The Effects of Implicit Gender Role Theories on Gender System Justification: Fixed Beliefs Strengthen Masculinity to Preserve the Status Quo Laura J. Kray and Laura Howland University of California, Berkeley Alexandra G. Russell and Lauren M. Jackman Stanford University Four studies (n = 1199) tested support for the idea that implicit theories about the fixedness versus malleability of gender roles (entity vs. incremental theories) predict differences in the degree of gender system justification, that is, support for the status quo in relations between women and men in society. Relative to an incremental theory, the holding of an entity theory correlated with more system-justifying attitudes and self-perceptions (Study 1) for men and women alike. We also found that strength of identification with one’s gender in-group was a stronger predictor of system justification for men than it was for women, suggesting men’s defense of the status quo may be motivated by their membership in a high status group in the social hierarchy. In 3 experiments, we then tested whether exposure to a fixed gender role theory would lead men to identify more with masculine characteristics and their male gender group, thus increasing their defense of the gender system as fair and just. We did not expect a fixed gender role theory to trigger these identity-motivated responses in women. Overall, we found that, by increasing the degree of psychological investment in their masculine identity, adopting a fixed gender role theory increased men’s rationalization of the gender status quo compared with when gender roles were perceived to be changeable. This suggests that, when men are motivated to align with their masculine identity, they are more likely to endorse the persistence of gender inequality as a way of affirming their status as “real men.” Keywords: essentialism, gender roles, implicit theory, masculinity, system justification The extent to which traditional gender roles are seen as chang- ing in modern society depends in part on the metrics considered. On one hand, more American mothers have held the role of family breadwinner in recent years than ever before (Wang, Parker, & Taylor, 2013). On the other hand, women throughout the world remain underrepresented and underpaid in the workforce relative to men (International Labour Organization, 2014; World Eco- nomic Forum, 2015) and women are more likely than men to bear responsibility for taking care of both children and elders and to assume housekeeping duties like cleaning, laundry, and food prep- aration (World Bank, 2012). To the degree that gender roles have changed, the shifts have been asymmetric in the sense that women have entered male-dominated jobs in recent decades more rapidly than men have entered into jobs traditionally reserved for women (Croft, Schmader, & Block, 2015). While the social meaning and value of these changes in traditional gender roles continues to be debated in all arenas of public life, understanding why and under what circumstances people resist change is of critical importance for those invested in reducing gender inequality. The current research addresses this question by examining im- plicit gender role theories, or beliefs about the malleability or fixedness of the social roles inhabited by men and women. We examine the effects of these beliefs on masculine identity motives, including seeing oneself in terms of masculine characteristics and identifying strongly with being a man, to understand why men shy away from changing gender roles. The topic of gender equality often focuses on ways for women to gain success in traditionally male roles, however understanding how to encourage men to fill traditionally female roles is equally important to establishing a gender system based in equality. Because men enjoy more status and power in society (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004; Bem, 1993), understanding the factors that increase or decrease their recogni- tion of gender inequality is critical for bringing about social change. Gender roles speak to divisions of household labor, job segre- gation, and gender differences in status and authority. Traditional gender roles link females with the “caretaker” roles and males with the “breadwinner” roles. A central tenet of social role theory (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Steffen, 1984) is that women’s presumed communality derives from their historical distribution into home- maker roles, and that men’s presumed agency derives from their historical distribution into occupational roles, rather than these being innate qualities (Eagly & Steffen, 1986; Eagly & Wood, 1999; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). Whether viewed as his- torically derived or biologically determined, the mere existence of Laura J. Kray and Laura Howland, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley; Alexandra G. Russell and Lauren M. Jackman, Department of Psychology, Stanford University. We are extremely grateful to Carol Dweck, Leire Gartzia, Michael Haselhuhn, and Greg Walton for helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article. We are also grateful for financial support from the David Eckles Diversity Fund at Berkeley-Haas. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura J. Kray, University of California, Berkeley, 545 Student Services Building, #1900, Berkeley, CA 94720-1900. E-mail: kray@haas.berkeley.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2016 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 112, No. 1, 98 –115 0022-3514/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000124 98