The present research demonstrates a novel institutional-level contributor--that is, gendered wording used in job recruitment materials--that serves to perpetuate the status quo, keeping women underrepresented in traditionally male-dominated occupations. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the literature on barriers to women’s inclusion in traditionally male-dominated fields. Chapter 2 demonstrates the existence of subtle but systematic wording differences within a randomly sampled set of job advertisements. Results indicated that job advertisements for male-dominated areas employed greater "masculine" (e.g., challenge, analyze, lead) than “feminine” wording (e.g., support, understand, interpersonal; Studies 1 and 2). In Chapter 3, I tested the consequences of these wording differences across four experimental studies. When job ads were constructed to include more masculine than feminine wording, people perceived fewer women within these occupations (Study 3) and, importantly, women found these jobs less appealing (Studies 4-6). Men showed the opposite pattern, preferring jobs with masculinely-worded ads to the femininely-worded jobs (Study 4-5). Results confirmed that perceptions of belongingness (but not perceived skills) mediated the effect of gendered wording on job appeal (Studies 4 and 6). The system-justifying function of gendered wording and implications for gender parity and theoretical models of inequality are discussed in Chapter 4.

The present research demonstrates a novel institutional-level contributor--that is, gendered wording used in job recruitment materials--that serves to perpetuate the status quo, keeping women underrepresented in traditionally male-dominated occupations. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the literature on barriers to women’s inclusion in traditionally male-dominated fields. Chapter 2 demonstrates the existence of subtle but systematic wording differences within a randomly sampled set of job advertisements. Results indicated that job advertisements for male-dominated areas employed greater "masculine" (e.g., challenge, analyze, lead) than “feminine” wording (e.g., support, understand, interpersonal; Studies 1 and 2). In Chapter 3, I tested the consequences of these wording differences across four experimental studies. When job ads were constructed to include more masculine than feminine wording, people perceived fewer women within these occupations (Study 3) and, importantly, women found these jobs less appealing (Studies 4-6). Men showed the opposite pattern, preferring jobs with masculinely-worded ads to the femininely-worded jobs (Study 4-5). Results confirmed that perceptions of belongingness (but not perceived skills) mediated the effect of gendered wording on job appeal (Studies 4 and 6). The system-justifying function of gendered wording and implications for gender parity and theoretical models of inequality are discussed in Chapter 4.

<p>Sverige kan ses som ett av världens mest jämställda länder. Människor kan dock inneha ambivalenta stereotyper om kvinnor, vilka kan vara sexistiska i sin karaktär. Syftet med föreliggande studie är att validera Glick och Fiskes (1996) Ambivalent Sexism skala översatt till svenska samt undersöka eventuella kopplingar mellan sexism, politisk inställning och system justification. Undersökningsdeltagarna tog i stor utsträckning avstånd från sexistiska attityder. Hostile sexism skattades högre än benevolent sexism, vilket skulle kunna kopplas till landets strävan efter jämställdhet. Männen skattade dock högre än kvinnorna på samtliga sexismskalor. Sambandet mellan system justification och politisk inställning var svagt. Det fanns dock en mindre skillnad mellan könen gällande uppfattningen om det svenska samhället, där män fann samhället aningen mer legitimt än kvinnorna, något som kan vara en antydan till en rådande samhällssituation där män fortfarande har högre social och ekonomisk status än kvinnor.</p>

Sverige kan ses som ett av världens mest jämställda länder. Människor kan dock inneha ambivalenta stereotyper om kvinnor, vilka kan vara sexistiska i sin karaktär. Syftet med föreliggande studie är att validera Glick och Fiskes (1996) Ambivalent Sexism skala översatt till svenska samt undersöka eventuella kopplingar mellan sexism, politisk inställning och system justification. Undersökningsdeltagarna tog i stor utsträckning avstånd från sexistiska attityder. Hostile sexism skattades högre än benevolent sexism, vilket skulle kunna kopplas till landets strävan efter jämställdhet. Männen skattade dock högre än kvinnorna på samtliga sexismskalor. Sambandet mellan system justification och politisk inställning var svagt. Det fanns dock en mindre skillnad mellan könen gällande uppfattningen om det svenska samhället, där män fann samhället aningen mer legitimt än kvinnorna, något som kan vara en antydan till en rådande samhällssituation där män fortfarande har högre social och ekonomisk status än kvinnor.

It is suggested that people’s perceptions that they are inevitably tied to the social systems within which they operate motivate them to justify these systems. Evidence is obtained across four experimental studies using a variety of different methods. All studies test the basic proposition that increasing inevitability – that is, making a system seem either more difficult to escape or more unlikely to change – increases motivated rationalization. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate this basic phenomenon, using a known measure of system justification. Studies 3 and 4, in addition to conceptually replicating this phenomenon via different paradigms, provide support for a motivational (as opposed to purely cognitive-inferential) account, and mediational and moderational evidence for my proposed mechanism, respectively. The implications of these results – for the refinement of system justification theory – are discussed.

When people are motivated to justify their socio-political systems they come to view the current status quo as the most desirable status quo--a process termed injunctification (Kay et al., 2009). Here, two studies suggest that injunctification processes can perpetuate gender inequalities in politics. In Study 1, I manipulated the system justification (SJ) motive of 64 female undergraduates and presented information suggesting there are many or few women in federal politics. Participants with their SJ motive heightened and who read there were many women more showed more egalitarian attitudes compared to other conditions. Study 2 (90 female undergraduates) again manipulated the SJ motive and manipulated the status quo about the number of women in politics. Participants with a heightened SJ motive who read there would soon be many women in politics reported more personal political interest, compared to other conditions. Implications for inequality and System Justification Theory are discussed.

During times of economic and political uncertainty, people often feel a lack of control and security. Three studies demonstrate that the motive for a sense of control can increase the desire for a romantic partner who is likely to provide a sense of control. When the sociopolitical system is threatened, men are more interested in warm, caring, submissive women consistent with ‘benevolent’ sexist ideals of femininity (Study 1). Women, on the other hand, are less interested in men consistent with the masculine stereotype as assertive, independent, and achievement-oriented to the extent that a relationship with these men can diminish their sense of control (Study 2). Threatening beliefs in personal control produced the same effect on women’s romantic interest in stereotypically masculine men, which supports the observed effects of system threat as due to motive for a sense of control. But when women perceive these men as benevolent, external sources of control, they remain interested in these men when threatened (Study 3). Together, the studies suggest that romantic relationships can be a means of establishing a sense of control following economic and political uncertainty.

It is suggested that people’s perceptions that they are inevitably tied to the social systems within which they operate motivate them to justify these systems. Evidence is obtained across four experimental studies using a variety of different methods. All studies test the basic proposition that increasing inevitability – that is, making a system seem either more difficult to escape or more unlikely to change – increases motivated rationalization. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate this basic phenomenon, using a known measure of system justification. Studies 3 and 4, in addition to conceptually replicating this phenomenon via different paradigms, provide support for a motivational (as opposed to purely cognitive-inferential) account, and mediational and moderational evidence for my proposed mechanism, respectively. The implications of these results – for the refinement of system justification theory – are discussed.

When people are motivated to justify their socio-political systems they come to view the current status quo as the most desirable status quo--a process termed injunctification (Kay et al., 2009). Here, two studies suggest that injunctification processes can perpetuate gender inequalities in politics. In Study 1, I manipulated the system justification (SJ) motive of 64 female undergraduates and presented information suggesting there are many or few women in federal politics. Participants with their SJ motive heightened and who read there were many women more showed more egalitarian attitudes compared to other conditions. Study 2 (90 female undergraduates) again manipulated the SJ motive and manipulated the status quo about the number of women in politics. Participants with a heightened SJ motive who read there would soon be many women in politics reported more personal political interest, compared to other conditions. Implications for inequality and System Justification Theory are discussed.

During times of economic and political uncertainty, people often feel a lack of control and security. Three studies demonstrate that the motive for a sense of control can increase the desire for a romantic partner who is likely to provide a sense of control. When the sociopolitical system is threatened, men are more interested in warm, caring, submissive women consistent with ‘benevolent’ sexist ideals of femininity (Study 1). Women, on the other hand, are less interested in men consistent with the masculine stereotype as assertive, independent, and achievement-oriented to the extent that a relationship with these men can diminish their sense of control (Study 2). Threatening beliefs in personal control produced the same effect on women’s romantic interest in stereotypically masculine men, which supports the observed effects of system threat as due to motive for a sense of control. But when women perceive these men as benevolent, external sources of control, they remain interested in these men when threatened (Study 3). Together, the studies suggest that romantic relationships can be a means of establishing a sense of control following economic and political uncertainty.