SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Psikoloji Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 41 Sayı: 97

Vicdani Redde Yönelik Tutumların Yordanması: Erkek Rolleri ve İnsan Haklarına Yönelik Tutumların Aracı Rolü Üzerine Bir Çalışma

Merve Fidan0000-0001-8447-1413
Derya Hasta(ANKARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİL VE TARİH COĞRAFYA FAKÜLTESİ, PSİKOLOJİ BÖLÜMÜ)
Pages
68–95
Publication Date
2026-06-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Çalışmanın bulguları ilgili alanyazın çerçevesinde tartışılmıştır.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Ahlaki, dini ya da politik gerekçelerle zorunlu askerlik hizmetini yerine getirmeyi reddetmek olarak tanımlanan vicdani ret, dünyanın birçok ülkesinde geride bırakılmış bir konu olmasına rağmen, Türkiye’de son 30 yılda giderek artan bir tartışma konusu haline gelmiştir.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Vicdani ret beyanında bulunanların maruz kaldığı yasal ve cezai yaptırımlar bu toplumsal tartışmaları daha da şiddetlendirmektedir.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Çalışmanın bulguları ilgili alanyazın çerçevesinde tartışılmıştır.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Vicdani Ret · Sosyal Baskınlık Yönelimi · İnsan Hakları

Özet

Ahlaki, dini ya da politik gerekçelerle zorunlu askerlik hizmetini yerine getirmeyi reddetmek olarak tanımlanan vicdani ret, dünyanın birçok ülkesinde geride bırakılmış bir konu olmasına rağmen, Türkiye’de son 30 yılda giderek artan bir tartışma konusu haline gelmiştir. Vicdani ret beyanında bulunanların maruz kaldığı yasal ve cezai yaptırımlar bu toplumsal tartışmaları daha da şiddetlendirmektedir. Bu çalışmada, vicdani redde yönelik tutumlar, sosyal baskınlık yönelimi, erkek rol normlarının benimsenmesi ve insan haklarına yönelik tutumlar arasındaki ilişkiler incelenmiş; sosyal baskınlık yönelimi ile vicdani redde yönelik tutumlar arasındaki ilişkide insan haklarına yönelik tutumlar ile erkek rol normlarının benimsenmesinin aracı değişken rolleri sınanmıştır. Örneklem, lisans ve lisansüstü öğrencilerden oluşmuştur (N = 443). Sonuçlar, erkek rol normlarının benimsenme düzeyi ve insan haklarına yönelik tutumların, sosyal baskınlık yönelimi ile vicdani redde yönelik tutumlar arasındaki ilişkiyi anlamlı bir şekilde aracılık ettiğini ortaya koymuştur. Cinsiyetin, anılan bu ilişkilerdeki düzenleyici rolünün ise büyük oranda anlamlı olmadığı ortaya konmuştur. Çalışmanın bulguları ilgili alanyazın çerçevesinde tartışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Fidan, M., Hasta, D. (2026). Vicdani Redde Yönelik Tutumların Yordanması: Erkek Rolleri ve İnsan Haklarına Yönelik Tutumların Aracı Rolü Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 97, 68–95. https://doi.org/10.31828/turkpsikoloji.1741483

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (145)

  1. 7179 sayılı Askeralma Kanunu (2025). https://www.msb.gov.tr/Askeralma/icerik/7179-sayili-askeralma-kanunu-en-ve-askeralma-yonetmeligi-en
  2. Açıksöz, S. C. (2019). Sacrificial limbs: Masculinity, disability, and political violence in Turkey. University of California Press.
  3. Aktaş, F. O. (2010). Türkiye’de erkekliğin kurgulanışında askerliğin yeri. (Tez No. 257970) [Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi
  4. Altınay, A. G. (2003). Militarizm ve insan hakları ekseninde milli güvenlik dersi. B. Çotuksöken, A. Erzan, & O. Silier (Ed.) Ders kitaplarında insan hakları: tarama sonuçları içinde (ss. 138-157). İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yayınları
  5. Altınay, A. G. & Bora, T. (2002). Ordu, militarizm ve milliyetçilik, Tanıl Bora (Ed.), Milliyetçilik: modern Türkiye’de siyasi düşünce cilt 4 içinde (ss. 140-154). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  6. Altinay, A. G. (2004). The myth of the military-nation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
  7. Atari M, Lai, M.H.C, Dehghani, M. (2020). Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries. Proc. R. Soc. B 287: 20201201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.1201
  8. Barnhart, J. N., Trager, R. F., Saunders, E. N., & Dafoe, A. (2020). The suffragist peace. International Organization, 74(4), 633-670. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000508
  9. Bayatyan v. Armenia (2011). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/’/app/conversion/pdf/?i=001-78753
  10. Becker, J. C. (2020). Ideology and the promotion of social change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.005
  11. Bozok, M. (2011). Soru ve cevaplarla erkeklikler. İstanbul: SOGEP Yayınları
  12. Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1413-1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611420445
  13. Brandt, M. J., Kuppens, T., Spears, R., Andrighetto, L., Autin, F., Babincak, P.,. & Zimmerman, J. L. (2020). Subjective status and perceived legitimacy across countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(5), 921-942. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2694
  14. Bröckling, U. (2009). Sand in the wheels? Ö. H. Çınar & C. Üsterci (Ed.) Conscientious objection: resisting militarized society içinde (ss. 53-61). Londra/New York: Zed Books
  15. Can, O. (2009). Conscientious objection and the Turkish constitution. Ö. H. Çınar & C. Üsterci (Ed.) Conscientious objection: resisting militarized society içinde (ss. 227-241). Londra/New York: Zed Books
  16. Cankur, A. S. (2011). Demokratikleşme sürecinde vicdani red: Türkiye örneği. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Bilgi Üniversitesi. https://hdl.handle.net//11411/112 adresinden erişildi.
  17. Carriere, K. R., Hallahan, A., & Moghaddam, F. M. (2020). The effect of perceived threat on human rights: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(1), 247-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220962563
  18. Christensen, A. D., & Kyed, M. (2022). From military to militarizing masculinities. NORMA, 17(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2022.2028428
  19. Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Conservative ideology and ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 223-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.x
  20. Clatterbaugh, K. (2018). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: Men, women, and politics in modern society. Routledge.
  21. Cockburn, C. (2009). Conscientious objection: resisting militarized society. London/New York: Zed Books.
  22. Cohrs, J. C., Maes, J., Moschner, B., & Kielmann, S. (2007). Determinants of human rights attitudes and behavior: A comparison and integration of psychological perspectives. Political Psychology, 28(4), 441-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00581.x
  23. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  24. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
  25. Crowson, H. M. (2007). Authoritarianism, perceived threat, and human rights attitudes in US law students: A brief look. Individual Differences Research, 5(4), 260-266. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.93
  26. Crowson, H. M., ve DeBacker, T. K. (2008). Belief, motivational, and ideological correlates of human rights attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(3), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.3.293-310
  27. Çetinalp Şahin, P. (2014). Polis okulu öğrencilerinin adil dünya inancı, otoriterlik, sistemi meşrulaştırma, vatanseverlik ve insan hakları tutumlarının incelenmesi. (Tez No. 368330) [Yüksek lisans tezi, Ege Üniversitesi]. YÖK Tez Merkezi.
  28. Çınar, Ö. H. (2009). A view on international implementation of the right to conscientious objection. Conscientious objection: resisting militarized society içinde (ss. 183-197). London/New York: Zed Books
  29. Çınar, Ö. H. (2014). The right to conscientious objection to military service and Turkey’s obligations under international human rights law. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137468116
  30. Demir, S. H. (2011). Vicdani ret hakkı. Ankara Barosu Dergisi, 241-283.
  31. Diaz-Veizades, J., Widaman, K. F., Little, T. D., & Gibbs, K. W. (1995). The measurement and structure of human rights attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 313-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1995.9713961
  32. Eagly, A. H., ve Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski ve E. T. Higgins (Ed.) Handbook of theories of social psychology içinde (ss. 458-476). Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49
  33. Eichenberg, R. C. (2019). Gender, war, and world order: A study of public opinion. Cornell University Press.
  34. Eichenberg, R. C., & Stoll, R. J. (2017). The acceptability of war and support for defense spending: Evidence from fourteen democracies, 2004–2013. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(4), 788-813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002715600760
  35. Eichler, M. (2018). Gendered militarism. C. E. Gentry, L. J. Shepherd ve L. Sjoberg (Ed.) Routledge Handbook of Gender and Security içinde (ss. 160-170). Oxford/New York: Routledge.
  36. Elchardus, M. & Spruyt, B. (2009), The culture of academic disciplines and the sociopolitical attitudes of students: A test of selection and socialization effects. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 446-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00626.x
  37. Enloe, C. (2000). Maneuvers: The international politics of militarizing women's lives. University of California Press.
  38. Erçep v. Turkey (2011). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/%E2%80%99/app/conversion/pdf/?i=002-313
  39. Erişen, C., & Erdoğan, E. (2019). Growing perceived threat and prejudice as sources of intolerance: evidence from the 2015 Turkish general elections. Turkish Studies, 20(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683849.2018.1488592
  40. Esmer, B. (2012). Türkiye’de ve dünyada vicdani ret. İstanbul: Propaganda Yayınları.
  41. European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (2025). Conscientious objection to military service in Europe 2023/24. 20 Mayıs 2025 tarihinde https://ebco-beoc.org/sites/ebco-beoc.org/files/2024-05-15-EBCO_Annual_Report_2023-24.pdf adresinden erişildi.
  42. Feather, N.T. & McKee, I.R. (2012), Values and ambivalent sexism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(10), 2479-2504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00950.x
  43. Fidan, M. & Bekiroğlu, S. (2025). Erkek kardeşler birliğinin dışında kalanlar: Türkiye’de vicdani reddi toplumsal hareketler temelinde okumak. H. Rittersberger-Tılıç (Ed.), İsyan ve itaat arasında: Yakın dönem Türkiye’sinde toplumsal hareketler içinde (1. Baskı, ss. 171- 209). İstanbul: Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  44. Fox, J., & Tang, W. Y. (2014). Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 314-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.014
  45. Fracalossi de Moraes, R. (2025). Militarism and the gender gap beyond wars: Evidence from Brazil. Security Studies, 34(1), 94-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2025.2467142
  46. Getz, I. (1985). Moral reasoning, religion, and attitudes towards human rights. [Doktora tezi, University of Minnesota]. Proquest.
  47. Gibson, J. L. (1998). Putting up with fellow Russians: An analysis of political tolerance in the fledgling Russian democracy. Political Research Quarterly, 51(1), 37-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299805100102
  48. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
  49. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
  50. Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes. Social Psychology, 46(4), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228
  51. Goffman, E. (1977). The arrangement between the sexes. Theory and Society, 4, 301–331. http://www.jstor.org/stable/656722
  52. Goldstein, J. S. (2001). War and gender: How gender shapes the war system and vice versa. Cambridge University Press.
  53. Göregenli, M., & Karakuş, P. (2012, June). Conservatism in Turkish Context: Is it possible to be both conservative and democrat? 4th International Conference of Community Psychology (ss. 21-23).
  54. Guimond, S. and Palmer, D.L. (1990), Type of academic training and causal attributions for social problems. European Journal of Social. Psychology, 20(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200106
  55. Guimond, S., Palmer, D. L., & Bégin, G. (1989). Education, academic program and intergroup attitudes. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 26(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.1989.tb00418.x
  56. Gündüz, M. (2017). Militarising school: militarism in the Turkish educational system (1926-1947). Paedagogica Historica, 54(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2017.1296474
  57. Gürcan, E. C. (2007). Zorunlu askerlik hizmeti karşısında vicdani ret: Bir insan hakkı mı? Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 62(1), 89-111. http://dergipark.gov.tr/ausbf/issue/3085/42730
  58. Gürsoy, Y. (2012). Turkish public attitudes toward the military and Ergenekon: Consequences for the consideration of democracy (Working paper no: 5 EU/5/2012). İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi.
  59. Gürşimşek, I., & Göregenli, M. (2006). Humanistic attitudes, values, system justification, and control beliefs in a Turkish sample. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(7), 747-758. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2006.34.7.747
  60. Hansen, M. A., & Goenaga, A. (2021). Gender and democratic attitudes: Do women and men prioritize different democratic institutions?. Politics & Gender, 17(1), 23-52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X19000473
  61. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press
  62. Henry, P. J., Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (2005). Social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, and support for intergroup violence between the Middle East and America. Political Psychology, 26(4), 569-584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00432.x
  63. International Crisis Group (2016). https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/turkiye/turkeys-pkk-conflict-death-toll
  64. International Crisis Group (2025). https://www.crisisgroup.org/visual-explainers/turkiyes-pkk-conflict-visual-explainer
  65. İmamoğlu, O. (1993). Değişen dünyada değişen aile-içi roller. Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1, 58-68. https://izlik.org/JA55CT43XA
  66. Jost, J. T. (2017). Working class conservatism: A system justification perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.020
  67. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
  68. Jylhä, K. M., & Akrami, N. (2015). Social dominance orientation and climate change denial: The role of dominance and system justification. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.041
  69. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002003004
  70. Karaçanta, H. (2002). Üniversite öğrencilerinin sosyal baskınlık yönelimi ve başka bazı değişkenler açısından karşılaştırılması. (Tez No. 117539) [Doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi]. Yök Tez Merkezi.
  71. Kardaş, Ü. (2006). Modern devlet, ordu ve vicdani red itirazı. Birikim Dergisi, 207, 36-41.
  72. Kray, L. J., Howland, L., Russell, A. G., & Jackman, L. M. (2017). The effects of implicit gender role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs strengthen masculinity to preserve the status quo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(1), 98-115. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000124
  73. Lease, S. H., Çiftçi, A., Demir, A., & Boyraz, G. (2009). Structural validity of Turkish versions of the gender role conflict scale and male role norms scale. Psychology of Men ve Masculinity, 10(4), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017044
  74. Lee, I. C., Pratto, F., & Li, M. C. (2007). Social relationships and sexism in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(5), 595-612. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107305241
  75. Levant, R. F. (1995). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Ed.), A new psychology of men içinde (ss. 229–251). Basic Books/Hachette Book Group.
  76. Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27(3), 259-265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.27.3.259
  77. Levant, R. F., & Majors, R. G. (1997). An investigation into variations in the construction of the male gender role among young African American and European American women and men. Journal of Gender, Culture, and Health, 2, 33-43.
  78. Levant, R. F., & Pollack, W. S. (Ed.). (1995). A new psychology of men (ss. 229- 251). New York: Basic Books.
  79. Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2016). The gender role strain paradigm and masculinity ideologies. Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Ed.), APA handbook of men and masculinities içinde (ss. 23–49). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14594-002
  80. Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., & Rankin, T. J. (2013). Male Role Norms Inventory–Short Form (MRNI-SF): Development, confirmatory factor analytic investigation of structure, and measurement invariance across gender. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031545
  81. Levant, R. F., Majors, R. G., & Kelley, M. L. (1998). Masculinity ideology among young African American and European American women and men in different regions of the United States. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 4(3), 227-236.
  82. Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25(1), 31-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00355.x
  83. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P. J., Gottfried, M., et al. (2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(4), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
  84. Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Theodore, H., Cournoyer, R. J., & Lloyd, B. F. (2001). A cross-national and cross-sectional comparison of men’s gender role conflict and its relationship to social intimacy and self-esteem. Sex Roles, 45(1-2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013008800019
  85. Major, M. F. (1992). Conscientious objection and international law: A human right. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 24, 349-378.
  86. Marcus E., N. (1998). Conscientious objection as an emerging human rights. Journal of International Law. 38(507), 508-545.
  87. Martínez, C., & Paterna-Bleda, C. (2013). Masculinity ideology and gender equality: Considering neosexism. Anales de Psicología, 29(2), 558–564. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.2.141311
  88. Mayhew, M. J., & Fernández, S. D. (2007). Pedagogical practices that contribute to social justice outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 31(1), 55-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0055
  89. McDermott, R. C., Borgogna, N. C., Hammer, J. H., Berry, A. T., & Levant, R. F. (2020). More similar than different? Testing the construct validity of men’s and women’s traditional masculinity ideology using the Male Role Norms Inventory-Very Brief. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(4), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000251
  90. McDermott, R. C., Brasil, K. M., Borgogna, N. C., Barinas, J. L., Berry, A. T., & Levant, R. F. (2021). The politics of men’s and women’s traditional masculinity ideology in the United States. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(4), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000367
  91. McDermott, R. C., Levant, R. F., Hammer, J. H., Borgogna, N. C., & McKelvey, D. K. (2019). Development and validation of a five-item Male Role Norms Inventory using bifactor modeling. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(4), 467–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000178
  92. McFarland, S. (2005). On the eve of war: Authoritarianism, social dominance, and American students’ attitudes toward attacking Iraq. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 360-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271596
  93. McFarland, S., & Mathews, M. (2005). Who cares about human rights? Political Psychology, 26(3), 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00422.x
  94. Moskos, C. C., ve Chambers, J. W. (1993). Secularization of conscience. C. C. Moskos ve J. W. Chambers (Ed.) The new conscientious objection: from sacred to secular resistance içinde (ss. 3-10). New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  95. Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond western, educated, industrial, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychological Sscience, 31(6), 678-701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782
  96. Özdemir, F. (2013). The predictors of attitudes toward military: Turkish identity, uninational ideology, ambivalent sexism, conservatism, and religious orientation. (Tez No. 345485) [Yüksek lisans tezi, ODTÜ]. Yök Tez Merkezi.
  97. Özdemir, F., & Bilger, D. (2025). Attitudes toward the military: Need for recognition and national and political identifications. Current Psychology, 44(7), 5809–5820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07586-5
  98. Özdemir, F., & Sakallı Uğurlu, N. (2018). Development of Militaristic Attitudes Scale and its associations with Turkish identity and uninational ideology. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(2), 175. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000296
  99. Özdemir, F., & Sakallı, N. (2023). How does culture relate to benevolent and hostile sexism? H. Çakal ve S. Husnu (Ed.) Examining complex intergroup relations: through the lens of Turkey içinde (ss. 67-83). Routledge.
  100. Öztan, G. G. (2018). Türkiye’de militarizm: zihniyet, pratik, propaganda. İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları
  101. Peterson, V. S. & Runyan, A. S. (1999). Global gender issues: dilemmas in world politics (2. Baskı). Oxford/Colorado: Westview Press.
  102. Pleck, J. (1976). The male sex role: definitions, problems, and sources of change. Journal of Social Issues, 32(3), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02604.x
  103. Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  104. Pratto, F., & Stewart, A. L. (2011). Social dominance theory. The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp253
  105. Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 31(3), 369-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003005
  106. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601055772
  107. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
  108. Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Conway‐Lanz, S. (1998). Social dominance orientation and the ideological legitimization of social policy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(20), 1853-1875. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01349.x
  109. Pratto, F., Stallworth, L.M. and Sidanius, J. (1997), The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01118.x
  110. Ramiro-Sánchez, T., Ramiro, M. T., Bermúdez, M. P., & Buela-Casal, G. (2018). Sexism and sexual risk behavior in adolescents: Gender differences. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 18(3), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2018.04.002
  111. Rohall, D. E., & Ender, M. G. (2007). Race, gender, and class: Attitudes toward the war in Iraq and president Bush among military personnel. Race, Gender & Class, 14(3/4), 99–116. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41675292
  112. Ruddick, S. (1980). Maternal thinking. Feminist Studies, 6(2), 342-367. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177749
  113. Ruddick, S. (1995). Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. Boston: Beacon Press.
  114. Sakallı Uğurlu, N., & Özdemir, F. (2017). Predicting attitudes toward the masculine structure of the military with Turkish identification and ambivalent sexism. Sex Roles, 76(7-8), 511–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0676-0
  115. Sancar, S. (2009). Erkeklik: İmkansız iktidar: Ailede, piyasada ve sokakta erkekler. Metis Yayınları.
  116. Sapmaz, S. (2012). Conscientious objection: A contestation of citizenship in Turkey. (Tez No. 321151) [Yüksek lisans tezi, ODTÜ]. Yök Tez Merkezi.
  117. Sayılan, G. (2013). Conscientious objection in Turkey: A study of social representations. (Tez No. 345486) [Yüksek lisans tezi, ODTÜ]. Yök Tez Merkezi.
  118. Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel-Lifschitz, T. (2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 171. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015546
  119. Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010-1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010
  120. Selek, P. (2008). Sürüne sürüne erkek olmak. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  121. Sevinç, M. (2006). Türkiye’de ve batı demokrasilerinde, vicdani ret, zorunlu askerlik ve kamu hizmeti seçeneği. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 61(1), 297-322.
  122. Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 160-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206294745
  123. Sidanius, J. P., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
  124. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2004). Social dominance theory: A new synthesis. In Political psychology: Key readings (ss. 315-332). New York: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203505984-18
  125. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (1996). Consensual social dominance orientation and its correlates within the hierarchical structure of American society. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3-4), 385-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(96)00025-9
  126. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Liu, J., & Pratto, F. (2000). Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: An extension and cross-cultural replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(1), 41-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200001/02)30:1 3.0.CO;2-O
  127. Sidanius, J., Liu, J. H., Shaw, J. S., & Pratto, F. (1994). Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 338-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00586.x
  128. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of PersonalityaAnd Social Psychology, 67(6), 998. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.998
  129. Sjoberg, L. & Via, S. E. (2010). Introduction. L. Sjoberg & S.E. Via (Ed.) Gender, war, and militarism içinde (ss. 1-16). Praeger Security International: Santa Barbara
  130. Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2004). Political Tolerance and Coming to Psychological Closure Following the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks: An Integrative Approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 743-756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204263968
  131. Sutton, J. (2001). Law/society: Origins, interactions, and change. Pine Forge Press.
  132. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Ed.), The social psychology of intergroup relations içinde (pp. 33-37). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  133. Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29(5), 531-543. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276486029005003
  134. Toker, N. (2009). The morals and politics of conscientious objection, civil disobedience and anti-militarism. Ö. H. Çınar & C. Üsterci (Ed.) Conscientious objection: resisting militarized society içinde (ss. 61-73). Londra/New York: Zed Books.
  135. Ülke v. Turkey (2006). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-72146
  136. Üsterci, C., & Yorulmaz, U. (2009). Conscientious objection in Turkey. Ö. H. Çınar & C. Üsterci (Ed.) Conscientious objection: resisting militarized society içinde, (ss. 168-182). London/New York: Zed Books.
  137. Valsecchi, G., Iacoviello, V., Berent, J., Borinca, I., & Falomir-Pichastor, J. M. (2023). Men’s gender norms and gender-hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies: The effect of priming traditional masculinity versus a feminization of men’s norms. Gender Issues, 40(2), 145-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-022-09308-8
  138. Vatandaş, C. (2007). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve cinsiyet rollerinin algılanışı. İstanbul Journal of Sociological Studies, 35, 29-56. https://izlik.org/JA54DC74LS
  139. Wood, W. & Eagly, A.H. (2010) Gender. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey (Ed.) Handbook of social psychology içinde (4. Baskı, ss. 629–667). New York: Oxford University Press.
  140. World Economic Forum. (2025). Global gender gap report 2025. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2025.pdf
  141. Wu, M. E., Nicol, A. A. M., & Ralph, C. S. (2023). Masculine conformity and social dominance’s relation with organizational culture change. Armed Forces & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X231178522
  142. Yavuz, Ş. (2015). Ataerkil egemen erkeklik değerlerinin üretiminde kadınların rolü: Trabzon örneği. Fe Dergi, 7(1), 117-130. https://doi.org/10.1501/Fe0001_0000000136
  143. You, D., Maeda, Y., & Bebeau, M. J. (2011). Gender differences in moral sensitivity: A meta analysis. Ethics & Behavior, 21(4), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.585591
  144. Brandt, M. J., Kuppens, T., Spears, R., Andrighetto, L., Autin, F., Babincak, P.,. & Zimmerman, J. L. (2020). Subjective status and perceived legitimacy across countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(5), 921-942. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2694
  145. Vatandaş, C. (2007). Toplumsal cinsiyet ve cinsiyet rollerinin algılanışı. İstanbul Journal of Sociological Studies, 35, 29-56. https://izlik.org/JA54DC74LS