Rebels With(Out) a Cause: The Influence of Gender Inequality on the Relationship Between Egalitarianism and System Justification

Abstract

In recent decades, women’s representation in power positions has increased alongside a global decline in anti-egalitarian biases. These egalitarian shifts provide the ideal context to examine the boundary conditions of the motivators of group-based inequality. Accordingly, we investigate the possibility that rising gender equality over the last 14 years has attenuated the relationship between group-based (anti-)egalitarianism (namely, social dominance orientation) and system justification. A multi-level analysis of longitudinal data from 43,924 women shows that anti-egalitarian beliefs predicted increases in system justification. However as hypothesized, increases in gender equality attenuated the positive correlation between anti-egalitarian beliefs and justification of the status quo. These associations were particularly pronounced among women from majoritized groups who benefit most from gender equality. Results replicate across robustness checks and offer a critical update to our understanding of egalitarianism by showing that egalitarians may engage in system justification when the status quo becomes more equal.

Keywords

social dominance intergroup relations individual differences cultural change

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asbrock

Sibley

Duckitt

(2010). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of Personality, 24(4), 324–340.

Bareket

Fiske

S. T.

(2023). A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men’s power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles. Psychological Bulletin, 149(11–12), 637–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000400

Barr

D. J.

Levy

Scheepers

Tily

H. J.

(2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

Bates

Maechler

Bolker

Walker

Christensen

R. H. B.

Singmann

Dai

Scheipl

Grothendieck

Green

Fox

Bauer

Krivitsky

P. N.

(shared copyright on simulate.formula), Tanaka

Jagan

(2024). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4 (Version 1.1-35.5) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html

Bell

Jones

Fairbrother

(2018). Understanding and misunderstanding group mean centering: A commentary on Kelley et al.’s dangerous practice. Quality & Quantity, 52(5), 2031–2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0593-5

Beneria

Permanyer

(2010). The measurement of socio-economic gender inequality revisited. Development and Change, 41(3), 375–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01648.x

Brandt

Reyna

(2017). Individual differences in the resistance to social change and acceptance of inequality predict system legitimacy differently depending on the social structure. European Journal of Personality, 31(3), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2100

Charlesworth

T. E. S.

Banaji

M. R.

(2022). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: IV. Change and stability from 2007 to 2020. Psychological Science, 33(9), 1347–1371. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221084257

Duckitt

Sibley

C. G.

(2017). The dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice. In Sibley

C. G.

Barlow

F. K.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 188–221). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.009

10.

Ehlers

(2016). Identities. In Disch

Hawkesworth

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of feminist theory (pp. 346–366). Oxford University Press. https://www.academia.edu/4845408/Identities_The_Oxford_Handbook_of_Feminist_Theory

11.

FRA. (2019, March 11). The EU charter of fundamental rights—Use and added value in EU Member States. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/eu-charter-fundamental-rights-use-and-added-value-eu-member-states

12.

Friesen

J. P.

Laurin

Shepherd

Gaucher

Kay

A. C.

(2019). System justification: Experimental evidence, its contextual nature, and implications for social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12278

13.

Granger

C. W. J.

(1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37(3), 424–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791

14.

Guimond

Dambrun

Michinov

Duarte

(2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.697

15.

Haley

Sidanius

(2005). Person-organization congruence and the maintenance of group-based social hierarchy: A social dominance perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205051067

16.

A. K.

Kteily

N. S.

(2020). The role of group-based egalitarianism in collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.05.009

17.

A. K.

Sidanius

Kteily

Sheehy-Skeffington

Pratto

Henkel

K. E.

Foels

Stewart

A. L.

(2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033

18.

Hothorn

Zeileis

Farebrother (pan.f)

R. W.

Cummins (pan.f)

Millo

Mitchell

(2022). lmtest: Testing linear regression models (Version 0.9-40) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmtest/index.html

19.

Hox

Moerbeek

van de Schoot

(2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852279

20.

Huang

Osborne

Sibley

C. G.

(2019). The gradual move toward gender equality: A 7-year latent growth model of ambivalent sexism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(3), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617752472

21.

Hudson

S. T. J.

Ghani

(2024). Sexual orientation and race intersectionally reduce the perceived gendered nature of normative stereotypes in the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48(1), 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843231187851

22.

Jost

J. T.

(2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 263–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12297

23.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

24.

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

25.

Jost

J. T.

Kay

A. C.

(2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498

26.

Jost

J. T.

Krochik

Gaucher

Hennes

E. P.

(2009). Can a psychological theory of ideological differences explain contextual variability in the contents of political attitudes? Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903088908

27.

Katz

Hass

R. G.

(1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893

28.

Kay

A. C.

Jost

J. T.

(2003). System justification scale [Database record]. APA PsycTests.

29.

Kay

A. C.

Ponce de Leon

A. K.

Kteily

(2023). Motivated egalitarianism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231154810

30.

Kay

A. C.

Zanna

M. P.

(2009). A contextual analysis of the system justification motive and its societal consequences. In Jost

J. T.

Kay

A. C.

Thorisdottir

(Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 158–181). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320916.003.007

31.

Kteily

Sheehy-Skeffington

A. K.

(2017). Hierarchy in the eye of the beholder: (Anti-) egalitarianism shapes perceived levels of social inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(1), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000097

32.

La Macchia

S. T.

Radke

H. R. M.

(2020). Social dominance orientation and social dominance theory. In Zeigler-Hill

Shackelford

T. K.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 5028–5036). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1267

33.

Malinowska

(2020). Waves of feminism. In Ross

Bachmann

Cardo

Moorti

Scarcelli

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of gender, media, and communication (pp. 1–7). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc096

34.

Mellar

B. M.

Hashemi

Selak

Gulliver

P. J.

McIntosh

T. K. D.

Fanslow

J. L.

(2023). Association between women’s exposure to intimate partner violence and self-reported health outcomes in New Zealand. JAMA Network Open, 6(3), e231311. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1311

35.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2012). Multilevel modeling for psychologists. In Cooper

Camic

P. M.

Long

D. L.

Panter

A. T.

Rindskopf

Sher

K. J.

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 3: Data analysis and research publication (pp. 219–241). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13621-011

36.

Nosek

B. A.

Ratliff

Idowu

Maddox

Smith

B. R.

(2024). Project implicit. https://www.projectimplicit.net/

37.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Government at a glance 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en

38.

Osborne

Satherley

Little

Sibley

C. G.

(2021). Authoritarianism and social dominance predict annual increases in generalized prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1136–1145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620969608

39.

Osborne

Sengupta

N. K.

Sibley

C. G.

(2019). System justification theory at 25: Evaluating a paradigm shift in psychology and looking towards the future. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 340–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12302

40.

Overbeck

J. R.

Jost

J. T.

Mosso

C. O.

Flizik

(2004). Resistant versus acquiescent responses to ingroup inferiority as a function of social dominance orientation in the USA and Italy. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204039972

41.

Ponce de Leon

Kay

A. C.

(2021). Ironic Egalitarianism: When hierarchy-attenuating motives increase hierarchy-enhancing beliefs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 164, 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.02.006

42.

Phillips

L. T.

Lowery

B. S.

(2015). The hard-knock life? Whites claim hardships in response to racial inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.008

43.

Pratto

Sidanius

Levin

(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

44.

Pratto

Sidanius

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

45.

Quist

R. M.

Resendez

M. G.

(2002). Social dominance threat: Examining social dominance theory’s explanation of prejudice as legitimizing myths. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(4), 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2404_4

46.

Reilly

(2019). Māori women, discrimination and paid work: The need for an intersectional approach. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 50(2), 321–340. https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v50i2.5748

47.

Satherley

Sibley

C. G.

(2018). A dual process model of post-colonial ideology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 64, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2018.03.003

48.

Scarborough

W. J.

Sin

Risman

(2019). Attitudes and the stalled gender revolution: Egalitarianism, traditionalism, and ambivalence from 1977 through 2016. Gender & Society, 33(2), 173–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243218809604

49.

Sidanius

Cotterill

Sheehy-Skeffington

Kteily

Carvacho

(2017). Social dominance theory: Explorations in the psychology of oppression. In Sibley

C. G.

Barlow

F. K.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 149–187). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.008

50.

Sidanius

Pratto

(1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression (pp. x, 403). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043

51.

Stoet

Geary

D. C.

(2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719

52.

Thomsen

Green

E. G. T.

A. K.

Levin

van Laar

Sinclair

Sidanius

(2010). Wolves in sheep’s clothing: SDO asymmetrically predicts perceived ethnic victimization among White and Latino students across three years. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209348617

53.

United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

54.

United Nations Development Programme. (2023). Breaking down gender biases: Shifting social norms towards gender equality: 2023 Gender Social Norms Index. United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210028028

55.

van der Toorn

Tyler

T. R.

Jost

J. T.

(2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.003

56.

Waldfogel

H. B.

Sheehy-Skeffington

Hauser

O. P.

A. K.

Kteily

(2021). Ideology selectively shapes attention to inequality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(14), e2023985118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023985118

57.

World Economic Forum. (2022). Global gender gap report 2022. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2022/digest/

58.

World Economic Forum. (2023). Global gender gap report 2023. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2023/digest/

59.

World Economic Forum. (2024). Global gender gap report 2024. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2024/digest/

60.

Zubielevitch

Cheung

G. W.

Sibley

C. G.

Sengupta

Osborne

(2022). People and the place: Social dominance orientation is reciprocally associated with hierarchy-enhancing occupations over time. Journal of Management, 48(5), 1243–1269. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211004993

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.08 MB

0.00 MB