Based on system justification theory, we hypothesized that, when the salience of system justification concerns are high, both men and women would bias estimates of their own and their group’s academic competence so as to make them more congruent with complementary gender stereotypes concerning mathematical and verbal abilities. Results show that, compared to men, women reported lesser competence and recalled lower achievement scores in math following the activation of system justification concerns, while at the same time reporting greater competence in verbal domains, albeit less strongly. Concerning perceptions of their group’s competence, men endorsed complementary gender stereotypes more strongly in the high (vs. low) system justification salience condition. However, women were less prone to endorse abstract gender stereotypes when system justification was made salient, which may suggest reactance rather than acquiescence.
ArcherJ.FreedmanS. (1989). Gender-stereotypic perceptions of academic disciplines. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 306–313. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1989.tb03105.x
2.
BeyerS.BowdenE. M. (1997). Gender differences in self-perceptions: Convergent evidence from three measures of accuracy and bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 157–172. doi:10.1177/0146167297232005
3.
BlantonH.ChristieC.DyeM. (2002). Social identity versus reference frame comparisons: The moderating role of stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 253–267. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1510
4.
BonnotV.CroizetJ.-C. (2007a). Stereotype internalization and women’s math performance: The role of interference in working memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 857–866. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.006
5.
BonnotV.CroizetJ.-C. (2007b). Stereotype internalization, math perceptions, and occupational choices of women with counter-stereotypical university majors. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66(3), 169–178. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.66.3.169
6.
BrehmJ. W.ColeA. H. (1966). Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(4), 420–426. doi:10.1037/h0023034
7.
ChatardA.GuimondS.SelimbegovicL. (2007). “How good are you in math?” The effect of gender stereotypes on students’ recollection of their school marks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 1017–1024. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.10.024
8.
CheungR. M.HardinC. D. (2010). Costs and benefits of political ideology: The case of economic self-stereotyping and stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 761–766. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.012
9.
CrawfordM.ChaffinR.FittonL. (1995). Cognition in social context. Learning and Individual Differences, 7, 341–362. doi:10.1016/1041-6080(95)90006-3
10.
CrosbyF. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371– 387. doi:10.1177/000276484027003008
11.
DeauxK.EmswillerT. (1974). Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 80–85. doi:10.1037/h0035733
12.
DoiseW. (1986). Levels of explanation in social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DunningD.ShermanD. A. (1997). Stereotypes and tacit inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 459–471. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.459
14.
EcclesJ. S. (1994). Understanding women’s educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585–609. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x
15.
EcclesJ. S.AdlerT. F.FuttermanR.GoffS. B.KaczalaG. M.MeeceJ. L.MidgleyC. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In SpenceJ. T. (Ed.), Perspective on achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
16.
EcclesJ.MidgleyC.AdlerT. F. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In NichollsJ. G. (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 3, pp. 283–331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
17.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA.HaroldR. D.BlumenfeldP. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. doi:10.2307/1131221
18.
FiskeS. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 357–411). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
19.
FromeP. M.EcclesJ. S. (1998). Parents’ influence on children’s achievement-related perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 435–452. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.435
20.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
GuimondS.RousselL. (2001). Bragging about one’s school grades: Gender stereotyping and students’ perception of their abilities in science, mathematics, and language. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 275–293. doi:10.1023/A:1011332704215
23.
HainesE. L.JostJ. T. (2000). Placating the powerless: Effects of legitimate and illegitimate explanation on affect, memory, and stereotyping. Social Justice Research, 13, 219–236. doi:10.1023/A:1026481205719
24.
HerbertJ.StipekD. (2005). The emergence of gender differences in children’s perceptions of their academic competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 276–295. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.02.007
25.
HydeJ. S.FennemaE.RyanM.FrostL. A.HoppC. (1990). Gender comparisons of mathematics attitudes and affect. A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 299–324. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1990.tb00022.x
26.
JackmanM. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
JostJ. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: An experimental paradigm for investigating the effects of socio-economic success on stereotype content. In MoskowitzG. (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition (pp. 89–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
29.
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, 498–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498
30.
JostJ. T.KivetzY.RubiniM.GuermandiG.MossoC. (2005). System-justifying functions of complementary regional and ethnic stereotypes: Cross-national evidence. Social Justice Research, 18, 305–333. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-6827-z
31.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.CarvalloM. R. (2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 586–602. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00505-X
32.
JostJ. T.van der ToornJ. (2012). System justification theory. In van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 313–343). London, UK: Sage.
33.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823
34.
LaurinK.KayA. C.ProudfootD.FitzsimonsG. J. (2013). Response to restrictive policies: Reconciling system justification and psychological reactance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 152–162. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.004
35.
LaurinK.KayA. C.ShepherdS. (2011). Self-stereotyping as a route to system justification. Social Cognition, 29(3), 360–375. doi:10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.360
36.
McCoyS. K.MajorB. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 341–351. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.009
37.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44
38.
QuiamzadeA.CroizetJ.-C. (2007). The social determinants of intellectual performance under threat: From interpersonal comparisons to the stereotype threat. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 139–144. doi:10.1024/1421-0185.66.3.139
39.
SchneiderD. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40.
StangorC.JostJ. T. (1997). Individual, group, and system levels of analysis and their relevance for stereotyping and intergroup relations. In SpearsR.OakesP.EllemersN.HaslamS. A. (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 336–358). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
41.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN.HunsingerM.McManusM. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. doi:10.1037/a0021385
42.
TaylorD. M.WrightS. G.MoghaddamF. M.LalondeR. N. (1990). The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 254–262. doi:10.1177/0146167290162006
