Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) contends that institutional-level
mechanisms exist that reinforce and perpetuate existing group-based inequalities,
but very few such mechanisms have been empirically demonstrated. We propose that gendered
wording (i.e., masculine- and feminine-themed words, such as those associated with
gender stereotypes) may be a heretofore unacknowledged, institutional-level mechanism
of inequality maintenance. Employing both archival and experimental analyses, the
present research demonstrates that gendered wording commonly employed in job recruitment
materials can maintain gender inequality in traditionally male-dominated occupations.
Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated 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 wording (i.e., words associated
with male stereotypes, such as leader, competitive, dominant) than advertisements
within female-dominated areas. No difference in the presence of feminine wording (i.e.,
words associated with female stereotypes, such as support, understand, interpersonal)
emerged across male- and female-dominated areas. Next, the consequences of highly
masculine wording were tested across 3 experimental studies. When job advertisements
were constructed to include more masculine than feminine wording, participants perceived
more men within these occupations (Study 3), and importantly, women found these jobs
less appealing (Studies 4 and 5). Results confirmed that perceptions of belongingness
(but not perceived skills) mediated the effect of gendered wording on job appeal (Study
5). The function of gendered wording in maintaining traditional gender divisions,
implications for gender parity, and theoretical models of inequality are discussed.