Obstacles to Birth Surname Retention Upon Marriage: How Do Hostile Sexism and System Justification Predict Support for Marital Surname Change Among Women?

Chayinska, Maria; Uluğ, Özden Melis; Solak, Nevin; Kanık, Betül; Çuvaş, Burcu

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702553

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Psychol., 04 October 2021

Sec. Personality and Social Psychology

Volume 12 - 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.702553

This article is part of the Research Topic Exploring System Justification Phenomenon Among Disadvantaged Individuals View all 10 articles

Obstacles to Birth Surname Retention Upon Marriage: How Do Hostile Sexism and System Justification Predict Support for Marital Surname Change Among Women?

Maria Chayinska¹^*

Özden Melis Uluğ^2,3

Nevin Solak⁴

Betül Kanık⁵

Burcu Çuvaş⁴

¹School of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile
²School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom
³Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, United States
⁴Department of Psychology, TED University, Ankara, Turkey
⁵Department of Psychology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey

Despite the ongoing shift in societal norms and gender-discriminatory practices toward more equality, many heterosexual women worldwide, including in many Western societies, choose to replace their birth surname with the family name of their spouse upon marriage. Previous research has demonstrated that the adherence to sexist ideologies (i.e., a system of discriminatory gender-based beliefs) among women is associated with their greater endorsement of practices and policies that maintain gender inequality. By integrating the ideas from the system justification theory and the ambivalent sexism theory, we proposed that the more women adhere to hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs, the more likely they would be to justify existing gender relations in society, which in turn, would positively predict their support for traditional, husband-centered marital surname change. We further argued that hostile (as compared to benevolent) sexism could act as a particularly strong direct predictor of the support for marital surname change among women. We tested these possibilities across three cross-sectional studies conducted among women in Turkey (Study 1, N=118, self-identified feminist women; Study 2, N=131, female students) and the United States (Study 3, N=140, female students). Results of Studies 1 and 3 revealed that higher adherence to hostile (but not benevolent) sexism was associated with higher support for marital surname change indirectly through higher gender-based system justification. In Study 2, the hypothesized full mediation was not observed. Consistent with our predictions, in all three studies, hostile (but not benevolent) sexism was found to be a direct positive predictor of the support for marital surname change among women. We discuss the role of dominant ideologies surrounding marriage and inegalitarian naming conventions in different cultures as obstacles to women’s birth surname retention upon marriage.

Introduction

“It is a very odd and radical idea indeed that.

a woman would nominally disappear.

just because she got married.”

Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning U.S. columnist,

The Name of the Game, Boston Globe 30 (September 24, 1974).

Social scientists have documented substantial progress toward gender egalitarianism in the last half-century, sometimes referred to as a “gender revolution” (e.g., England et al., 2020). It can be noticed in a radical shift in the public support for practices and legal standards aimed to promote and secure greater equality of rights and opportunities between men and women (e.g., Scarborough et al., 2019; England et al., 2020). Despite the ongoing progress toward gender egalitarianism, one form of a gendered practice – women’s adoption of their husband’s surname upon marriage – remains resistant to change in many cultures and countries.¹ In fact, according to the nationally representative opinion poll conducted in the United States a few years ago (e.g., Bame, 2017), 57% of United States adults thought that it is ideal for a woman to take their husband’s surname. Although, cultural surname practices vary worldwide, this kind of marriage-related gendered naming practice may arguably seem somewhat obsolete in the 21st century. Noteworthy, the legal doctrine law of coverture, which implied that a wife’s legal identity was subsumed under that of her husband upon marriage, was abolished almost 2 centuries ago (e.g., Kopelman et al., 2009; MacEacheron, 2016).

Prevailing support for marital surname change among heterosexual couples presents an important social issue as it manifests that there remains a social facet of status inequality in marriage, wherein (traditionally) women are expected to change their legal identity in a way men are not. Surprisingly, research that has provided insight into the social-psychological processes that underlie inegalitarian naming conventions is rare (for an exception, see, e.g., Pilcher, 2017; Stoiko and Strough, 2017). Previous research on marital surname change has approached this phenomenon from an individual perspective, which focused mainly on the role of women’s personal motives in their marital surname choice (e.g., Scheuble et al., 2012; MacEacheron, 2016; Stoiko and Strough, 2017; Taniguchi and Kaufman, 2020). While, we acknowledge the importance of understanding individual-level motives regarding naming choices, in the current paper, we argue that decisions made by individuals in relation to their surnames upon marriage can be embedded in and become a consequence of a broader social system as well.

Central to our idea is the view that male-oriented naming practices are part of a broader constellation of dominant ideologies about gender and marriage, and these ideologies are often taken for granted (Emens, 2007; Scheuble et al., 2012). Therefore, prevailing support for marital surname change can be considered a group- and system-based phenomenon, in which marital naming convictions are produced and reinforced congruent with advantaged group’s interests (i.e., men). In the present article, we raised the important question of whether the adherence to sexist ideologies (i.e., a system of discriminatory gender-based beliefs) among women would be associated with their endorsement of marital surname change and whether this link would be mediated by gender-based system justification. We tackled this question by drawing on the Ambivalent Sexism Theory (Glick and Fiske, 1996) and the System Justification Theory (Jost and Kay, 2005). These theories provide explanations about how sexist ideology is used to rationalize current social and political arrangements as fair and legitimate, especially among historically disadvantaged social groups. In particular, we aim to investigate the extent to which women’s adherence to hostile sexism, the ideology that resentfully preserves male-dominated gender relations, compared to benevolent sexism (i.e., a set of favorable group ascriptions that justify the current gender status quo), predicts women’s support for marital surname change directly and indirectly through gender-based system justification. We test these possibilities among self-identified women in WEIRD (i.e., Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic; see Henrich et al., 2010) and non-WEIRD² contexts: Turkey and the United States A scholarly understanding of the processes underlying women’s support for traditional (husband-centered) naming practices can help make significant progress toward understanding the obstacles of achieving gender equality.

Ambivalent Sexism and Support for Marital Surname Change

The proponents of the Ambivalent Sexism Theory (Glick and Fiske, 1996, 2001) have argued that sexism is reflecting a profound ambivalence rather than a constant antipathy toward women (or men). The essence of sexism generally lies in an uncritical acceptance of male supremacy and female subordination. According to this theory, sexist beliefs may be organized along two different yet complementary dimensions. The first dimension reflects hostile sexism, which involves strong feelings of antipathy or animosity toward the opposite gender (Glick et al., 2004; Sibley et al., 2007; Laurin et al., 2011). Individuals adhering to such aggressive sexist beliefs tend to perceive individuals from the other gender as competing over power and dominance. The second dimension, benevolent sexism, comprises subjectively positive yet patronizing beliefs about women in their respective restricted roles. Individuals adhering to benevolent sexist beliefs typically depict women as fragile and vulnerable creatures deserving men’s protection and guidance (Glick et al., 2001). Benevolent sexism, thus, entails an affective expression of male dominance.

Both forms of ambivalent sexism have been considered as a system-justifying ideology, that is, the ideology that justifies, naturalizes, and perpetuates gender inequality in society (Jost and Kay, 2005; see also Sibley et al., 2007). Previous research has suggested that widely and persistently held sexist beliefs propel women to justify the dominant patriarchal ideology surrounding the marriage (e.g., Chen et al., 2009; Day et al., 2011), endorse social norms that are likely to reinforce and perpetuate male privilege in society (e.g., Glick et al., 2004; Sibley et al., 2007; Laurin et al., 2011), and support the policies aimed to restrict women’s autonomy (e.g., Petterson and Sutton, 2018; Salmen and Dhont, 2020).

While the association between ambivalent sexism and support for male-centerd marital surname change has not been systematically examined quantitatively, a few studies conducted with female college students in the context of the United States have shown that their plans to adopt their husbands’ surname upon marriage were associated with their higher conformity to patriarchal norms (e.g., Scheuble et al., 2012; Stoiko and Strough, 2017). A qualitative study conducted with professional feminist middle-class heterosexual women in the United Kingdom has suggested that they viewed the practice of marital surnaming as built into the dominant ideologies of institutionalized sexism (e.g., Mills, 2003). Research on marital surname change has also examined women’s rationales for their decision not to retain their maiden name upon marriage (e.g., Scheuble et al., 2012; MacEacheron, 2016), drawing comparisons between the choices of feminist and non-feminist women (e.g., Stoiko and Strough, 2017) as well as approaching the complex surname choices made by same-sex couples (e.g., Underwood and Robnett, 2019).

However, the claim, we wish to make here is that women’s personal choices in relation to marital surname change rarely happen in a vacuum. When a disproportionate number of women worldwide manifest the willingness to undergo a major and visible change in their legal identity by adopting their husbands’ surname upon marriage, it can reasonably be considered a group phenomenon worth scrutiny from a social-psychological perspective. Some studies have documented that sexist ideology exerts a great influence on the endorsement of patriarchal norms in a marriage that promote and protect male dominance in a heterosexual family (e.g., Chen et al., 2009; Stoiko and Strough, 2017). A handful of experimental research has shown that both benevolent sexism and hostile sexism predict individuals’ support for traditional gender roles, thus often showing their complementary role in promoting gender inequalities (e.g., Barreto and Ellemers, 2005; Barreto et al., 2010; Brownhalls et al., 2021). Nevertheless, there are reasonable grounds to suggest that higher hostile sexism may exert a particularly strong influence on women’s support for inegalitarian naming practices compared to higher benevolent sexism. This is because women’s resistance to or the lack of endorsement of this convention at the societal level may be perceived by others as a counter-stereotypical, agentic, and even system-challenging behavior that threatens the entrenched traditional gender roles (e.g., Kahn et al., 2021). As previous research has revealed, hostile (as compared to benevolent) sexism is the ideology that motivates individuals to engage in a number of different strategies aimed to preserve the stability and reaffirm the legitimacy of the gender status quo in different life domains (e.g., Connor and Fiske, 2019). So while benevolent sexism robustly predicts positive attitudes toward women who sustain traditional gender roles in the institution of marriage (e.g., Chen et al., 2009; Szastok et al., 2019), hostile sexism as the ideology reinforces idealized notions of traditional (male-dominated) gendered division and penalizes those who challenge it through agentic behavior (e.g., Connor and Fiske, 2019). Based on the previous research, we, therefore, argue that hostile sexism can directly predict women’s support for the traditional (husband-centered) naming practice to a greater extent than benevolent sexism.

Ambivalent Sexism, System Justification, and Support for Marital Surname Change

Endorsement of patriarchal practices such as husband-centered marital surname change can also be affected by the extent to which women justify the existing arrangements. The current study sought to address the link between ambivalent sexism and support for marital surname change through the mediating role of gender-based system justification. System justification theory (Jost and Kay, 2005; see also Jost, 2020) offers a cognitive-motivational analysis of why and how individuals justify a social, political, and economic status quo. According to system justification theory, not only advantaged groups but also disadvantaged groups perpetuate the existing social arrangements (Jost et al., 2003; but see Owuamalam et al., 2018 for a critique of this idea). This happens because the status quo serves the disadvantage to satisfy their epistemic (e.g., to reduce uncertainty), existential (e.g., to reduce distress and threat), and relational (e.g., to connect with mainstream society) needs. In doing so, people can satisfy their inner psychological needs for stability, predictability, and control, thus avoiding the rocky path of challenging the existing societal arrangements (e.g., Hennes et al., 2012; Jost, 2020).

Both forms of ambivalent sexism – hostile and benevolent sexism – have been associated with higher levels of system justification (e.g., Glick and Fiske, 2001; Jost and Kay, 2005; Sibley et al., 2007; Brandt, 2011). In particular, studies have found that hostile sexism, a rawer form of gender-related ideology, was transversally and causally related to gender-based system justification among members of the disadvantaged group (e.g., women; see Sibley et al., 2007; Laurin et al., 2011) and predicted individuals’ support for policies aimed to restrict women’s autonomy and legitimize men’s dominance in decision-making processes (e.g., Petterson and Sutton, 2018; Salmen and Dhont, 2020). Likewise, benevolent sexism plays a complementary role in predicting individuals’ support for restrictive policies and traditional gender roles (e.g., Chen et al., 2009; Barreto et al., 2010; Kahn et al., 2021; see also Glick and Fiske, 2001). However, while hostile sexism penalizes women for gender role deviance, benevolent sexism is more likely to have a pacifying effect on women decreasing their motivation to demand social change (e.g., Becker and Wright, 2011).

In gender settings, previous research conducted with women as members of the historically-disadvantaged group has revealed that women are more likely than men to rationalize the persistent gender gap in high-status jobs and earnings (e.g., O’Brien et al., 2012). The observed pattern of behaviors is arguably consistent with the idea that women’s adherence to sexist ideologies is also reflected in their tendency to justify the current gender division, which, in turn, produces their support for policies and practices aimed to preserve the entrenched male-dominated status quo. Extending this line of research, we argue that both hostile and benevolent sexism can be associated with greater gender-based system justification and thus act as the indirect predictors of women’s support for the marital surname change.

The Current Research

Marital surname change represents a particularly fertile issue in which to explore whether the adherence to sexist ideologies among women predicts their support for the gendered practice that implies the replacement of women’s previous surname with the family name of their spouse upon marriage. Consistent with our theoretical backdrop, we hypothesize that women’s adherence to both forms of sexist beliefs will predict their higher tendency to justify existing gender relations in society, which in turn, will positively predict their support for marital surname change. We further argue that hostile (as compared to benevolent) sexism can act as a particularly strong direct predictor of the support for the traditional (husband-centered) naming practice among heterosexual women thus manifesting its predictive power above and beyond benevolent sexism. We examined these direct and indirect associations across three correlational studies, controlling for women’s political orientation because previous research has linked right-leaning political ideology to the endorsement of hostile sexism (e.g., Sibley et al., 2007). The hypothesized theoretical model is depicted in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. A theoretical model depicting the indirect and direct relationship between hostile and benevolent sexism on support for marital surname change through gender-based system justification.

We test the applicability of our theoretical model among women in Turkey and the United States The two countries represent so-called Western (the United States) and non-Western (Turkey) societies that differ substantially in the objective scores of gender inequalities and sexism such that these scores are higher in developing countries as compared to more established democracies (Gender Equality Index, 2020). Despite these objective differences, we argue that marital surname change – as an entrenched and prevailing feature of heterosexual marriage in many cultures worldwide – holds promise as one avenue into capturing the impact of social-psychological mechanisms pertaining to the support for male dominance and the patriarchal family system among women as members of a historically disadvantaged group. This is because the predictions along with the system justification theory and the ambivalent sexism theory were shown to be sustained in a number of cross-national studies, thus revealing their potential applicability in both individualist and collectivist cultures (e.g., Glick et al., 2001, 2004; Brandt, 2011). Therefore, we expect to find similar findings across the two contexts: Turkey and the United States

Finally, in the present research, we test the applicability of our model among two subpopulations of women: self-identified feminist women in Turkey (Study 1) and female university students in Turkey and the United States (Studies 2 and 3, respectively). In Study 1, we chose to focus on self-identified feminist women because previous research has found that even women who generally endorse egalitarian values tend to endorse surname change upon marriage (e.g., Mills, 2003; Stoiko and Strough, 2017). In Studies 2 and 3, we chose to focus on the female student subpopulations because young women in emerging adulthood (18–25years of age) are likely to be particularly impressionable to the processes of gender socialization by which they are taught how to behave in accordance with their assigned gender (Nielson et al., 2020). Besides, some earlier research, conducted a decade ago, has reported that support for marital surname change was also observed among highly-educated heterosexual women and female college students in Western cultures such as the United States (e.g., Scheuble et al., 2012). So, if there is a general trend for women to support marital surname change upon marriage, it has to be tested within diverse female subpopulations. Therefore, we investigate whether there are significant associations between women’s adherence to hostile sexist beliefs and higher support for marital surname change through gender-based system justification, with a particular focus on the subpopulations of feminists and female students, who might be seen as the frontrunners of social change in society.

Study 1: Feminist Women in Turkey

In Turkey, the gendered practice of changing a woman’s surname upon marriage has been one of the most debated legal issues with respect to achieving more gender egalitarianism (e.g., Inal, 2020; Kartal, 2020). According to Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code of 1926, a married woman is required to adopt her husband’s last name upon marriage. The article was amended in 1997 to allow women to keep their maiden surname before the surname of their husbands. This rule has not only been in conflict with the Turkish Constitution but also with the international agreements on gender equality (i.e., Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) to which Turkey became a party (e.g., Inal, 2020; Kartal, 2020). The only legal possibility for women in Turkey to retain their family surname upon marriage without adding that of their husband is to file a lawsuit to use this right (Inal, 2020; Kartal, 2020). The last years have indeed witnessed numerous high-profile cases of such lawsuits to the national and international courts (e.g., Uluğ, 2015).

In the recent decade, there have been both progress and significant backlash in the centuries-old struggle of feminist women in Turkey for gender equality. Many women’s hard-won rights have become a target of conservative religious groups and right-wing populist parties in this country (Kabasakal-Arat, 2020). Simultaneously, patriarchal attitudes have gained increased influence in Turkey as a result of the Islamic resurgence over the last generation (Engin and Pals, 2018; Kavas and Thornton, 2019). As of 2020, the Global Gender Gap Index has ranked Turkey as having the 130th largest gender gap of 153 countries (World Economic Forum, 2020). It is within this context Study 1 was conducted.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected between May 24 and June 27, 2017. We distributed the link to the survey on various Facebook groups of female associations in Turkey concerned with women’s rights and gender equality in this Middle-Eastern country. The common requirements for participants in this study included identifying as a female, being 18years or older, and categorizing themselves as feminists. We reached the participants through snowball convenience sampling. The study was advertised as a research project seeking to understand attitudes toward various social issues among feminist women in Turkey. Written informed consent to participate in this online study was provided by all participants. Respondents were informed that there was no monetary compensation for their participation. Two hundred seventy-six volunteers entered the survey, 157 withdrew from participation without completing the survey. One hundred eighteen participants self-identified as women whereas one was a man. A male participant was excluded from the study as this person did not match the advertised inclusion criteria (i.e., being a female). The final sample consisted of 118 self-identified feminist women from Turkey. Participants’ age ranged from 21 to 65 (M=33.02; SD=9.53). Participants were highly educated (47.9% indicated they completed a Bachelor’s degree, and 32.5 earned an MSc degree). When asked regarding their marital status, 41.5% indicated they were single without a prior experience of marriage, 50% reported they were single and divorced, and 8.5% were married. We received IRB approval for this research from the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Sensitivity analysis conducted using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) indicated that the final sample size (N=118) was sufficient for detecting a small effect in a regression analysis (multiple regression: R² deviant from zero; power=0.80; α=0.05; Cohen’s f²=0.10).

Measures

Except for the socio-demographic variables mentioned above, all items were presented on seven-point response scales (1=completely disagree, 7=completely agree). The scales were presented in random order.³

Hostile and Benevolent Sexism

To measure both forms of sexism, we used the shortened scales adapted from the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory⁴ (ASI; Glick and Fiske, 1996; see Sakallı-Uğurlu, 2002 for the adaptation of ASI to Turkish). We assessed hostile sexism with six items with the following items: “Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash,” “Women seek to gain power by getting control over men,” “When women lose to men in a fair competition, they typically complain about being discriminated against,” “Women exaggerate problems they have at work,” “Many women are actually seeking special favours, such as hiring policies that favor them over men, under the guise of asking for ‘equality’” and “Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well-being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives”⁵ (Cronbach’s α=0.85). Benevolent sexism was assessed with two items adapted from the ASI. These items were: “Women, compared to men, tend to have a superior moral sensibility” and “Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of culture and good taste” (r=0.64, p<0.001). To evaluate the viability of the two-factor structure of the Ambivalent Sexism scale, we conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation. Results revealed that the six items measuring hostile sexism loaded on one component (46.67%) and the two items measuring benevolent sexism loaded on another factor (18.22%), which together explained 64.89% of the total variance (KMO=0.815; p<0.001).

Gender-Based System Justification

We assessed gender-specific system justification with three items⁶ adapted from Jost and Kay (2005) and adjusted to the marriage context. These items were: “In general, relations between men and women are fair,” “Generally speaking, women and men have equal rights in recruitment and promotion,” and “Generally speaking, the relationships between men and women in marriage are just and equal” (Cronbach’s α=0.84).

Support for Marital Surname Change

We created five items to measure support for marital surname change. These items were: “For a healthy marriage, a woman should not use her maiden name, but use only her husband’s last name,” “When women get married, one of the most important indicators of being a real family is women not using their maiden name but using only their husbands’ last names,” “A woman who loves and respects her partner should not use her own surname after marriage, but only her husbands’ surname after marriage,” “When women get married, a woman not using her maiden name indicates that she loves her husband” and “I think a woman who is not using her maiden name, but using only her husband’s last name is pure and honest.” Results of PCA revealed that these items loaded on one factor, which explained 67% of the variance (KMO=0.855, p<0.001). The scale showed adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.87).

Political Orientation

As ambivalent sexism was systematically shown to be correlated with right-wing ideology (Sibley et al., 2007; Petterson and Sutton, 2018) as well as support for power-related ideology in marriage (e.g., Chen et al., 2009), we used political orientation as a control variable. We asked participants to indicate their political orientation on a scale ranging from 1 (extreme left) to 9 (extreme right).

Results and Discussion

Preliminary Analysis

Means, SDs, and correlations between the variables are presented in Table 1. The mean scores of hostile sexism, gender-based system justification, and the support for marital surname change were rather low among feminist participants. The analysis of descriptive statistics revealed that participants scored relatively high on benevolent sexism. Pearson correlation analyses were computed to analyze bivariate associations between the study constructs. Participants’ adherence to hostile sexist beliefs was found to be positively correlated with greater gender-based system justification, right-leaning political orientation, greater support for marital surname change. Benevolent sexism beliefs were found to be significantly associated only with hostile sexism beliefs, while their association with all the other study variables was found to be non-significant. Last, greater endorsement of gender-based system justification was significantly associated with greater support for marital surname change.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Means, SDs, and correlations among key variables (Study 1).

Mediation Analyses

We conducted a mediation analysis using PROCESS v.3.0, Model 4 with 5,000 bootstrapped samples (Hayes, 2013) to test whether (1) there is a direct positive significant association between hostile (as compared to benevolent) sexism and support for marital surname change and (2) this association is mediated by gender-based system justification. The percentile bootstrap CI was recommended as least susceptible to the influence of outliers in small samples compared to other popularly used tests (e.g., Creedon and Hayes, 2015). We identified hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs as independent variables, gender-based system justification as the mediator, and support for marital surname change as the dependent variable. In this mediation model, hostile sexism was used as an independent variable, while benevolent sexism was used as a covariate variable. We also controlled for the effects of participants’ political orientation. Results indicated that adherence to hostile sexist beliefs, but not to benevolent sexist beliefs, was a significant predictor of gender-based system justification (see Figure 2). System justification was, in turn, found to positively significantly predict support for marital surname change. Participants’ adherence to hostile sexist beliefs predicted higher support for marital surname change after including gender-based system justification in the model. Results indicated a significant indirect association between adherence to hostile sexism beliefs and support for marital surname change, as mediated by system justification, b=0.387, SE=0.166, 95% CI [0.06, 0.70]. The total direct effect was significant and large in size (Cumming, 2014), b=0.546, SE=0.078, 95% CI [0.39, 0.70]. The direct effect of hostile sexism beliefs on support for marital surname change was significant, b=0.208, SE=0.077, p=0.008, 95% CI [0.05, 0.36], when controlled by BS and political orientation. We also conducted a post hoc power analysis for indirect effect using the power analysis calculator (see Schoemann et al., 2017). Results yielded sufficient power for the indirect effect of hostile sexism (1.00). The observed indirect effect was large in size (Cumming, 2014). Both direct and indirect effects remained significant after including political orientation in the model as a covariate. Political ideology was not significantly associated with system-justification (b=0.074, SE=0.056, p=0.193) and support for marital surname change (b=−0.007, SE=0.051, p=0.894).

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. The results of mediation analysis in Study 1. Standardized regression coefficients for the relationship between hostile and benevolent sexism (IVs) and support for marital surname change (DV) as mediated by gender-based system justification and controlled for political orientation, ^***p<0.001, ^*p<0.05. Non-significant paths are shown as broken arrows.

Our first study provided support for the idea that there is a positive association between hostile sexist beliefs and higher support for marital surname among self-identified feminist women in Turkey, mediated by their gender-based system justification. It further suggested that: (i) benevolent sexism did not predict support for marital surname either directly or indirectly through gender-based system justification; (ii) the positive relationship between hostile sexism and support for marital surname change remained significant even when controlling for political orientation. The fact that we observed the aforementioned association among feminist women in Turkey seemingly supports the idea that when existing masculine naming marital conventions are systematically taken by society for granted, they are likely to become endorsed even by feminists, that is, individuals who supposedly stand for more gender equality (Mills, 2003; Stoiko and Strough, 2017). Previous studies (e.g., Stoiko and Strough, 2017) have demonstrated that feminist women had more egalitarian attitudes toward marital naming choice compared to the subsamples of non-feminist women and men. Thus, our study might be the first study to show that there is a link between adherence to hostile sexist beliefs and endorsement of marital surname change mediated by gender-based system justification among women who consider themselves feminist. A better understanding of how different subpopulations of women, including both feminist and non-feminist women, interpret marital naming conventions and their social consequences for gender equality is imperative. In sum, the results of Study 1 were consistent with our prediction that hostile (but not benevolent) sexist beliefs would be particularly related to supporting marital surname change as a gendered practice that reinforces women’s subordination and perpetuates hierarchy in marriage.

Study 2: Female University Students in Turkey

Study 2 was designed to test our theoretical proposition with a sample of female university students in Turkey. The female student subpopulation has been chosen because, as outlined above, young women in emerging adulthood are likely to be particularly susceptible to established norms and thus tend to endorse societal notions of gender role beliefs that they have construed through the processes of gender socialization (e.g., Nielson et al., 2020).