4 = согласен;

5 = совершенно согласен

1. Даже если женщина работает, дома она должна окружать мужа постоянной заботой.

2. В опасных ситуациях мужчины реже, чем женщины, "теряют голову".

3. Без помощи женщин мужчины потеряются в этом мире.

4. Женщина не будет полностью удовлетворена жизнью без долгосрочных романтических отношений с мужчиной.

5. Большинство мужчин хотят традиционную семью, в которой жена прежде всего заботится о доме, муже и детях.

6. Мужчины обычно стараются доминировать в разговоре с женщиной.

7. Каждая женщина нуждается в мужчине, которого она обожает.

8. Мужчины чаще, чем женщины, подвергают себя опасности, чтобы защитить других.

9. Даже мужчины, которые выступают за равноправие между мужчинами и женщинами, хотят, чтобы у мужчин сохранялось больше привилегий в обществе.

10. Мужчины как дети, без помощи женщин не смогли бы ориентироваться в мире. И. Женщины должны заботиться о своих мужчинах дома, потому что мужчины часто забывают позаботиться о себе.

12. Большинство мужчин стремятся доминировать над женщиной в личных отношениях.

Обработка:

Шкала Враждебного отношения к мужчинам:

• Враждебный патернализм: 5, 9

• Компенсаторная гендерная дифференциация: 3, 10

• Гетеросексуальная враждебность: 6, 12 Шкала Доброжелательного отношения к мужчинам:

• Материализм: 1, И

• Комплементарная гендерная дифференциация: 2, 8

Гетеросексуальная близость: 4, 7 Все утверждения прямые.

English short version of Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI)

1. Even if both members of a couple work, the woman ought to be more attentive to taking care of her man at home.

2. Men are less likely to fall apart in emergencies than women are.

3. Men would be lost in this world if women weren't there to guide them.

4. A woman will never be truly fulfilled in life if she doesn't have a committed, long-term relationship with a man.

5. Most men want a traditional family, in which the wife primarily takes care of domestic issues.

6. Most men are trying to dominate in a personal relationship with a woman.

7. Every woman ought to have a man she adores.

8. Men are more willing to put themselves in danger to protect others.

9. Even men who advocate equality between men and women want men to retain more privileges in society.

10. When it comes down to it, most men are really like children.

11. Women ought to take care of their men at home, because men would fall apart if they had to fend for themselves.

12. Men usually try to dominate conversations when talking to women.

Calculations:

Hostility toward men:

• Resentment of paternalism: 5, 9

• Compensatory gender differentiation: 3, 10

• Heterosexual hostility: 6, 12 Benevolence toward men:

• Maternalism: 1, 11

• Complementary gender differentiation: 2, 8

• Heterosexual intimacy: 4, 7 All statements are direct.

Vladislav S. Krivoshchekov - bachelor of psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics.

Research area: outgroup prejudice, social identity, discrimination, gender relations.

Olga A. Gulevich - professor, School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics, D. Sc.

Research area: psychology of intergroup relations, political psychology.

Anna S. Lyubkina - student, National Research University Higher School of Economics. Research area: gender inequality, gender relations.

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...