2 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
1. Collective narcissism with reference to male gender identity was assessed with the five-item Collective Narcissism Scale (Golec de Zavala et al. 2009[1]; e.g., “Men deserve special treatment”)
2. We averaged items to produce an overall male collective narcissism score, where higher values denoted stronger collective narcissism.
3. In-group satisfaction was assessed with the four-item in-group satisfaction subscale of the Polish version of the In-group Identity Scale (e.g., “I am glad to be a man”; α = .84).
4. We assessed precarious manhood with the seven-item scale (Vandello et al. 2008[2]; e.g., “It is fairly easy for a man to lose his status as a man”; α = .72)
5. We measured traditional gender beliefs with seven items from the Traditional Beliefs about Gender and Gender Identity Scale pertaining to endorsement of a traditional gender hierarchy and behaviours prescribed by gender stereotypes (α = .72)
6. Ambivalent sexism was assessed with the Polish translation of hostile and benevolent sexism subscales of the 12-item version of the Ambivalent Sexism Scale. The scale has demonstrated validity and internal consistency in previous research (overall scale: αs = .83–92; subscales: .73–.92; Glick and Fiske 1996[3], 1997[4]; Mikołajczak and Pietrzak 2014[5]; Rollero et al. 2014[6]).
7. Collective narcissism with reference to the religious in-group was measured as in Study 1 but the items were changed to refer to Catholics (e.g., “Catholics deserve special treatment”; α = .95).
8. We measured national collective narcissism with a five-item Collective Narcissism Scale used with reference to a national in-group (Golec de Zavala et al. 2009[7], 2020[8]; e.g., “Poland deserves special treatment”; α = .92
9. In-group satisfaction was assessed with the four-item in-group satisfaction subscale of the Polish version of the In-group Identity Scale (Jaworska 2016[9]; Leach et al. 2008[10]; e.g., “I am glad to be Polish”: α = .94).
1: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR48
2: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR116
3: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR40
4: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR41
5: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR92
6: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR102
7: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR48
8: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR51
9: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR70
10: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR82
1. 6-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Ames et al. 2006[11]), which was used in previous research (Golec de Zavala et al. 2016[12]).
11: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR5
12: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR55
1. We assessed religious fundamentalism with the 12-item scale proposed by Altemeyer and Hunsberger (2004[13]). The items pertain to the belief in only one set of religious teachings that contains the fundamental, inerrant truth about humanity and its deity which must be followed according to immutable past practice (e.g. “God has given humanity a complete, unfailing guide to happiness and salvation, which must be totally followed”; α = .91).
2. I**nerrant truth should be correctly shown to be inherently narcissistic, as narcissists do not take the advice of others viewing them as incompetent** 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/zeronarcissists/comments/1aftej1/narcissists%5C_spite%5C_accountability%5C_features%5C_because/[14][15]
3. The six items assessing intrinsic religiosity pertain to an intrinsic motivation to engage in religious activities, such as prayer or attendance in service (e.g., “I pray at home because it helps me be aware of God’s presence”; α = .91).
4. The six items assessing extrinsic religiosity pertain to an extrinsic motivation and external incentives to religious activities (e.g. “I go to church because it helps me to feel part of a community”; α = .96).
13: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-020-01193-3#ref-CR4
In consultation with four experts in psychology and social anthropology we created three items:
1. “A husband can sometimes hit his wife to teach her a lesson,”
2. “A husband can demand that his wife uses or does not use contraception,”
3. “A wife should seek her husband’s approval of people she associates with” (α = .80).
1. The six items of hostile sexism subscale tap into sexist antipathy (e.g. “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men”; α = .81).
2. **Hostile and benevolent sexism were positively correlated,** *r*(327) = .23, *p* < .001. The predicted relationships were the same for both, benevolent, and hostile sexism. **Aka, benevolent and hostile sexists were both equally sexist. There was no mitigating effect in the damage done, despite vanities that might have hoped otherwise. It has also been proven that benevolent sexists will quickly turn into hostile sexists if sufficiently threatened from a dominance perspective and the benevolence is therefore meaningless because it refers to no core difference. (ex: Rodger)**
1. The benevolent sexism subscale consists of items pertaining to viewing women stereotypically in restricted roles (e.g. “Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess”; α = .74).
2. Hostile and benevolent sexism were positively correlated, *r*(327) = .23, *p* < .001. The predicted relationships were the same for both, benevolent, and hostile sexism. Aka, benevolent and hostile sexists were both equally sexist. There was no mitigating effect in the damage done, despite vanities that might have hoped otherwise.
3. **It has also been proven that benevolent sexists will quickly turn into hostile sexists if sufficiently threatened from a dominance perspective and the benevolence is therefore meaningless because it refers to no core difference (Elliot Rodger, “the perfect gentleman”).**
There's nothing here!