Print

6 The Psychology of Inequity 2006), sexual orientation (e.g., Simon, Glässner-Bayerl, & Stratenwerth, 1991), ethnicity (e.g., Verkuyten & Nekuee, 1999), and age (Levy, 1996), to name several. Although self-stereotyping has been shown to offer protective benefits (in helping stigmatized groups achieve well-being: Latrofa, Vaes, Pas- tore, & Cadinu, 2009), it nevertheless also serves to contribute to ineq- uity and the status quo by promoting system justification. For example, Laurin, Kay, and Shepherd (2011) reasoned that women’s tendency to self-stereotype as relational and warm (vs. competent and competitive, traits typically reserved for men) stood as a route to justifying existing gaps between men’s and women’s achievement in male-dominated fields such as Fortune 500 companies and the U.S. Senate. Consistent with this argument, they showed that inducing system justification led to more self- stereotyping and, conversely, self-stereotyping also led to more system justification (Laurin et al., 2011). In-group derogation goes one step further and involves endorsement of outright negative characterizations of one’s own group (e.g., Hewstone & Ward, 1985 Ma-Kellams et al., 2011). Although not all forms of in-group derogation relate to system justification (Ma-Kellams et al., 2011), many forms of in-group derogation in the context of status-relevant traits have been shown to be system justifying. For example, Jost and Burgess (2000) showed that when they manipulated perceived SES, low-status groups favored the out-group rather than the in-group on traits related to status such as intelligence, industriousness, and verbal skills. UNDERLYING COGNITIVE PROCESSES In these cases of self-fulfilling prophecy, stereotype threat, and self- stereotyping, the existence of a difference between social groups—usually based on stereotypes—is enough to initiate a self-perpetuating cycle that involves either expectations shaping actual behaviors, anxiety contribut- ing to stereotype fulfillment, and/or internalization of biases. However, broader cognitive processes can explain why such stereotypes exist in the first place. These include system justification, cognitive dissonance, cogni- tive miser theory, and self-serving biases. System Justification System justification is arguably one of the most oft-cited explanations for inequity and addresses the paradox of how a species that cares intui- tively and innately about equity can also be so prone to striking inequali- ties (Jost, Gaucher, & Stern, 2015). At its core, system justification theory argues that the disadvantaged do not attempt to change or leave the exist- ing system that is unfairly pitted against them because they are motivated to believe in a just world, which is in itself psychologically rewarding