Next Article in Journal
Funding Open Educational Resources in Higher Education: A South African Public Policy Perspective
Next Article in Special Issue
Same-Sex Parenting Competence Evaluation: The Role of Gender Essentialism, Political Orientation, and Attribution of Conflict
Previous Article in Journal
Fintech Innovation in Social Service Provision: A Bibliometric Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing Triadic Interactions and the Family Alliance among Belgian Lesbian Mothers and Their Donor-Conceived Children
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/socsci12010048
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Gender Role Beliefs and Ontologization of Mothers: A Moderated Mediation Analysis

by
Silvia Di Battista
Department of Human and Social Sciences, University of Bergamo, 24129 Bergamo, Italy
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12(1), 48; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010048
Submission received: 19 December 2022 / Revised: 10 January 2023 / Accepted: 11 January 2023 / Published: 15 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue “Non-Traditional” Parents in Contemporary Societies)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study combines insights from gender studies and studies on dehumanization to show how gender role beliefs influence attitudes and the attribution of ontologization traits to mothers. A convenience sample of 194 Italian participants read one of three vignettes describing a mother (a heterosexual biological mother, a heterosexual stepmother, or a lesbian stepmother) and her five-year-old son during a moment of disagreement. Participants assessed the depicted mother’s competence and attributed ontologization traits (human and animal traits) to the same mother. Focal differences were found in the perception of competence that was attributed more to the heterosexual biological mother than to the other targets. A full ontologization process was not observed. However, differences were found in the attribution of animal traits, which were attributed more to the depicted heterosexual stepmother than to the other ones. Moderated mediation analyses also showed that participants endorsing moderate and high levels of traditional gender role beliefs rated the heterosexual stepmother as being less competent compared with the heterosexual biological mother by animalizing her. Gendered expectations concerning mothers’ role and parenting can create multiple barriers for women who are—or intend to be—mothers. Attitudinal change should be fostered so that all mothers’ identities and experiences are fully accepted.

1. Dehumanization and Ontologization of Mothers

“Beauty has no age. But fertility does,” is the caption to a picture of a woman anxiously holding an hourglass. This image was part of a 2016 Italian government campaign to encourage women to have more children. However, the campaign failed in its intent and was highly criticized (New York Times 2016). Motherhood serves as a popular talking point for many different political campaigns and social discourses in different societies (e.g., Park et al. 2015; Pugh 2019; Van der Klein et al. 2012; Yasmine and Sukkar 2019). However, in these discourses, mothers may be objectified or dehumanized as a consequence of focusing on their bodies and biological reproductive functions, as well as of being treated as passive recipients for passing on instructions (e.g., Beech et al. 2020; Goldenberg et al. 2007; MacKay 2021).
Dehumanization is a socio-psychological process in which members of a target group are perceived as being less than human by denying them human-like characteristics (e.g., Loughnan et al. 2009; Haslam 2006). Pérez et al. (2001, 2007) suggested that in-group members tend to attribute a different “essence” or ontology to out-group members who are perceived as being close to an animal condition. Within this dehumanization framework, the ontologization process of minority members describes the attribution of a different ontology to members of certain targets (Volpato 2011; Pérez et al. 2007; Roncarati et al. 2009). In particular, ontologization describes the process of substitution of a human category by an animal category involving a differentiated attribution of nature-culture and/or animal-human traits to minority members (Berti et al. 2013; Marcu and Chryssochoou 2005; Pérez et al. 2002). Specifically, more cultural/human characteristics, both positive and negative (e.g., rational and selfish) tend to be attributed to the in-group than to the out-group members, whereas more natural/animal characteristics, both positive and negative (e.g., wild and free), tend to be ascribed to the out-group than to the in-group members. Research found that women may be dehumanized by an association with animals or by an attribution of a lower status than men, something more akin to that of animals (Bark-Yi 2007; Morris et al. 2014; Rudman and Mescher 2012), especially when their bodies are sexualized (Vaes et al. 2011). However, rare studies used the ontologization approach to explore perceptions and attributions of human/animal traits to mothers. In a quasi-experimental study on the ontologization process toward different types of parents, Di Battista et al. (2020b) found that a family made up of two mothers (i.e., a lesbian biological mother and a lesbian stepmother) was partially ontologized compared to other family targets—i.e., heterosexual stepfamilies and gay (step)fathers. In particular, Di Battista et al. (2020b) found that heterosexual Italian participants perceived lesbian (step)mothers as being more animal on traits of ontologization (i.e., “freer” and “dirtier”) than the other (step)parents. The two non-traditional mothers were also perceived equally animal and human (i.e., “rational” and “selfish”) on traits of ontologization compared to the other family members that were judged as being more human than animal.

2. Gender Role Beliefs and Mothering

Although women have moved into the workplace in the last decades, there has not been equal progress in terms of heterosexual men’s efforts in the family context (Carone and Lingiardi 2022; Cabrera et al. 2018; Huen 2007). Furthermore, the wage gap between mothers and non-mothers has continued to grow more than the wage gap between young men and women (Crittenden 2001; Cukrowska-Torzewska and Matysiak 2020). This lack of progress has been found to be a consequence of a variety of factors related to country-specific policies and gendered beliefs about mothers’ roles and responsibilities (Budig et al. 2012, 2016; see also Cukrowska-Torzewska and Matysiak 2020 for a meta-analysis). As for gendered assumptions about parenting (e.g., Hays 1996), biological mothers absorbed in caring roles tend to be perceived as being more competent and proper compared to other targets of mothers, e.g., working mothers, lesbian mothers, and stepmothers (DiLapi 1989; Johnston and Swanson 2003; MacKay 2021; Valiquette-Tessier et al. 2016, 2019). The moral standard of the intensive mothering mandate (Hays 1996; Weaver and Coleman 2005) describes people’s expectations that mothers are the most competent parent to satisfy children’s needs and, therefore, they should devote all their time, energy, resources, and efforts to their children (Ganong and Coleman 1995, p. 2). This strong cultural emphasis on motherhood has been found to be especially negative for stepmothers (Kalmijn 2021). Non-traditional mothers can indeed represent targets for deviancy discourses of mothering (Arendell 2000; Ganong and Coleman 1995; Di Battista et al. 2022). As Ryan (2009, p. 141) noted: “parenting is a gendered enterprise. It is tied up with assumptions of natural maternal instincts to nurture and paternal instincts to provide,” something which could be particularly challenging for non-gestational mothers (see also Averett 2021). Stepmothers can be seen as being agents of immoral behaviours, increasing people’s motivation to exclude them from the realm of humanity (Di Battista et al. 2022; Ganong and Coleman 1995; Harris and Fiske 2011).
Previous studies examining dehumanization and ontologization of mothers and stepmothers have been rare. Investigating attitudes toward stepfamilies, Claxton-Oldfield and O’Neil (2007) found that a heterosexual biological family was perceived as being more stable than a heterosexual mother-stepfather family. Furthermore, a lesbian stepfamily was perceived as being more satisfying/secure than the heterosexual mother-stepfather family. Exploring attitudes toward mothers in the Italian context, Di Battista et al. (2022) found that a heterosexual biological mother was perceived as being a more competent parent compared to other types of mothers (i.e., a heterosexual stepmother, a lesbian biological mother, and a lesbian stepmother) by attributing to her greater culpability for her children’s misbehaviour. Di Battista et al. (2020a) have shown that a difference in the evaluation of (step)parents’ competence was through the mediation of attribution of culpability, which depended on the participants’ gender role beliefs. Similar to the attribution of responsibility, attributing animal traits as well as denying human traits to mothers (i.e., the ontologization process) may impact the perception of mothers’ competence. Indeed, previous studies have shown that people justify their negative attitudes and mistreatment of out-group members by dehumanizing them (Clark et al. 2015; Harris and Fiske 2011). By exploring perceptions toward some mothers whose identities disrupt the “traditional” and heterosexist model of the heterosexual biological mother in a two-parent family—the model upon which the vast majority of studies on motherhood are based—, this study could achieve a better understanding of the role of gendered assumptions on motherhood. In particular, attributions of ontologization traits to different types of mothers and the relationship with gender role beliefs and competence perceptions were explored.

3. The Current Study

Having had no specific research to refer to about the attribution of animal and human traits to different types of mothers, this study is exploratory in nature. In the present study, it is generally expected that a woman’s role in the family is imbued with strong moral convictions about the right way to be a mother (Hays 1996). Biological heterosexual mothers, in a different-sex relationship, would be judged as being more human (i.e., super-human capacities; see Ganong and Coleman 1995), and less animal than non-biological and non-heterosexual mothers, such as heterosexual stepmothers and lesbian stepmothers, particularly for those with high levels of traditional gender role beliefs. In line with previous studies, perceptions of a different essence or ontology for some minority members may be associated with the perception of a more animal-like status (Bark-Yi 2007; Morris et al. 2014) and this, in turn, could impact on attitudes toward mothers. However, as a competing prediction and considering previous evidence concerning the essentialization of biological mothers as a consequence of focusing on their bodies and biological reproductive functions (e.g., MacKay 2021; Park et al. 2015), it is also possible that biological mothers would be perceived as being closer to a natural/animal status than non-biological mothers (i.e., heterosexual and lesbian stepmothers).
Furthermore, in this study, the role of individuals’ moral judgments in the ontologization of—and attitudes toward—“traditional” and “non-traditional” mothers is also explored. According to the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT—Haidt and Graham 2007), the purity moral foundations describe moral concern for contaminant-related issues and concern for those who seem to lack self-control. The latter are described as impure and less than human (Haidt and Graham 2007). Purity moral foundations are associated with accusing acts and individuals are perceived as socially or spiritually disgusting or unnatural (Haidt and Graham 2007; Monroe and Plant 2018; Koleva et al. 2012). In two studies involving over 24,000 participants, Koleva et al. (2012) found that moral judgments of purity predicted negative judgments regarding some issues (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage and relations, casual sex, having children outside marriage), over and above political ideology, age, gender, and religious attendance. Monroe and Plant (2018) found that emphasis on purity moral foundations predicted a form of dehumanisation (i.e., the denial of mind) toward certain targets (e.g., women who were prostitutes, HIV patients, and gay men) and this relationship, in turn, led to an increase in prejudicial behaviour toward those same targets. In particular, the authors found that dehumanised perceptions mediated the relationship between moral purity foundations and prejudice toward these targets. The relationship between purity foundations, attributions of human and animal traits, and attitudes toward mothers is explored.

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

Seven participants failed the manipulation and attention check questions. Six participants were not heterosexual and thus, they were not included in the analyses. The remaining participants were 194 self-identified heterosexual Italian men (n = 73; 37.6%) and women (n = 121; 62.4%), aged from 18 to 74 years (M = 41.76, SD = 13.65). Most participants claimed to be a parent with one or more biological children (n = 131, 67.5%), and the other participants declared to be child-free (32.5%). As for education, 84 participants (43.3%) reported having completed secondary school, 99 people (51.1%) had a university degree, and 2 people (1%) had a post-graduate degree.

4.2. Procedures

Participants filled out an anonymous online-based questionnaire supported by the platform Google Forms between March and May 2021. A script introduced them to the study and the informed consent form, and invited participants to complete the questionnaire with appropriate reassurance that their answers would remain anonymous. If participants gave their consent, they could choose to participate in the proposed study by clicking through to the first page of the questionnaire. In the first section of the questionnaire, participants randomly read one of the three vignettes in which a situation of mild disagreement between a five-year-old boy and his mother in a shopping centre was presented (adapted from Claxton-Oldfield 1992; see Supplementary Material File). The questionnaire took approximately 10/15 min to complete and no compensation was given for the participation. Participants were debriefed at the end of data collection.
Inclusion criteria were “being aged 18 or more” and “being native Italian speakers.” The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The research complied with the Ethical Code of the Italian Psychology Association (Associazione Italiana di Psicologia—AIP 2015).

4.3. Materials and Measures

Demographic Questions. Participants answered demographic questions that included their age, gender (1 = female; 2 = male; 3 = other), sexual orientation (1 = homosexual; 2 = heterosexual; 3 = bisexual; 4 = other), parenting status (1 = I have one or more biological children; 2 = I have no children; 3 = I have one or more adoptive children), and level of education.
The Vignettes. Each participant responded to one version of three vignettes describing a heterosexual biological mother, a heterosexual stepmother, or a lesbian stepmother (adapted from Claxton-Oldfield 1992; see the text in the Supplementary Material File). The three vignettes were held constant between the conditions, with the exception of the depicted mother: (1) a heterosexual biological mother (n = 63); (2) a heterosexual stepmother (n = 65); (3) a lesbian stepmother (n = 66). After reading the vignette, participants responded to a manipulation and attention-checking question (i.e., “Antonio is the biological child of Anna;” true or false).
Mother’s Competence. Participants rated three ad-hoc items evaluating the (step)mother’s competence (Di Battista et al. 2022): her competence, preparation, and capacity as a mother on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = absolutely disagree; 5 = absolutely agree; “On the base of my first impression, Anna is a competent mother”). Higher scores represented a better perception of the (step)mother’s competence. A total score was computed on the grounds of the mean (M = 2.61, SD = 1.02; α = 0.90, Skewness = 0.31, Kurtosis = −0.52).
Ontologization Traits. Participants also attributed two animal (dirty and free) and two human (selfish and rational) traits to the depicted (step)mother on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = very well). Animal and human traits were the same ad-hoc items of previous studies on ontologization of “non-traditional” parents and other minority groups (see in Di Battista et al. 2020b; Berti et al. 2013; Pivetti et al. 2018) (animal: M = 2.42, SD = 0.81; r = 0.31, p < 0.001; Skewness = 0.34, Kurtosis = 0.83; human: M = 2.82, SD = 0.82; r = 0.26, p < 0.001; Skewness = −0.02, Kurtosis = 0.37).
Gender Role Beliefs. Participants responded to the eight items of the Gender Linked subscale of the Social Roles Questionnaire (Baber and Tucker 2006) that measures participants’ traditional beliefs concerning gender roles (e.g., “Mothers should work only if necessary”). Items were rated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of traditional beliefs ingender roles. Items were subsequently summed together to create an index of traditional gender role beliefs (M = 17.89, SD = 7.61, α = 0.91, Skewness = 1.10, Kurtosis = 1.09).
Purity Moral Foundations. Finally, three items of the purity moral judgments subscale of the Moral Foundation Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham et al. 2009; see the scale at the moralfoundations.org spreadsheet—e.g., “People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed”) were administered. This scale measures the extent to which participants agreed with purity moral foundations using a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = not at all; to 5 = very much). Higher scores indicate a stronger endorsement of moral issues (M = 3.13, SD = 0.87; α = 0.64, Skewness = 0.11, Kurtosis = 0.10).
In the Supplementary Material File, additional qualitative measures and results were reported.

4.4. Data Analysis

An apriori power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al. 2007). It showed that, given an α value of 0.05, a power of 0.80 and a medium effect, a minimum sample size of 160 is requiredfor a between-groups comparison Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with 3 groups. Using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0, descriptive and correlation analyses as well as analyses for assumptions of normality were conducted. The values for asymmetry and kurtosis were acceptable in order to prove normal distribution (Kline 2015). A One-Way ANOVA with three levels (i.e., types of (step)mother: heterosexual biological mother vs. heterosexual stepmother vs. lesbian stepmother) was performed to explore differences concerning the (step)mothers’ competence perceptions. In order to investigate the way animal and human traits were ascribed to the (step)mothers targets, a 3 (i.e., types of (step)mother: heterosexual biological mother vs. heterosexual stepmother vs. lesbian stepmother) × 2 (i.e., ontologization traits: animal vs. human) mixed ANOVA, with the latter factors varying within subjects, was performed. Gender role beliefs and purity moral foundations were considered as covariates. However, no significant effects of covariates emerged. For this reason, they were removed from the ANOVA analyses. Then, moderated mediation analyses were conducted to test the effects of the manipulation on the evaluation of (step)mothers’ competence through the mediation of the ontologization traits, which would depend on the levels of traditional gender role beliefs. Serial multiple mediation models in which purity moral foundations predicted ontologization traits that, in turn, impacted on perceptions of mothers’ competence were also tested (SPSS PROCESS macro; Hayes 2013).

4.5. Results

4.5.1. Preliminary Analyses

Perceptions of mother’s competence and human and animal traits were negatively correlated (r = −0.21; p = 0.003; and r = −0.25; p < 0.001, respectively). More specifically, all adjectives indicating ontologization were negatively related to competence (free: r = −0.18; p = 0.01; dirty: r = −0.23; p = 0.002; rational: r = −0.17; p = 0.021; and selfish: r = −0.16; p = 0.023). However, both gender role beliefs and purity foundations were not correlated to competence (r = 0.13; p = 0.08; and r = 0.12; p = 0.11, respectively). Human traits were correlated to animal traits (r = 0.36; p < 0.001). Purity was positively correlated to gender role beliefs (r = 0.58; p < 0.001), negatively correlated to human traits (r = −0.17; p = 0.02), but not related to animal traits (r = −0.07; p = 0.38). Finally, gender role beliefs were not correlated with human and animal traits (r = −0.03; p = 0.64; and r = 0.05; p = 0.46, respectively).

4.5.2. Mothers’ Competence Perceptions

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on perceived competence showed a significant effect of the type of mother, F (2, 193) = 8.29, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.08. Levene’s test was performed to test homogeneity of variances and was not significant, F (2, 191) = 0.62, p = 0.54. Bonferroni’s post-hoc test showed that participants perceived the heterosexual biological mother as being more competent (M = 2.97, SD = 1.05) than both the heterosexual stepmother (M = 2.27, SD = 0.92, p < 0.001), and the lesbian stepmother (M = 2.59, SD = 0.97, p = 0.03). Moreover, perceptions of competence of the heterosexual stepmother and the lesbian stepmother did not differ (p = 0.06).

4.5.3. Ontologization

The 3 (types of (step)mother: heterosexual biological mother vs. heterosexual stepmother vs. lesbian stepmother) × 2 (ontologization traits: animal vs. human) mixed ANOVA, with the latter factors varying within subjects, was performed. The Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices was found significant, as Box’s M was 19.01, F (6, 900218.71) = 3.12, p = 0.01. Thus, the Levene’s test of equality of error variances was inspected, and it did not yield a significant result for animal traits (p = 0.47), but a significant result for human traits, F (2, 191) = 4.08, p = 0.02. Therefore, considering the results of Box’s test of equality of covariance matrices and Levene’s test of equality of error variances, we used Pillai’s Trace criteria. The ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of the ontologization traits, Pillai’s Trace = 0.17, F (1, 191) = 38.96, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.17, and a significant interaction effect between type of depicted mother and ontologization, Pillai’s Trace = 0.05, F (2, 191) = 5.02, p = 0.008, η2p = 0.05. As for the main effect, the human traits (M = 2.82, SD = 0.82) were generally more attributed to all targets than were the animal traits (M = 2.42, SD = 0.81), Pillai’s Trace = 0.17, F (1, 191) = 38.96, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.17.
Comparisons showed that the heterosexual biological mother was perceived as being more human (M = 2.71, SD = 0.98) than animal (M = 2.14, SD = 0.73), Pillai’s Trace = 0.12, F (1, 191) = 25.43, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.12. However, contrary to expectations, the depicted lesbian stepmother was also perceived as being more human (M = 2.92, SD = 0.80) than animal (M = 2.39, SD = 0.84), Pillai’s Trace = 0.11, F (1, 191) = 22.29, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.11. The depicted heterosexual stepmother was perceived as being equally human (M = 2.83, SD = 0.65) and animal (M = 2.71, SD = 0.75), Pillai’s Trace = 0.01, F (1, 191) = 1.07, p = 0.30. Furthermore, all the depicted mothers were perceived as being equally human, F (2, 191) = 0.98, p = 0.38, but the heterosexual stepmother was perceived as being more animal compared to both the heterosexual biological mother (p < 0.001), and the lesbian stepmother (p = 0.02), F (2, 191) = 8.77, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.09. The heterosexual biological mother and the lesbian stepmother were perceived as being equally animal.

4.5.4. Moderated Mediation Analysis

In the preliminary analyses, focal differences were only found in the attribution of animal traits (i.e., dirty and free). Therefore, a moderated mediation analysis tested the differences concerning attitudes toward (step)mothers’ competence through the mediation of the animal traits, which would depend on the levels of the traditional gender role beliefs. To test this model, the SPSS PROCESS macro for testing moderated mediation (model 7; Hayes 2013) was used. The categorical independent variable was the (step)mother target, the continuous dependent variable was the measure of mother’s competence, the mediator was the measure of ontologization, and the gender role beliefs was the moderator. The multi-categorical independent variable was coded with the indicator coding system. Thus, two relative indirect effects were tested. Results showed that the equations for both the effects on animal traits, R2 = 0.21, F (5, 188) = 10.23, p < 0.001, and competence, R2 = 0.11, F (3, 190) = 7.93, p < 0.001, were significant. Furthermore, the interaction between the independent variable and gender role beliefs significantly impacted on the animal traits attribution, ΔR2 = 0.12, F (2, 188) = 14.89, p < 0.001. The indexes of moderated mediation indicated conditional indirect effects that were defined by different levels of gender role beliefs (see Table 1). Results revealed that, at medium levels of gender role beliefs, the heterosexual biological mother was perceived as being less animal than the heterosexual stepmother. At high levels of gender role beliefs, the heterosexual biological mother was perceived as being less animal than both the heterosexual stepmother and the lesbian stepmother. However, indexes of moderated mediation were significant only when the heterosexual biological mother was compared with the heterosexual stepmother (X1). In this case, findings supported the prediction that participants endorsing moderate and high levels of traditional gender role beliefs perceived the heterosexual stepmother as being a less competent mother as compared with the heterosexual biological mother by attributing animal traits (i.e., dirtier and freer).
Furthermore, a serial multiple mediation model was also tested in which the categorical independent variable was the mother target, the dependent variable was perception of mothers’ competence, and the mediators were purity moral foundations (the first mediating variable) and animal traits (the second mediating variable), but this did not produce significant results.

5. Discussion

Whilst considerable scholarship has been dedicated to examining attitudes toward non-traditional parenting (e.g., Baiocco et al. 2020; Carone et al. 2022; Costa et al. 2019; Ioverno et al. 2018; Tušl et al. 2020), little attention has been paid to the ontologization process. In this study, ANOVA results showed that the depicted heterosexual stepmother was perceived as being equally human and animal, and more animal compared to both the heterosexual biological mother and the lesbian stepmother, in line with a process of attribution of animal traits (e.g., Di Battista et al. 2020b). A full ontologization process was not observed and the expected dehumanization of the lesbian stepmother target was not observed. These results are in line with previous studies showing that lesbian stepfamilies and same-sex parents did not receive a more negative evaluation than heterosexual parents (e.g., Claxton-Oldfield and O’Neil 2007; Kranz 2022). However, results also showed that perceptions of competence were higher for a depicted heterosexual biological mother than for the two types of stepmothers (heterosexual and lesbian stepmothers), confirming previous studies’ results (Di Battista et al. 2022). Furthermore, the results of a moderated mediation analysis showed that participants with high gender role beliefs did not directly judge stepmothers as being incompetent, but did so through the attribution of animal traits. In other words, stepmothers (particularly the depicted heterosexual stepmother) were judged as being less competent than the heterosexual biological mother through the attribution of animal traits—as opposed to depriving them of human traits. Partially in line with previous studies, participants could justify their negative attitudes toward out-group members by dehumanizing them (Clark et al. 2015; Harris and Fiske 2011). Negative stigma concerning heterosexual stepmothers is in line with previous research findings that stepmothers are commonly portrayed negatively as in the imagery of media and fairy tales. Negative depictions of the wicked or evil stepmothers can be traced back to Roman times and literature (see Noy 1991 for a review), and are present in the European folklore (Aarne and Thompson 1961; Coleman and Ganong 1987; Smith 1953), in universally popular fairy tales such as Hansel and Gretel, Snow White, and Cinderella (Claxton-Oldfield 2000; Kudszus 2005), as well as in media images and movies (Claxton-Oldfield and Butler 1998). In almost all of these cases and globally, stepmothers are depicted as mistreating their stepchildren and constantly represented as being the opposite of true maternity (Cartwright 2014; Downe 2001). Claxton-Oldfield (2000) found that whenever the term “stepmothers” is used, people instantly associate this term with negative words, such as “mean” and “wicked”. The scarcity of appropriate terminology to describe step-relations is a sign of the invisibility, stigma, and lack of institutional acknowledgement of stepparent relations (Cherlin 1978; Miller et al. 2018).
In this study, purity moral foundations were found to be related to traditional gender role beliefs, in line with the prediction that purity is associated with traditional expectations of the role of men and women in the family (Koleva et al. 2012). However, attributions of ontologization traits were not related to purity, and ontologization did not play a role in the relationship between purity and competence. Results also showed that perceptions of all traditional and non-traditional mothers’ competence were negatively related to the ontologization traits, both negative traits (i.e., selfish and dirty) and positive ones (i.e., rational and free). In other words, perceptions of a mother’s competence were negatively related to characteristics such as being free, selfish, dirty, and even rational. These results are actually not surprising when read in the perspective of the literature on intensive mothering (Hays 1996). According to the high standards of the intensive mothering mandate, a good mother should selflessly make a tremendous investment of energy, time, and resources in their children, reducing their paid work and free time (Verniers et al. 2022).
Both the pervasive negative representations involving stepmothers as well as the unrealistic positive perceptions of special properties attached to biological mothers (Hays 1996) may lead to negative consequences for women and mothers in different areas. For instance, negative attitudes toward stepmothers are related to their high level of stress, depression, and feelings of being a bad person (Doodson and Davies 2014; Henry and McCue 2009; Miller et al. 2018; Shapiro 2014; Shapiro and Stewart 2011). These attitudes can be very distressing also for lesbian stepmothers who experience similar stigmatization despite the substantial support they had provided for stepchildren (Lavoie and Saint-Jacques 2020; Lorah 2007). The essentialism of biological mothers, on the other hand, may negatively impact women’s capacity to find a way to reconcile conflicting identities as an ideal mother and a professional (Park et al. 2015). In general, gendered ideology of the parental roles correlated with several negative mental health outcomes for mothers and even for fathers (Rizzo et al. 2013; Verniers et al. 2022). Hays (1996) acknowledged that this gendered ideology is neither natural nor necessary but is a social construct that offers explanations for the persistence of gender inequality.
Working on collective beliefs and attitudes about the role that women and men play in the family and society, as well as overcoming a traditional and gender binary view of the distribution of tasks, responsibilities, and competencies could help to reduce women’s workload, change the perception that only women are the right caregivers for their children, and promote women’s choice to have children. In this view, research found that higher levels of paternal involvement with childcare are prevalent among those who disagreed with essentialist views of parenting (Gaunt 2006), and among gay fathers who are less vulnerable to traditional gender role beliefs (Carone and Lingiardi 2022).

Limitations and Future Directions

In this study, the convenience sample is of limited size, leading to low representativeness of the sample and low generalisability of the results. Future research into the ontologization process should also include other relevant targets in the vignette scenarios, such as lesbian biological mothers. While the present study has aimed to explore attitudes of heterosexual people, future studies will need to investigate attitudes and experiences of heterosexual and lesbian biological mothers and stepmothers, including measures of intensive mothering, perceptions of family functioning, and well-being (Di Battista et al. 2021, 2022; Salvati and Koc 2022). Following the assumptions of a system justification theory (Jost 2018; Jost and Banaji 1994), intensive mothering operates to persuade women that they want (or should want) to commit themselves in practices that are detrimental for mental health and family functioning (Verniers et al. 2022). It would be relevant to understand whether this negative impact is confirmed for different types of mothers, differing in sexual orientation and biological connectedness to their children. Furthermore, considering the incompatible demands between mothers’ work and family roles, organizational dehumanization of mothers could be considered for further studies (Arriagada-Venegas et al. 2022; Ariño-Mateo et al. 2022).

6. Conclusions

Researchers in social psychology science have explored underlying factors that lead people to explain group differences in terms of “essential” or ontological differences. This study has found that people may consider biological connectedness between mother and children a factor related to a mother’s competence. Results also found that participants attributed a different ontology to heterosexual stepmothers with a differentiated endorsement of animal traits that justified their negative attitudes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/socsci12010048/s1.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

No Institutional Review Board specific for Psychology research was available at the affiliation at the time of data collection. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset generated for this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aarne, Antti, and Stith Thompson. 1961. Types of the Folktale: A Classification and Bibliography. FF Communications, 184. Academia Scientiarum Fennica: ISBN 0833744895, 9780833744890. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arendell, Terry. 2000. Conceiving and investigating motherhood: The decade’s scholarship. Journal of Marriage and Family 62: 1192–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ariño-Mateo, Eva, Raúl Ramírez-Vielma, Matías Arriagada-Venegas, Gabriela Nazar-Carter, and David Pérez-Jorge. 2022. Validation of the Organizational Dehumanization Scale in Spanish-Speaking Contexts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 4805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Arriagada-Venegas, Matías, Eva Ariño-Mateo, Raúl Ramírez-Vielma, Gabriela Nazar-Carter, and David Pérez-Jorge. 2022. Authentic leadership and its relationship with job satisfaction: The mediator role of organizational dehumanization. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 18: 450–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Associazione Italiana di Psicologia—AIP. 2015. Code of Ethics of the Italian Psychological Association. Available online: http://www.aipass.org (accessed on 9 January 2023).
  6. Averett, Kate H. 2021. Queer parents, gendered embodiment and the de-essentialisation of motherhood. Feminist Theory 22: 284–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Baber, Kristine M., and Corinna Jenkins Tucker. 2006. The social roles questionnaire: A new approach to measuring attitudes toward gender. Sex Roles 54: 459–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baiocco, Roberto, Fausta Rosati, Jessica Pistella, Marco Salvati, Nicola Carone, Salvatore Ioverno, and Fiorenzo Laghi. 2020. Attitudes and beliefs of Italian educators and teachers regarding children raised by same-sex parents. Sexuality Research and Social Policy 17: 229–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bark-Yi, Popho E. S. 2007. Body that Bleeds: Menstrual Politics in Malaysia. Petaling Jaya: GB Gerakbudaya Enterprise Sdn. Bhd. [Google Scholar]
  10. Beech, Olivia Donati, Leah Kaufmann, and Joel Anderson. 2020. A systematic literature review exploring objectification and motherhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly 44: 521–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Berti, Chiara, Monica Pivetti, and Silvia Di Battista. 2013. The ontologization of Romani: An Italian study on the cross-categorization approach. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37: 405–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Budig, Michelle J., Joya Misra, and Irene Boeckmann. 2012. The motherhood penalty in cross-national perspective: The importance of work–family policies and cultural attitudes. Social Politics 19: 163–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Budig, Michelle J., Joya Misra, and Irene Boeckmann. 2016. Work–family policy trade-offs for mothers? Unpacking the cross-national variation in motherhood earnings penalties. Work and Occupations 43: 119–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cabrera, Natasha J., Brenda L. Volling, and Rachel Barr. 2018. Fathers are parents, too! Widening the lens on parenting for children’s development. Child Development Perspectives 12: 152–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carone, Nicola, and Vittorio Lingiardi. 2022. Untangling caregiving role from parent gender in coparenting research: Insights from gay two-father families. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 863050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carone, Nicola, Nanette K. Gartrell, Esther D. Rothblum, Audrey S. Koh, and Henny M. W. Bos. 2022. Helicopter parenting, emotional avoidant coping, mental health, and homophobic stigmatization among emerging adult offspring of lesbian parents. Journal of Family Psychology 36: 1205–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cartwright, Patricia. 2014. Step-parenting. In Families, Policy and the Law: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues for Australia. Edited by Alen Hayes and Daryl Higgins. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, pp. 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cherlin, Andrew. 1978. Remarriage as an incomplete institution. The American Journal of Sociology 84: 634–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Clark, Cory J., Ericv E. Chen, and Peter H. Ditto. 2015. Moral coherence processes: Constructing culpability and consequences. Current Opinion in Psychology 6: 123–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Claxton-Oldfield, Stephen. 1992. Perceptions of stepfathers: Disciplinary and affectionate behavior. Journal of Family Issues 13: 378–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Claxton-Oldfield, Stephen. 2000. Deconstructing the myth of the wicked stepparent. Marriage & Family Review 30: 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Claxton-Oldfield, Stephen, and Bonnie Butler. 1998. Portrayal of stepparents in movie plot summaries. Psychological Reports 82: 879–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Claxton-Oldfield, Stephen, and Sara O’Neil. 2007. Perceptions of gay and lesbian stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 46: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Coleman, Marilyn, and Lawrence H. Ganong. 1987. The cultural stereotyping of stepfamilies. In Remarriage and Stepparenting: Current Research and Theory. Edited by Kay Pasley and Marilyn Ihinger-Tallman. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 19–41. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-98644-002 (accessed on 9 January 2023).
  25. Costa, Pedro A., Henrique Pereira, and Isabel Leal. 2019. Through the lens of sexual stigma: Attitudes toward lesbian and gay parenting. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 15: 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Crittenden, Ann. 2001. The Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job the World Is Still the Least Valued. New York: Henry Holt and Company. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cukrowska-Torzewska, Eva, and Anna Matysiak. 2020. The motherhood wage penalty: A meta-analysis. Social Science Research 88: 102416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Di Battista, Silvia Daniele Paolini, and Monica Pivetti. 2020a. Attitudes toward same-sex parents: Examining the antecedents of parenting ability evaluation. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 17: 273–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Di Battista, Silvia, Monica Pivetti, Daniele Paolini, and Matteo Poliandri. 2020b. Dehumanization of same-sex parents in Italy: An exploratory study. PsicologiaSociale 15: 81–104. [Google Scholar]
  30. Di Battista, Silvia, Daniele Paolini, Monica Pivetti, Paola Biondi, Michela Balsamo, Leonardo Carlucci, Ileana Aiese Cigliano, and Silvia Mazzoni. 2021. Emotional abuse among Lesbian Italian women: Relationship consequences, help-seeking and disclosure behaviors. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health 25: 175–207. [Google Scholar]
  31. Di Battista, Silvia, Marco Salvati, Irem Ertan, and Monica Pivetti. 2022. Attitudes toward “Non-Traditional” Mothers: Examining the Antecedents of Mothers’ Competence Perceptions. Social Sciences 11: 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. DiLapi, Elena Marie. 1989. Lesbian mothers and the motherhood hierarchy. Journal of Homosexuality 18: 101–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Doodson, Lisa J., and Alastair P. Davies. 2014. Different challenges, different well-being: A comparison of psychological well-being across stepmothers and biological mothers and across four categories of stepmothers. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 55: 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Downe, P. J. 2001. Stepping on maternal ground: Reflections on becoming an “other-mother”. Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering 3: 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  35. Faul, Franz, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-George Lang, and Axel Buchner. 2007. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39: 175–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ganong, Lawrence H., and Marilyn Coleman. 1995. The content of mother stereotypes. Sex Roles 32: 495–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gaunt, Ruth. 2006. Biological essentialism, gender ideologies, and role attitudes: What determines parents’ involvement in child care. Sex Roles 55: 523–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Goldenberg, Jamie L., Chaty R. Cox, Joanna Arndt, and Jamie Goplen. 2007. “Viewing” pregnancy as existential threat: The effects of creatureliness on reactions to media depictions of the pregnant body. Media Psychology 10: 211–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Graham, Jesse, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96: 1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Haidt, Jesse, and Jonathan Graham. 2007. When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research 20: 98–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Harris, Lasana T., and Susan T. Fiske. 2011. Dehumanized perception: A psychological means to facilitate atrocities, torture, and genocide? Zeitschrift für Psychologie 219: 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Haslam, Nick. 2006. Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10: 252–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hayes, Andrew F. 2013. Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. In Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: Guilford Publications, p. 120. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hays, Sharon. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Henry, Pamela J., and James McCue. 2009. The experience of non-residential stepmothers. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 50: 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huen, Yuki W. P. 2007. Policy response to declining birth rate in Japan: Formation of a “gender-equal” society. East Asia 24: 365–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ioverno, Salvatore, Nicola Carone, Vittorio Lingiardi, Nicola Nardelli, Paolo Pagone, Jessica Pistella, Marco Salvati, Alessandra Simonelli, and Roberto Baiocco. 2018. Assessing prejudice toward two-father parenting and two-mother parenting: The Beliefs on Same-Sex Parenting Scale. Journal of Sex Research 55: 654–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Johnston, Deirdre D., and Debra H. Swanson. 2003. Invisible mothers: A content analysis of motherhood ideologies and myths in magazines. Sex Roles 49: 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jost, John T. 2018. A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology 58: 263–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jost, John T., and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1994. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology 33: 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kalmijn, Matthijs. 2021. Attitudes toward stepfamily relationships and biological relatedness: The role of family experiences in youth. Family Relations 70: 741–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kline, Rex B. 2015. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling. New York: Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  53. Koleva, Spassena P., Jesse Graham, Ravi Iyer, Peter H. Ditto, and Jonathan Haidt. 2012. Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality 46: 184–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kranz, Dirk. 2022. On the attribution of parental competence: Parents’ behavior matters, not their sexual orientation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kudszus, Winfried G. 2005. Terrors of Childhood in Grimms’ Fairy Tale. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lavoie, Kévin, and Marie-Christine Saint-Jacques. 2020. Lovers for a time, mothers for life: Ecosystemic analysis of blended family experiences of lesbian mothers and stepmothers. Child & Family Social Work 25: 946–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lorah, Peggy. 2007. Lesbian stepmothers: Navigating visibility. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling 1: 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Loughnan, Steve, Nick Haslam, and d Yoshihisa Kashima. 2009. Understanding the relationship between attribute-based and metaphor-based dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 12: 747–62. [Google Scholar]
  59. MacKay, Kathryn L. 2021. Mothers: The invisible instruments of health promotion. Hypatia 36: 60–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Marcu, Afrodita, and Xenia Chryssochoou. 2005. Exclusion of ethnic groups from the realm of humanity: Prejudice against the Gypsies in Britain and in Romania. Psicología Política 30: 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  61. Miller, Anna, Claire Cartwright, and Kerry Gibson. 2018. Stepmothers’ perceptions and experiences of the wicked stepmother stereotype. Journal of Family Issues 39: 1984–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Monroe, Andrew E., and E. Ashby Plant. 2018. The Dark Side of Morality: Prioritizing Sanctity Over Care Motivates Denial of Mind and Prejudice Toward Sexual Out-Groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 148: 342–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Morris, Kasey Lynn, Jamie L. Goldenberg, and Nathan A. Heflick. 2014. Trio of terror (pregnancy, menstruation, and breastfeeding): An existential function of literal self-objectification among women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 107: 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. New York Times. 2016. Italy’s ‘Fertility Day’ Call to Make Babies Arouses Anger, Not Ardor. New York Times. September 26. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/europe/italy-births-fertility-europe.html (accessed on 1 August 2022).
  65. Noy, David. 1991. Wicked stepmothers in Roman society and imagination. Journal of Family History 16: 345–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Park, Bernadette, Sarah Banchefsky, and Elizabeth B. Reynolds. 2015. Psychological essentialism, gender, and parenthood: Physical transformation leads to heightened essentialist conceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 109: 949–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pérez, Juan A., Berta Chulvi, and Rosario Alonso. 2001. When a majority fails to convert a minority: The case of gypsies. In Social influence in Social Reality: Promoting Individual and Social Change. Edited by F. Butera and G. Mugny. Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, pp. 143–64. [Google Scholar]
  68. Pérez, Juan A., Serge Moscovici, and Berta Chulvi. 2002. Natura y culturacomo principio de clasificación social. Anclaje de representaciones sociales sobre minoríasétnicas. RevistaPsicologia Social 17: 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pérez, Juan A., Serge Moscovici, and Berta Chulvi. 2007. The taboo against group contact: Hypothesis of Gypsy ontologization. British Journal of Social Psychology 46: 249–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pivetti, Monica, Silvia Di Battista, Milena Pesole, Antonella Di Lallo, Benedetta Ferrone, and Chiara Berti. 2018. Animal, human and robot attribution: Ontologization of Roma, Romanian and Chinese groups in an Italian sample. The Open Psychology Journal 11: 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pugh, Sarah. 2019. Politics, power, and sexual and reproductive health and rights: Impacts and opportunities. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27: 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Rizzo, Kathryn M., Holly H. Schiffrin, and Miriam Liss. 2013. Insight into the parenthood paradox: Mental health outcomes of intensive mothering. Journal of Child and Family Studies 22: 614–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Roncarati, Alessandra, Juan A. Pérez, Marcella Ravenna, and Esperanza Navarro Pertusa. 2009. Mixing against culture vs. mixing against nature: Ontologization of prohibited interethnic relationships. International Journal of Psychology 44: 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Rudman, Laurie A., and Kris Mescher. 2012. Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38: 734–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Ryan, Maura. 2009. Beyond Thomas Beatie: Trans Men and the New Parenthood. In Who’s Your Daddy? And Other Writings on Queer Parenting. Edited by Rachel Epstein. Toronto: Sumach Press, pp. 139–50. [Google Scholar]
  76. Salvati, Marco, and Yasin Koc. 2022. Advancing research into the social psychology of sexual orientations and gender identities: Current research and future directions. European Journal of Social Psychology 52: 225–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Shapiro, Danielle. 2014. Stepparents and parenting stress: The roles of gender, marital quality, and views about gender roles. Family Process 53: 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Shapiro, Danielle N., and Abigail J. Stewart. 2011. Parenting stress, perceived child regard, and depressive symptoms among stepmothers and biological mothers. Family Relations 60: 533–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Smith, William C. 1953. The Stepchild. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tušl, Martin, Jorge Gato, Fiona Tasker, and Victor Figueroa. 2020. Czech psychology students’ attitudes towards same-sex parenting. Psychology & Sexuality 11: 243–53. [Google Scholar]
  81. Vaes, Jereon, Jacques-Philippe Leyens, Maria Paola Paladino, and Marian P. Miranda. 2011. We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. European Review of Social Psychology 23: 64–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Valiquette-Tessier, Sophie-Claire, Julie Gosselin, Marta Young, and Kristel Thomassin. 2019. A literature review of cultural stereotypes associated with motherhood and fatherhood. Marriage & Family Review 55: 299–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Valiquette-Tessier, Sophie-Claire, Marie-Pier Vandette, and Julie Gosselin. 2016. Is family structure a cue for stereotyping? A systematic review of stereotypes and parenthood. Journal of Family Studies 22: 162–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Van der Klein, Marian, Rebecca J. Plant, Nichole Sanders, and Lori R. Weintrob, eds. 2012. Maternalism Reconsidered: Motherhood, Welfare and Social Policy in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Berghahn Books, vol. 20. [Google Scholar]
  85. Verniers, Catherine, Virginie Bonnot, and Yvette Assilaméhou-Kunz. 2022. Intensive mothering and the perpetuation of gender inequality: Evidence from a mixed methods research. Acta Psychologica 227: 103614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Volpato, Chiara. 2011. Deumanizzazione. Come si legittima la violenza. Roma and Bari: Laterza. ISBN 9788858116159. [Google Scholar]
  87. Weaver, Shannon E., and Marilyn Coleman. 2005. A mothering but not a mother role: A grounded theory study of the non-residential stepmother role. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22: 477–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yasmine, Rola, and Batoul Sukkar. 2019. Restrained motherhood: The Lebanese state in times of changing demographics and moral values. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 27: 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Moderated-Mediation Estimates.
Table 1. Moderated-Mediation Estimates.
95% CI
EstimateSEtpLLCIULCI
Direct Effect
Competence as DV
Constant3.470.2315.190.003.02313.9253
X1−0.57 0.18−3.210.02−0.9257−0.2205
X2−0.320.17−1.880.06−0.66320.0153
Animal Traits−0.230.09−2.590.01−0.4117−0.0556
Animal Traits as DV
Constant2.950.2412.260.002.47753.4273
X1−0.980.33−2.970.01−1.6275−0.3271
X2−1.050.34−3.110.01−1.7140 −0.3824
Gender Role Beliefs−0.040.01−3.730.00−0.0644−0.0191
X1 * Gender Role Beliefs0.080.025.110.000.05090.1150
X2 * Gender Role Beliefs0.070.024.060.000.03690.1064
EffectBoot SEBoot LLCIBoot ULCI
Conditional Indirect Effect for Gender Role Beliefs
Low Level (X1)0.030.04−0.05150.1326
Low Level (X2)0.070.06−0.01920.2241
Medium Level (X1)−0.120.06−0.2438−0.0092
Medium Level (X2)−0.050.04−0.16140.0139
High Level (X1)−0.260.13−0.5116−0.0203
High Level (X2)−0.190.12−0.43410.0038
Indexes of Moderated Mediation
Gender Role Beliefs X1−0.020.09−0.0387−0.0014
Gender Role Beliefs X2−0.020.02−0.0390.0003
Note. X1 = the heterosexual biological mother vs. the heterosexual stepmother; X2 = the heterosexual biological mother vs. the lesbian stepmother. Moderator values are at the −1SD, Mean, and +1SD. DV = dependent variable. SE = standard error. Boot 5000 bootstrap samples. CI = confidence interval; LLCI = bias-corrected lower limit confidence interval. ULCI = bias-corrected upper limit confidence interval with 5000 bootstrap bias-corrected.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Di Battista, S. Gender Role Beliefs and Ontologization of Mothers: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010048

AMA Style

Di Battista S. Gender Role Beliefs and Ontologization of Mothers: A Moderated Mediation Analysis. Social Sciences. 2023; 12(1):48. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Di Battista, Silvia. 2023. "Gender Role Beliefs and Ontologization of Mothers: A Moderated Mediation Analysis" Social Sciences 12, no. 1: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010048

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop