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.
AsbrockF.SibleyC.DuckittJ. (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.
2.
BareketO.FiskeS. 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
3.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. 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
4.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS.ChristensenR. H. B.SingmannH.DaiB.ScheiplF.GrothendieckG.GreenP.FoxJ.BauerA.KrivitskyP. N. (shared copyright on simulate.formula), TanakaE.JaganM. (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
5.
BellA.JonesK.FairbrotherM. (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
BrandtM.ReynaC. (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
8.
CharlesworthT. E. S.BanajiM. 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
9.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2017). The dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 188–221). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.009
FriesenJ. P.LaurinK.ShepherdS.GaucherD.KayA. 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.
GrangerC. 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.
GuimondS.DambrunM.MichinovN.DuarteS. (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.
HaleyH.SidaniusJ. (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.
HoA. K.KteilyN. 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.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.FoelsR.StewartA. 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
HuangY.OsborneD.SibleyC. 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.
HudsonS. T. J.GhaniA. (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.
JostJ. 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.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. 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.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. 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.
JostJ. T.KayA. 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.
JostJ. T.KrochikM.GaucherD.HennesE. 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.
KatzI.HassR. 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.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). System justification scale [Database record]. APA PsycTests.
29.
KayA. C.Ponce de LeonR.HoA. K.KteilyN. (2023). Motivated egalitarianism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231154810
30.
KayA. C.ZannaM. P. (2009). A contextual analysis of the system justification motive and its societal consequences. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (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.
KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.HoA. 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 MacchiaS. T.RadkeH. R. M. (2020). Social dominance orientation and social dominance theory. In Zeigler-HillV.ShackelfordT. K. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 5028–5036). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1267
33.
MalinowskaA. (2020). Waves of feminism. In RossK.BachmannI.CardoV.MoortiS.ScarcelliM. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of gender, media, and communication (pp. 1–7). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc096
34.
MellarB. M.HashemiL.SelakV.GulliverP. J.McIntoshT. K. D.FanslowJ. 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.
NezlekJ. B. (2012). Multilevel modeling for psychologists. In CooperH.CamicP. M.LongD. L.PanterA. T.RindskopfD.SherK. 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
OsborneD.SatherleyN.LittleT.SibleyC. 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.
OsborneD.SenguptaN. K.SibleyC. 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.
OverbeckJ. R.JostJ. T.MossoC. O.FlizikA. (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 LeonR.KayA. 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.
PhillipsL. T.LoweryB. 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.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (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.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. 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.
QuistR. M.ResendezM. 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.
ReillyA. (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.
SatherleyN.SibleyC. 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.
ScarboroughW. J.SinR.RismanB. (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.
SidaniusJ.CotterillS.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.KteilyN.CarvachoH. (2017). Social dominance theory: Explorations in the psychology of oppression. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 149–187). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.008
50.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression (pp. x, 403). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
51.
StoetG.GearyD. 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.
ThomsenL.GreenE. G. T.HoA. K.LevinS.van LaarC.SinclairS.SidaniusJ. (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
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 ToornJ.TylerT. R.JostJ. 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.
WaldfogelH. B.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.HauserO. P.HoA. K.KteilyN. (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
ZubielevitchE.CheungG. W.SibleyC. G.SenguptaN.OsborneD. (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.
