Even though gender inequality is evident across life domains, women often justify the gender hierarchy. We examined whether the very closeness that heterosexual women share with their male romantic partners predicts their justification of gender inequality. We drew on intergroup-related research, showing that positive perceptions that minority groups develop within harmonious intergroup interactions, generalize to affect their views of group-based inequality. We expected that to the extent that women experience their romantic relationships positively, they will be more accepting of gender inequality within their homes, and these perceptions will generalize to predict justification of macro-level gender inequality. Five correlational and two experimental studies supported this prediction. The more women rated (or were primed with) their relationship as positive, the more they justified the gender social system. This was mediated by women’s perception of their housework division as fair, and was less pronounced among feminists. Implications regarding social change are discussed.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Doubleday.
2.
BadrH.AcitelliL. K. (2008). Attachment insecurity and perceptions of housework: Associations with marital well-being. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(2), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.313
3.
BarretoM.EllemersN. (2005). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(5), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.270
4.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022615
5.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C.LubenskyM. E.ZhouS. (2013). Friend or ally: Whether cross-group contact undermines collective action depends on what advantaged group members say (or don’t say). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213477155
6.
CakalH.HewstoneM.SchwärG.HeathA. (2011). An investigation of the social identity model of collective action and the “sedative” effect of intergroup contact among Black and White students in South Africa. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 606–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02075.x
DayM. V.KayA. C.HolmesJ. G.NapierJ. L. (2011). System justification and the defense of committed relationship ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023197
9.
de BeauvoirS. (1953). The second sex. Knopf.
10.
DezsőC. L.RossD. G.UribeJ. (2016). Is there an implicit quota on women in top management? A large-sample statistical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2461
11.
DixonJ.DurrheimK.TredouxC.TroppL.ClackB.EatonL. (2010). A paradox of integration? Interracial contact, prejudice reduction, and perceptions of racial discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01652.x
12.
DixonJ.LevineM.ReicherS.DurrheimK. (2012). Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(6), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002214
13.
DuncanL. E. (2010). Women’s relationship to feminism: Effects of generation and feminist self-labeling. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(4), 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01599.x
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149
16.
GlickP.FiskeS. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109-118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
17.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.AdetounB.OsagieJ. E.AkandeA.AlaoA.AnnetjeB.WillemsenT. M.ChipetaK.DardenneB.DijksterhuisA.WigboldusD.EckesT.Six-MaternaI.ExpósitoF., . . . LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
HarnoisC. E. (2015). Race, ethnicity, sexuality, and women’s political consciousness of gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(4), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272515607844
20.
Hasan-AslihS.PliskinR.van ZomerenM.HalperinE.SaguyT. (2018). A darker side of hope: Harmony-focused hope decreases collective action intentions among the disadvantaged. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218783190
21.
HässlerT.UllrichJ.BernardinoM.ShnabelN.Van LaarC.ValdenegroD.SebbenS.Tropp L. R.Visintin E. P.González R.Ditlmann R. K.Abrams D.Selvanathan H. P.Branković M.Wright S.von Zimmermann J.Pasek M.Aydin A. L.ŽeželjI., . . . UgarteL. M. (2020). A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0815-z
22.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
23.
HenrichJ.HeineS. J.NorenzayanA. (2010). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1601785
24.
Hopkins-DoyleA.SuttonR. M.DouglasK. M.CalogeroR. M. (2019). Flattering to deceive: Why people misunderstand benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(2), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000135
25.
HorneR. M.JohnsonM. D.GalambosN. L.KrahnH. J. (2018). Time, money, or gender? Predictors of the division of household labour across life stages. Sex Roles, 78, 731–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0832-1
JackmanM. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. University of California Press.
28.
JansenL.WeberT.KraaykampG.VerbakelE. (2016). Perceived fairness of the division of household labor: A comparative study in 29 countries. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 57, 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715216642267
29.
JostJ. (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
30.
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
31.
JostJ. T.BurgessD. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265003
32.
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
33.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.SheldonO.Ni SullivanB. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.127
LuhtanenR.CrockerJ. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183006
36.
McCoyS. K.MajorB. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.009
37.
MurrayS. L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1001_3
38.
NeilsonJ.StanforsM. (2014). It’s about time! gender, parenthood, and household divisions of labor under different welfare regimes. Journal of Family Issues, 35(8), 1066–1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x14522240
39.
PaluckE. L.GreenS. A.GreenD. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
PrattoF. (1996). Sexual politics: The gender gap in the bedroom, the cupboard, and the cabinet. In BussD. M.MalamuthN. M. (Eds.), Sex, power, and conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives. (pp. 179–230). Oxford University Press.
45.
PrattoF.SaguyT.StewartA. L.MorselliD.FoelsR.AielloA.Aranda M.Cidam A.Chryssochoou X.Durrheim K.Eicher V.LicataL.Liu J. H.LiuL.Meyer I.Muldoon O.PapastamouS.Petrovic N.PratiF., . . . SweetmanJ. (2013). Attitudes toward Arab ascendance: Israeli and global perspectives. Psychological Science, 25(1), 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613497021
46.
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
47.
RossiA. (1969). Sex equality: The beginning of ideology. In RoszakB.RoszakT. (Eds.), Masculine/feminine: Readings in sexual mythology and the liberation of women (pp. 173–186). Harper & Row.
48.
SaguyT. (2018). Downside of intergroup harmony? When reconciliation might backfire and what to do. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217747085
49.
SaguyT.Chernyak-HaiL. (2012). Intergroup contact can undermine disadvantaged group members’ attributions to discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 714–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.01.003
50.
SaguyT.TauschN.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x
51.
SenguptaN. K.SibleyC. G. (2013). Perpetuating one’s own disadvantage: Intergroup contact enables the ideological legitimation of inequality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1391–1403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497593
52.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845
53.
SwannW. B.Jr.Chang-SchneiderC.Larsen McClartyK. (2007). Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62(2), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.62.2.84
54.
TreasJ.LuiJ. (2013). Studying housework across nations. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12006
55.
TreasJ.TaiT. (2016). Gender inequality in housework across 20 European nations: Lessons from gender stratification theories. Sex Roles, 74, 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0575-9
56.
TroppL. R.HawiD. R.van LaarC.LevinS. (2012). Cross-ethnic friendships, perceived discrimination, and their effects on ethnic activism over time: A longitudinal investigation of three ethnic minority groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02050.x
57.
United Nations Development Programme. (2020). Tackling social norms: A game change for gender inequalities. http://hdr.undp.org/en/GSNI
58.
van BreenJ. A.SpearsR.KuppensT.de LemusS. (2017). A multiple identity approach to gender: Identification with women, identification with feminists, and their interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01019
59.
van HooffJ. H. (2011). Rationalising inequality: Heterosexual couples’ explanations and justifications for the division of housework along traditionally gendered lines. Journal of Gender Studies, 20(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2011.542016
60.
VázquezA.LoisD. (2019). More than ideology: Perceived unfairness differentiates supporters of a new anti-austerity party from supporters of traditional left-wing parties. International Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 26–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2018.1537651
61.
VázquezA.López-RodríguezL.GómezÁ.DovidioJ. F. (2020). Ambivalent effects of positive contact between women and men on collective actions for women’s rights. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(9), 1358–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220974162
WrightS.LubenskyM. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action vs. prejudice reduction. In DemoulinS.LeyensJ. P.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203848814
64.
YokyingP.LambrechtI. (2019). Landownership and the gender gap in agriculture: Disappointing insights from Northern Ghana. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1847. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133281
65.
YoungM.WallaceJ. E.PolachekA. J. (2013). Gender differences in perceived domestic task equity: A study of professionals. Journal of Family Issues, 36(13), 1751–1781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x13508403
66.
YurtseverA.KorkmazA.CemalcilarZ. (2021). Feminism and mate preference: A study on relational cognitive dissonance. Personality and Individual Differences, 168, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110297
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.
