Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): an analysis of theoretical validity in the context of religiosity and the masculinity–femininity dimension.
No. 1 (2026), Doniesienia z badań
No. 1 (2026)

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): an analysis of theoretical validity in the context of religiosity and the masculinity–femininity dimension.

Doniesienia z badań
https://doi.org/10.14746/tppib.2026.1
Published 2026-06-16
Paulina Szymańska
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań image/svg+xml
Poland
Kaja Ormicka
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań image/svg+xml
Poland
Ewa Dorożalska
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań image/svg+xml
Poland
Marcin Pawlikowski
Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań image/svg+xml
Poland
Journal cover Psychological tests in practice and research, no. 1, year 2025, title Open Volume
PDF (Język Polski)

Keywords

femininity
masculinity
hostile sexism
benevolent sexism
faith

How to Cite

Szymańska, P., Ormicka, K., Dorożalska, E., & Pawlikowski, M. (2026). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI): an analysis of theoretical validity in the context of religiosity and the masculinity–femininity dimension. Psychological Tests in Practice and Research, (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.14746/tppib.2026.1
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

Abstract

The aim of the study was to analyze the impact of religiosity and position on the masculinity–femininity continuum on the intensity of hostile and benevolent sexism. Additionally, the role of selected demographic factors was examined. The theoretical validity of the questionnaire was assessed through a theoretical approach, using correlation analyses with other variables. The scale is intended primarily for scientific research purposes. A total of 132 randomly selected individuals from various environments (universities, pastoral groups, scouting) were examined. The respondents completed questionnaires measuring the intensity and centrality of faith, the level of ambivalent sexism, and a scale assessing the masculinity–femininity dimension. Statistical analysis showed that religiosity and gender significantly influence sexist attitudes, whereas the masculinity–femininity dimension does not constitute a differentiating factor.

https://doi.org/10.14746/tppib.2026.1
PDF (Język Polski)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Banaji, M. R., Jost, J. T. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.

Boccaccini, M., Plante, T. G. (1997). Reliability and Validity of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 45, 429-437.

Chomczyńska-Rubacha, M., Pankowska, D. (2014). Wyznaczniki tożsamości młodych kobiet i mężczyzn w percepcji studentów i studentek. Teraźniejszość – Człowiek – Edukacja, 68(4), 133-146.

Fiske, S. T., Glick, P. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

Fiske, S. T., Glick, P. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135.

Fiske, S. T., Glick, P. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109.

Florek, S., Gulla, B., Piotrowski, P. (2019). Radykalizacja: konteksty psychologiczne. Uniwersytet Jagielloński, Biblioteka Jagiellońska.

Glock, Ch. Y., Stark, R. (1965). Religion and society in tension. Rand McNally.

Glock, Ch. Y., Stark, R. (1970). American Piety: The nature of religious commitment. University of California Press.

Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Sobiecki, J., Sawicki, A. (2024). The relationship between religiosity and ambivalent sexism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 13(2), 67-81.

Lipińska-Grobelny, A., Gorczycka, K. (2011). Rekonstrukcja narzędzia do pomiaru płci psychologicznej. Przegląd Psychologiczny, 54(2), 179-192.

Mikołajczak, M., Pietrzak, J. (2011). Religia i legitymizacja nierówności płciowej w Polsce. W: M. Kofta, M. Bilewicz (red.), Wobec Obcych: Zagrożenia Psychologiczne a Stosunki Międzygrupowe (s. 115-128). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.

Mikołajczak, A., Pietrzak, J. (2014). Ambivalent Sexism and Religion: Connected through values. Sex Roles, 70, 387-399.

Roccas, S. (2005). Religion and value systems. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 747–759.

Sierakowska, K. (2021). Dyskusje o wpływie wojny na emancypację kobiet w prasie kobiecej dwudziestolecia międzywojennego. Dzieje Najnowsze, 53(1), 41–53.

Tomczyk, J. (2014). Patriarchat, a rozwój cywilizacji. Podejście feministyczne. Forum Socjologiczne, 5, 169-180.

Wnuk, M. (2009). Właściwości psychometryczne Kwestionariusza Siły Wiary Religijnej dla populacji Anonimowych Alkoholików oraz studentów. Problemy Higieny i Epidemiologii, 90, 588-594.

Wnuk, M. (2017). A Psychometric Evaluation of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire among Students from Poland and Chile. Pastoral Psychology, 66(4), 551–562.

Zarzycka, B. (2007). Skala centralności religijności S. Hubera [The Polish version of S. Huber’s Centrality of Religiosity Scale]. Roczniki Psychologiczne, 10, 133–157.

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Paulina Szymańska, Kaja Ormicka, Ewa Dorożalska, Marcin Pawlikowski

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.