Adopting the System-Justifying Attitudes of Others: Effects of Trivial Interpersonal Connections in the Context of Social Inclusion and Exclusion (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Review of Social Psychology, 2023
System justification theory (SJT) assumes that social identity theory (SIT) cannot fully account for system justification by members of low-status (disadvantaged) groups. Contrary to this claim, we provide several elaborations of SIT that explain when and why members of low-status groups show system justification independent from any separate system justification motive. According to the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA), the needs for social accuracy and a positively distinct social identity fully account for system justification by members of low-status groups. In the present article, we (a) explain SIMSA's accounts of system justification, (b) develop associated hypotheses, (c) summarise evidence that supports each hypothesis, and (d) highlight issues to be addressed in future research. We conclude that SIMSA provides a more parsimonious explanation of system justification by the disadvantaged than SJT, because it does not refer to an additional separate system justification motive.
System justification among the disadvantaged: A triadic social stratification perspective
Frontiers in Psychology, 2020
For the past 25 years, the field of social and political psychology has embraced the idea that humans possess a special system justification motivation which causes even members of disadvantaged groups to support societal systems that ostensibly operate against their personal and group interests. Recently, this system justification motive explanation has been challenged, based on mounting empirical evidence to the contrary. However, the potential demise of this dominant perspective invites explanations for the system justification phenomenon, especially amongst the disadvantaged. Existing interest-based accounts, such as the social identity model of system attitudes have tried to fill this gap, but have generally focused on system rationalisation processes within dyadic systems that pitch disadvantaged groups against their privileged counterparts alone. The current contribution extends the existing interest-based accounts by explaining system justification effects in multi-stratified social systems. Based on the triadic social stratification theory, we propose that system justification among the disadvantaged may result from favourable inter-status comparisons within a multi-stratified social system.
2000
It is argued that members of low status groups arefaced with a psychological conflict between group jushjfication tendencies to e-oaluate members of one's own groupfavorably and systemjustification tendencies to endorse the superiority of higherstatus outgroups. In Study 1, members of low status groups exhibited less ingroup favoritism and more ingroup ambivalence than did members of high status groups. Perceptions that the status differences were legitimate increased outgroup favoritism and ambivalence among low status groups, and they increased ingroup favoritism and decreased ambivalence among high status groups. In Study 2, the belief in a just world and social dominance orientation increased ambivalence on the part of women towardfemale victims of gender discrimination, but they decreased ambivalence on the part of men. Evidence here indicates that system-justffying variables increase ingroup ambivalence among low status group members and decrease ambivalence among high status group members.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 2003
According to system justification theory, people are motivated to preserve the belief that existing social arrangements are fair, legitimate, justifiable, and necessary. The strongest form of this hypothesis, which draws on the logic of cognitive dissonance theory, holds that people who are most disadvantaged by the status quo would have the greatest psychological need to reduce ideological dissonance and would therefore be most likely to support, defend, and justify existing social systems, authorities, and outcomes. Variations on this hypothesis were tested in five US national survey studies. We found that (a) low-income respondents and African Americans were more likely than others to support limitations on the rights of citizens and media representatives to criticize the government; (b) low-income Latinos were more likely to trust in US government officials and to believe that 'the government is run for the benefit of all' than were high-income Latinos; (c) low-income respondents were more likely than high-income respondents to believe that large differences in pay are necessary to foster motivation and effort; (d) Southerners in the USA were more likely to endorse meritocratic belief systems than were Northerners and poor and Southern African Americans were more likely to subscribe to meritocratic ideologies than were African Americans who were more affluent and from the North; (e) low-income respondents and African Americans were more likely than others to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary; and (f) stronger endorsement of meritocratic ideology was associated with greater satisfaction with one's own economic situation. Taken together, these findings are consistent with the dissonance-based argument that people who suffer the most from a given state of affairs are paradoxically the least likely to question, challenge, reject, or change it. Implications for theories of system justification, cognitive dissonance, and social change are also discussed.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 2018
Since first being proposed 25 years ago, system justification theory has become a paradigm‐shifting framework for understanding intergroup relations and political psychology. Based on the thesis that people are motivated to defend and bolster the societal status quo, system justification theory helps to explain varied phenomena, including resistance to change, outgroup favouritism, and other instances of false consciousness. This paper summarizes four tenets of the theory including the following: (1) antecedents to system justification, (2) palliative effects of system justification, (3) status‐based asymmetries in conflict between justification motives, and (4) societal consequences of system justification. Throughout our review, we highlight how system justification theory helps to explain why disadvantaged groups might sometimes support the status quo, emphasizing research conducted outside the United States when possible. We conclude by calling on future research to (1) further ...
Acta Psychologica, 2023
Members of disadvantaged groups sometimes support societal systems that enable the very inequalities that disadvantaged them. Is it possible to explain this puzzling system-justifying orientation in terms of rational groupinterested motives, without recourse to a separate system motive? The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) claims that it is. SIMSA proposes that the system justification shown by a disadvantaged group (e.g., African American women) can sometimes support identity needs that are tied to a more inclusive (superordinate) in-group (e.g., Americans). There is already some supportive evidence for this proposition, but it is not yet clear whether: (1) such trends are visible in a wider range of disadvantaged contexts, and (2) this explanation also applies to those who are strongly invested in their subgroup (e.g., feminists). In two waves of a large nationally representative survey from 21 to 23 European states (N total = 84,572) and two controlled experiments (N total = 290 women), we found that: (a) system justification was positively associated with superordinate ingroup identification across multiple cases of disadvantage (Studies 1-3), (b) system justification increased when this inclusive identity was made more salient (Studies 2 & 3), and (c) system justification was visible even amongst feminists when they activated their superordinate (Italian) identity (Study 3).
European Journal of Social Psychology, 2009
The capacity for victim-derogating stereotypes and attributions to justify social inequality and maintain the status quo is well known among social scientists and other observers. Research conducted from the perspective of system justification theory suggests that an alternative to derogation is to justify inequality through the use of complementary stereotypes that ascribe compensating benefits and burdens to disadvantaged and advantaged groups, respectively. In two experimental studies conducted in Poland we investigated the hypothesis that preferences for these two routes to system justification would depend upon one's political orientation. That is, we predicted that the system-justifying potential of complementary versus noncomplementary stereotype exemplars would be moderated by individual differences in left-right ideology, such that left-wingers would exhibit stronger support for the societal status quo following exposure to complementary (e.g., ''poor but happy,'' ''rich but miserable'') representations, whereas right-wingers would exhibit stronger support for the status quo following exposure to noncomplementary (e.g., ''poor and dishonest,'' ''rich and honest'') representations. Results were supportive of these predictions. Implications for theory and practice concerning stereotyping, ideology, and system justification are discussed.
Social identity explanations of system justification: Misconceptions, criticisms, and clarifications
European Review of Social Psychology, 2023
In this article, we reply to Jost et al.’s (2023) rejoinder to our article reviewing evidence for the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Rubin et al., 2023). We argue that (1) SIMSA treats system justification as the outcome of an interaction between general social psychological process and specific historical, political, cultural, and ideological environments; (2) it does not conflate perceived intergroup status differences with the perceived stability and legitimacy of those differences, (3) it is not fatalistic, because it assumes that people may engage in social change when they perceive an opportunity to do so; (4) it adopts a non-reductionist, social psychological explanation of system justification, rather than an individualist explanation based on individual differences; (5) it presupposes “existing social arrangements”, including their existing legitimacy and stability, and assumes that these social arrangements are either passively acknowledged or actively supported; and (6) it is not reliant on minimal group experiments in its evidence base.