A Politico-Psychological Analysis of Gender System Justification

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Gender System Justification

Item Item Description
Gender_SJ1 In general, relations between men and women are fair
Gender_SJ2 The division of labor in families generally operates as it should
Gender_SJ3 [Rev] Gender roles need to be radically restructured
Gender_SJ4 For women, the United States is the best country in the world to live in
Gender_SJ5 Most policies relating to gender and the sexual division of labor serve the greater good
Gender_SJ6 Everyone (male or female) has a fair shot and wealth and happiness
Gender_SJ7 [Rev] Sexism in society is getting worse every year
Gender_SJ8 Society is set up so that men and women usually get what they deserve

1.2 Samples

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey,1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

N=2119

Also through SSI we also recruited 2,119 American adults (21.5% women), who completed study materials from August 20-September 13, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). Age was distributed as follows: 18-24 (9.1%), 25-34 (13.8%), 35-44 (11.4%), 45-54 (2.7%), 55-65(3.6%), 65 and older (59.3%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (85.9%), Black/African American (5.1%), Latino (4.1%), and “Other” (5.0%). In terms of religion, 70.7% identified as Christian, 15.7% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 13.7% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to educational status, 16.2% chose “high school or lower,” 40.4% reported “some college” and 43.4% had attained a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. The median income category was $50,000-$74,999. 3425 participants were directed to the survey, 2,262 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22 %).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies (Meade & Craig, 2012). Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 543 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 2,119 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 92 minutes on average (MD: 57min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives
Descriptives for Gender System Justification Items
vars n mean sd median min max range se
Gender_SJ1 1 1500 5.21 2.19 5.0 1 9 8 0.06
Gender_SJ2 2 1500 5.39 1.87 5.0 1 9 8 0.05
Gender_SJ3 3 1500 5.17 2.29 5.0 1 9 8 0.06
Gender_SJ4 4 1500 6.70 2.13 7.0 1 9 8 0.05
Gender_SJ5 5 1500 4.98 1.97 5.0 1 9 8 0.05
Gender_SJ6 6 1500 5.99 2.37 6.0 1 9 8 0.06
Gender_SJ7 7 1500 5.20 2.21 5.0 1 9 8 0.06
Gender_SJ8 8 1500 4.86 2.05 5.0 1 9 8 0.05
Mean 9 1500 5.44 1.37 5.5 1 9 8 0.04

2.2 Proportions

Figure 1: Proportion of each response categories for Gender System Justification Items

2.3 Distributions

Figure 2: Distribution of reponses for Gender System Justification Items

2.4 Correlations

Figure 3: Bivariate Spearmans’ correlations for Gender System Justification
Figure 4: Bivariate Spearmans’ correlations for Gender System Justification
Figure 5: Correlation Matrix of Gender System Justification items, Spearman’s rank correlations

3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class

Figure 6: Gender System Justificationas grouped by SES


Figure 7: Raincloud Plots showing Gender System Justification grouped by Social Class


Note on the Raincloud Plots

  • Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
  • Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.


Table 2: Gender System Justification as grouped by SES
Gender System Justification as grouped by SES
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 -0.32 1.06
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.16 0.97
Middle Middle Class 679 -0.01 1.01
Upper Middle Class 395 0.09 0.99
Rich 90 0.38 0.91


3.2 Gender

Figure 8: Gender System Justificationas grouped by Gender


Figure 9: Raincloud Plots showing Gender System Justification grouped by Gender


Table 3: Gender System Justification as grouped by Gender
Gender System Justification as grouped by Gender
Gender N Mean SD
Female 760 -0.29 1.00
Male 740 0.29 0.91

3.3 Age

Figure 10: Gender System Justification as grouped by Age


Figure 11: Raincloud Plots showing Gender System Justification grouped by Age


Table 4: Gender System Justification as grouped by Age
Gender System Justification as grouped by Age
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 -0.10 1.04
25-34 years 264 -0.32 0.97
35-44 years 263 -0.05 1.05
45-54 years 292 -0.01 0.98
55-64 years 234 0.08 0.94
65+ 254 0.39 0.88

3.4 Education

Table 5: Gender System Justification as grouped by Education


Figure 12: Raincloud Plots showing Gender System Justification grouped by Education


Table 6: Gender System Justification as grouped by Education
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 -0.03 0.98
High School 475 -0.03 0.96
Some College 471 -0.04 1.01
Bachelor 310 0.05 1.03
Graduate 193 0.09 1.02


3.5 Income Levels

Figure 13: Gender System Justification as grouped by Income Levels


Figure 14: Raincloud Plots showing Gender System Justification grouped by Income Levels


Table 7: Gender System Justification as grouped by Income Levels
Gender System Justification as grouped by Income Levels
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.24 1.03
$15,000-$24,999 180 -0.18 0.97
$25,000-$34,999 176 -0.08 0.98
$35,000-$49,999 227 -0.04 1.01
$50,000-$74,999 292 -0.01 1.00
$75,000-$99,999 192 0.12 0.96
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.24 0.96
$150,000 + 95 0.42 0.97

3.6 Ethnicity

Figure 15: Gender System Justification as grouped by Ethnicity

Note on the Okabe-Ito color palette The Okabe-Ito color palette (seen above) is a set of colorblind-friendly categorical colors available in R. We are using this palette for graphs with non-ordered variables (e.g., groups, categories) for accessibility.

Figure 16: Raincloud Plots showing Gender System Justification grouped by Ethnicity


Table 8: Gender System Justification as grouped by Ethnicity
Gender System Justification as grouped by Ethnicity
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.06 1.00
Black/African American 115 -0.53 0.92
Latino 88 -0.09 0.88
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 -0.11 0.93
Native American 13 -0.22 1.09
Other 18 -0.21 0.73

3.7 Occupation

Figure 17: Gender System Justification as grouped by Occupation


Figure 18: Raincloud Plots showing Gender System Justification grouped by Occupation


Table 9: Gender System Justification as grouped by Occupation
Gender System Justification as grouped by Occupation
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 0.00 1.01
Retired 268 0.30 0.85
Unemployed 146 -0.22 1.09
Parent 104 -0.08 0.99
Disabled 98 -0.13 1.03
Student 85 -0.30 1.04
Full-time caregiver 31 -0.12 0.80

3.8 Area

Figure 19: Gender System Justification as grouped by Area


Figure 20: Raincloud Plots showing Gender System Justification grouped by Area


Table 10: Gender System Justification as grouped by Area
Gender System Justification as grouped by Area
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 -0.05 1.01
Rural 545 0.09 0.97


3.9 Religious Affiliation

Figure 21: Gender System Justification as grouped by Religious Affiliation


Figure 22: Raincloud Plots showing Gender System Justification grouped by Religious Affiliation


Table 11: Gender System Justification as grouped by Religion
Gender System Justification as grouped by Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 0.12 0.98
Jewish 52 0.06 1.01
Muslim 9 0.20 0.75
Atheist/Agnostic 230 -0.38 1.05
No religion 195 -0.18 0.94



4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Figure 23: Correlation Matrix - Political Orientation



Figure 24: Political Orientation



Table 12: Models of Political Orientation (SPRI) & Gender System Justification
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.31 5.19 – 5.42 <0.001 4.93 4.80 – 5.06 <0.001 5.48 5.36 – 5.60 <0.001 5.24 5.13 – 5.35 <0.001
Gender System Justification 1.12 1.01 – 1.23 <0.001 1.17 1.04 – 1.29 <0.001 1.18 1.06 – 1.30 <0.001 1.15 1.04 – 1.26 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.207 / 0.206 0.178 / 0.178 0.200 / 0.200 0.226 / 0.226



Table 13: Models of Ideo_SP_JJ and SRPI_CM, and Gender System Justification Age + Inc + Religiosity + Edu
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) -0.29 -0.79 – 0.22 0.264 -0.83 -1.39 – -0.28 0.003 -0.72 -1.29 – -0.15 0.014 -0.61 -1.10 – -0.13 0.014
Gender_SJ 0.65 0.57 – 0.72 <0.001 0.66 0.58 – 0.74 <0.001 0.71 0.62 – 0.79 <0.001 0.67 0.60 – 0.74 <0.001
Age 0.17 0.10 – 0.23 <0.001 0.17 0.10 – 0.24 <0.001 0.17 0.10 – 0.24 <0.001 0.17 0.11 – 0.23 <0.001
Income 0.02 -0.03 – 0.08 0.448 -0.07 -0.13 – -0.00 0.034 0.06 -0.00 – 0.13 0.056 0.01 -0.05 – 0.06 0.833
Religiosity 0.33 0.29 – 0.36 <0.001 0.44 0.40 – 0.48 <0.001 0.24 0.20 – 0.29 <0.001 0.34 0.30 – 0.37 <0.001
Education -0.09 -0.20 – 0.01 0.089 -0.13 -0.25 – -0.02 0.025 0.07 -0.05 – 0.19 0.245 -0.05 -0.15 – 0.05 0.324
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.362 / 0.359 0.398 / 0.396 0.290 / 0.287 0.395 / 0.393

4.2 Religiosity



Figure 25: Religiosity



4.3 Religiosity & Political Orientation

Figure 26: Religiosity - Correlation Matrix



4.4 Candidate Preferences



Figure 27: Candidate Preferences



Table 14: Candidate Preferences (centered)
Candidate Preferences and Gender System Justification [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 0.43 0.89
Hillary Clinton 371 -0.28 0.89
Bernie Sanders 362 -0.56 0.97
Ted Cruz 122 0.54 0.83
Jeb Bush 83 0.46 0.76
Gary Johnson 68 -0.10 1.00
Rand Paul 44 0.35 0.82



Table 15: Candidate Preferences (raw means)
Candidate Preferences and Gender System Justification [raw means]
Candidate Preferences N Mean SD Range
Donald Trump 444 0.43 0.89 1-9
Hillary Clinton 371 -0.28 0.89 1-9
Bernie Sanders 362 -0.56 0.97 1-9
Ted Cruz 122 0.54 0.83 1-9
Jeb Bush 83 0.46 0.76 1-9
Gary Johnson 68 -0.10 1.00 1-9
Rand Paul 44 0.35 0.82 1-9



4.5 Party Preferences


Figure 28: Party Preferences



Table 16: Party Preferences (centered)
Party Preferences and Gender System Justification [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Green Party 40 -1.05 1.06
Democratic Party 560 -0.40 0.91
Don't know 90 -0.14 0.85
None 120 -0.06 0.87
Libertarian Party 100 0.02 1.15
Constitution Party 14 0.14 0.78
Republican Party 508 0.44 0.86
Tea Party 68 0.80 0.80



Table 17: Party Preferences (raw means)
Party Preferences and Gender System Justification [raw means]
Party Preferences N Mean SD Range
Green Party 40 -1.05 1.06 1-9
Democratic Party 560 -0.40 0.91 1-9
Don't know 90 -0.14 0.85 1-9
None 120 -0.06 0.87 1-9
Libertarian Party 100 0.02 1.15 1-9
Constitution Party 14 0.14 0.78 1-9
Republican Party 508 0.44 0.86 1-9
Tea Party 68 0.80 0.80 1-9



4.6 Voting Preferences

Table 18: Voting Preferences
  2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters 2012 [Romney vs. Obama] 2008 [McCain vs. Obama]
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 75.45 39.63 – 148.30 <0.001 71.19 37.86 – 138.05 <0.001 117.74 61.61 – 232.25 <0.001 124.93 64.59 – 249.62 <0.001
Gender System Justification 0.46 0.41 – 0.51 <0.001 0.46 0.41 – 0.52 <0.001 0.43 0.38 – 0.49 <0.001 0.43 0.38 – 0.48 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148 1236 1206
R2 Tjur 0.197 0.192 0.204 0.205



Figure 29: Logistic Regression, Gender System Justification & Voting Preferences

4.7 Party Identity



Figure 30: Party Identity



Figure 31: Party Identity and Voting



Table 19: Party Identity & Voting
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323

4.8 Voting & Party Identity

Figure 32: Predicted, Voting & Party Identity



Table 20: Supporters
  2016 [Clinton vs. Trump] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 43.86 15.88 – 128.68 <0.001 42.14 16.15 – 116.08 <0.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <0.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.80 0.66 – 0.96 0.020 0.78 0.65 – 0.93 0.006
Gender System Justification 0.01 0.01 – 0.01 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148
R2 Tjur 0.748 0.722



4.9 Likeability

4.10 Trump’s Likebility


Figure 33: Trump’s Likeability



4.11 Clinton’s Likebility


Figure 34: Clinton’s Likeability



4.12 Johnson’s Likeability


Figure 35: Johnson’s Likeability


5 Politico-Psychological correlates of Gender System Justification



5.1 Ideologies and Partisanship


Figure 36: Correlates of Gender System Justification



5.2 Populism, Nationalism, Nativism, and Patriotism


Figure 37: Correlates - Populism



5.3 Political Psychology


Figure 38: Correlates - Political Psychology



5.4 Social Justice Concerns, Empathy, and Prejudice


Figure 39: Correlates - Social Concerns



5.5 Values


Figure 40: Correlates - Values



5.6 Pot-Pourri


Figure 41: Correlates - Constructs



5.7 Positive and Negative correlates of Gender System Justification


Figure 42: Correlates - Positive & significant associations



Figure 43: Correlates - Negative & significant associations

5.8 Section Summary


Table 21: Table of models 1
  Gender System Justification Gender System Justification Gender System Justification Gender System Justification Gender System Justification
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 4.00 3.83 – 4.18 <0.001 3.44 3.21 – 3.67 <0.001 2.55 2.32 – 2.78 <0.001 1.66 1.39 – 1.92 <0.001 -0.00 -0.00 – -0.00 <0.001
Social Dominance Orientation 0.38 0.34 – 0.43 <0.001
Right-Wing Authoritarianism 0.38 0.34 – 0.43 <0.001
System Justification 0.57 0.53 – 0.61 <0.001
Economic System Justification 0.78 0.73 – 0.84 <0.001
Gender-specific System Justification 1.00 1.00 – 1.00 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.163 / 0.162 0.171 / 0.171 0.306 / 0.305 0.355 / 0.354 1.000 / 1.000


Table 22: Table of models 2
  Gender System Justification Gender System Justification Gender System Justification Gender System Justification Gender System Justification
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.47 3.16 – 3.78 <0.001 1.64 0.64 – 2.63 0.001 2.55 2.32 – 2.78 <0.001 1.66 1.39 – 1.92 <0.001 -0.00 -0.00 – -0.00 <0.001
SDO7_Dominance 0.21 0.10 – 0.31 <0.001
SDO7_AntiEgal 0.52 0.43 – 0.60 <0.001
SDO7_Dominance:SDO7_AntiEgal -0.05 -0.08 – -0.03 <0.001
RWA_Agression 0.35 0.12 – 0.58 0.003
RWA_Conventionalism 0.77 0.50 – 1.03 <0.001
RWA_Submission 0.50 0.20 – 0.79 0.001
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism -0.07 -0.12 – -0.03 0.003
RWA_Agression:RWA_Submission -0.05 -0.11 – 0.00 0.072
RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission -0.12 -0.18 – -0.07 <0.001
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission 0.01 0.01 – 0.02 0.002
SJ_Gen 0.57 0.53 – 0.61 <0.001
SJ_Eco 0.78 0.73 – 0.84 <0.001
SJ_Gender 1.00 1.00 – 1.00 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.210 / 0.208 0.192 / 0.188 0.306 / 0.305 0.355 / 0.354 1.000 / 1.000


Figure 44: Interaction with facets of SDO


Table 23: Linear Regression
Observations 1500
Dependent variable facet
Type OLS linear regression
F(1,1498) 290.81
R² 0.16
Adj. R² 0.16
Est. S.E. t val. p
(Intercept) 4.00 0.09 44.44 0.00
SDO 0.38 0.02 17.05 0.00
Standard errors: OLS