Gender Differences in Entitlement: The Role of System-Justifying Beliefs

Why Do People from Low‐Status Groups Support Class Systems that Disadvantage Them? A Test of Two Mainstream Explanations in Malaysia and Australia

“…A 23‐item scale included (a) an adapted version of O'Brien, Major, and Gilbert's () nine‐item measure of system‐justification beliefs concerning societal fairness and equity (e.g., “Differences in status between Australia's universities are fair;” α = .75); (b) an adapted version of Kay and Jost's () six‐item measure of economic system justification (e.g., “The Australian University Rankings system is the best possible system;” α = .84); and (c) Rubin, Badea, and Jetten () eight‐item perceived status system legitimacy scale (e.g., “The Australian University Rankings system is: ‘justified’, ‘legitimate’, and ‘sensible’”; α = .87, 1 = strongly disagree ; 7 = strongly agree; α aggregate = .84).…”

Detecting and Experiencing Prejudice

“…Indeed, research has shown that personal meritocracy beliefs impede the recognition of prejudice. For instance, the extent to which women personally endorse system justifying beliefs predicts their perceptions of pay entitlement (O'Brien, Major, & Gilbert, 2012). When individuals believe that women should earn less than men, they are less likely to perceive gender differences in pay levels as indicating discrimination.…”

A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications

“…Initially, system justification theory focused specifically on stereotyping, prejudice, and outgroup favouritism (Jost, ), but it was subsequently expanded to account for a much wider range of outcomes, including appraisals of fairness, justice, legitimacy, deservingness, and entitlement (Brandt & Reyna, ; Jost, ; Jost & Major, ; O'Brien, Major, & Gilbert, ; van der Toorn, Tyler, & Jost, ); attributions and explanations for poverty and inequality (Ali, Ohls, Parker, & Walker, ; Durrheim, Jacobs, & Dixon, ; Godfrey & Wolf, ); spontaneous and deliberate social inferences and judgements about individuals and groups (Jost, Kivetz, Rubini, Guermandi, & Mosso, ; Kay, Jost, & Young, ; Monteith, Burns, Rupp, & Mihalec‐Adkins, ); attitudes and opinions about social, economic, and political issues (Jost, Blount, Pfeffer, & Hunyady, ; Kay et al ., ; Mallett, Huntsinger, & Swim, ; Tan, Liu, Huang, & Zheng, ; van der Toorn, Jost, Packer, Noorbaloochi, & Van Bavel, ); rationalizations for certain sociopolitical outcomes or events (Kay, Jimenez, & Jost, ; Laurin, ); and full‐fledged political and religious ideologies (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, ; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, ; Jost et al ., , ).…”