Hostile and Benevolent Attitudes toward Men: Psychometric Properties of the Russian Version of the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory
Abstract
The Russian adaptation of the scale for estimating ambivalent attitudes toward men by P. Glick 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.
Downloads
References
2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205275614
3. Altemeyer, B. (2006). The authoritarians. Winnipeg, MB: Author. Retrieved from http://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12392
5. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
6. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x
7. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Ambivalent sexism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 115-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80005-8
8. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Masser, B., Manganelli, A. M., Huang, L., Castro, Y. R Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713
9. Gulevich, O. A., Agadullina, E. R., & Khukhlaev, O. 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.
10. Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P., & Chen, Z. (2010). Ambivalent sexism in close relationships: (Hostile) power and (benevolent) romance shape relationship ideals. Sex Roles, 62, 583-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9770-x
11. Pratto, F., 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601055772
12. Pratto, F., 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
13. Rollero, C., Glick, P., & Tartaglia, S. (2014). Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM, 21, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.2.3
14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00531.x
15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294745
16. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 845-880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x
17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0112-4
