Using vocational choice and social dominance theories as theoretical framew
orks, the authors examined the effects of ideology/role congruency on diffe
rential institutional rewards. The authors reasoned that congruents (i.e.,
individuals high in antiegalitarianism in hierarchy-enhancing [HE] social r
oles and low in antiegalitarianism in hierarchy-attending [HA] roles) would
receive higher institutional rewards than would incongruents (i.e., indivi
duals high in antiegalitarianism in HA social roles and low in antiegalitar
ianism in HE roles). Furthermore, it was predicted that one's continued exp
osure to the university environment would increase the probability of being
a congruent, The authors used a large sample of university students, with
grade point average as the operationalization of institutional reward. Role
was defined as the students' major and antiegalitarianism was defined by a
classical racism scale. As expected, (a) everything else being equal congr
uents received higher grades than did incongruents, and (b) the probability
of being a congruent increased with university experience.