Is Political System Justification (Counter-) Normative?

<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Objective. </strong>In this study, we analyzed the relationship between political efficacy <em>(autonomy-supportive political climate) </em>and attitudes to the political system in Russia. <br><strong>Background.</strong> Self-determination theory posits that individuals express more positive attitudes toward those who create an autonomy-supportive climate than toward those who create a controlling climate. Some studies conducted in democratic political regimes have shown that political efficacy, as an indicator of perceived autonomous climate, is positively associated with attitudes towards the political system. However, the question arises: to what extent does the positive relationship between political efficacy and attitudes toward the political system persist in countries with authoritarian political systems, as well as among individuals with different socio-demographic and psychological characteristics? <br><strong>Study design.</strong> Respondents participated in an online survey conducted on the YandexToloka platform (samples 1, 3, 5) and on social media platforms (samples 2, 4, 6). The study involved six samples: the first and second samples were collected in May-June; the third and fourth samples were collected in August-September; the fifth and sixth samples were collected in November-December 2022. <br><strong>Participants.</strong> 16656 Russian citizens took part in this study (<em>N<sub>1</sub></em> = 2767, <em>N<sub>2</sub></em> = 2580, <em>N<sub>3</sub></em> = 3193, <em>N<sub>4</sub></em> = 2482, <em>N<sub>5</sub></em> = 3234, <em>N<sub>6</sub></em> = 2400). The data was collected in the spring-autumn of 2022. <br><strong>Measurements.</strong> Participants completed questionnaires that measure personal and collective political efficacy (perceived autonomy-supportive political climate), cognitive and emotional attitude towards the political system, as well as a range of psychological (political interest, internal political efficacy, psychological well-being, generalized trust, national identification) and socio-demographic (gender, age, education, income) control variables. <br><strong>Results.</strong> The study reveals that both personal political efficacy and collective political efficacy (perceived autonomy-supportive political climate) were positively associated with political trust and system justification. Results from YandexToloka demonstrate that the link between personal political efficacy and attitudes towards the political system is stronger among individuals who are more interested in politics and consider themselves more informed in this area. The association between collective political efficacy and attitudes towards the political system is stronger among individuals with higher psychological well-being and stronger national identification. However, in all samples, it is found that the positive link between political efficacy and attitudes towards the political system holds after controlling for psychological and socio-demographic variables.<br><strong>Conclusions.</strong> The perceived autonomy-supportive political climate is an important factor in predicting Russians' cognitive and emotional attitude towards the political system. It plays a significant role for people belonging to different socio-demographic groups and possessing various psychological characteristics. People with an active political life, with high psychological well-being and national identification value it the most. The fostering of the autonomy-supportive political climate, which allows people to voice their opinions on social problems and influence political decisions, improves their attitudes towards the political system including federal political institutions.</p>

The tendency of individuals to either justify or challenge the existing social and political system has significant practical implications. This research integrates system justification theory with a cross‐cultural perspective to examine the impact and underlying mechanisms of interdependent self‐construal on system justification. Studies 1a (N = 201) and 1b (N = 205) demonstrated that interdependent self‐construal correlated with higher system justification among both American and Chinese participants. Study 2 (N = 500) and Study 3 (N = 983) found that manipulation of an interdependent view of self‐construal led to stronger system justification tendencies, and this effect was explained by an increased focus on collectivist values and respect for authority. Studies 4a (N = 278) and 4b (N = 836) further illustrated that the positive relationship between interdependent self‐construal and system justification remained consistent even in low social mobility contexts. Taken together, the current research provides valuable insights into the cross‐country differences in system justification and highlights the importance of incorporating cultural factors in future studies on system justification.

A central aspect of political conservatism is the notion that the system is fair. Political conservatives tend to defend the system more than do liberals. Here we test whether the link between political orientation and this system justification tendency depends on the comparisons people make across time. Across five studies, we found that the typically observed link between conservative (vs. liberal) political orientation and system justification is only observed when no temporal comparisons are made, or when the status quo is compared to a future alternative. However, this association is not observed when the status quo is compared to the past. Instead, when comparing the present to the past, the link between political orientation and system justification was blocked (Studies 1, 2, and 4) or even reversed (Study 3). Theoretically, these results connect the system justification literature to literature on temporal comparison and suggest that system justification is meaningfully influenced by comparisons processes.

Political efficacy-the belief that one can influence politics-is a key predictor of people's involvement in social movements. Political institutions that are open to change should, however, be seen as just. Thus, political efficacy may ironically undermine minority group members' support for collective action by simultaneously increasing their belief in the fairness of the system. The current study aims to examine this possibility in a national sample of Māori-New Zealand's indigenous minority population. Participants (N = 399) were Māori (Mage = 44.22; SD = 13.30) women (n = 272) and men (n = 115; unreported = 12) who completed a survey assessing their levels of (a) political efficacy, (b) system justification, and (c) support for the political mobilization of their group, as well as relevant demographic covariates. Consistent with past research, political efficacy had a positive direct effect on participants' support for the political mobilization of Māori. Nevertheless, political efficacy also had a negative indirect effect on political mobilization support via increases in system justification. These results held after controlling for participants' ethnic identification, self-efficacy, and conservatism. Our findings uncover a hidden consequence of political efficacy and show that, while believing that the political system is receptive to change predicts political mobilization, it can also undermine minorities' support for the mobilization of their group. Thus, our results uncover a previously unknown process that maintains inequality between ethnic minority and majority group members.

Sociologists and political scientists have often observed that citizens of Central and Eastern Europe express high levels of disillusionment with their social, economic and political systems, in comparison with citizens of Western capitalist societies. In this review, we analyze system legitimation and delegitimation in post-Communist societies from a social psychological perspective. We draw on system justification theory, which seeks to understand how, when and why people do (and do not) defend, bolster and justify existing social systems. We review some of the major tenets and findings of the theory and compare research on system-justifying beliefs and ideologies in traditionally Capitalist and post-Communist countries to determine: (1) whether there are robust differences in the degree of system justification in post-Communist and Capitalist societies, and (2) the extent to which hypotheses derived from system justification theory receive support in the post-Communist context. To this end, we summarize research findings from over 20 countries and cite previously unpublished data from a public opinion survey conducted in Poland. Our analysis confirms that there are lower levels of system justification in post-Communist countries. At the same time, we find that system justification possesses similar social and psychological antecedents, manifestations and consequences in the two types of societies. We offer potential explanations for these somewhat complicated patterns of results and conclude by addressing implications for theory and research on system justification and system change (or transition).

Although political party support and attitudes towards the political system are closely related, the temporal ordering of these associations is unclear. Indeed, prior research identifies both partisan‐led change in system attitudes and system attitude‐led change in party support. Using a ten‐year (2010–2020) national probability sample of New Zealand adults (N = 66,359), we test these associations by modelling the within‐person cross‐lagged effects between conservative and liberal party support, and political system justification. During conservative‐led governments, increases in conservative party support predicted increases in political system justification more strongly than vice versa. The 2017 shift to a liberal‐led government was met with an immediate reversal of the effects of party support on system justification, but the effect of system justification on party support took a full year to reverse. These results demonstrate people's perceptions of the fairness of the political system depend on their support for the party in power.

Once in the Western and non-Western worlds, the word ‘Nomos’ was the basis for the creation of a legal governance system in which dignity was the main value. The question is why “nomos” in this sense lost its initial meaning and function in the non-western world, while it has been reformed since the modern era as a political system that was characteristic of the western world. This concept can inform us about the different political governance systems and structures formed in the different linguistic and cultural spaces from prehistoric to modern time. This, in turn, opens the way to reconsider the view that the liberal democratic system became possible only in the Western European world along with the emergence of capitalism and to reexamine the prevailing view that the West is the creator and spreader of liberal values, whereas the non- Western world would be only a learner and receiver of it. I will deconstruct the Deleuzean conceptualization of “Nomos” by examining his concept ‘Rhizome’. I think postmodernist conceptualization of the ‘Nomos’ is also responsible for the current misinterpretations.

The purpose of this research is to investigate if the system justification tendency and demographic variables (gender, old, socio-economic level, mother’s and father’s educational level, political view) predict the optimism and demographic variables predict the system justification tendency. The study group consisted of 434 students (282 female, 152 male) attending to different university in Ankara. System Justification Scale, Optimism Scale and the Personal Information Form were used to in the research. This research was questioned which variables predict the optimism and system justification with multiple linear regression analysis (stepwise method). Secondly, Point biserial correlation analysis was used to determine relationship between gender and optimism and Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient to determine the relationship between the other variables. The result of these analysis indicated that political view, gender and system justification predicted the optimism; mother’s educational level and political view predicted system justification. At the same time, it was seen that female were more optimistic than male; political view approached to the right, the level of system justification and optimism increased. It has also been found that as the system justification tendency increased, the score of optimism increased.

Research on achievement goals has demonstrated that mastery goals positively impact achievement-related outcomes, but paradoxically hold an inconsistent relation with academic achievement. We hypothesized that this relationship depends on the reason why students endorse mastery goals--namely, to garner teachers' appreciation (social desirability) or to succeed at university (social utility). First-year psychology students completed a mastery-goal scale in a standard format, with social-desirability instructions and social-utility instructions. Participants' grades on academic exams were recorded later in the semester. Results indicated that students' perceptions of both social desirability and social utility related to mastery goals moderated the relationship between the endorsement of mastery goals and final grades. This relationship was reduced by the increase of perceived social desirability of mastery goals, and strengthened by the increase of perceived social utility of these goals.

Recent research has shown that, in a university context, mastery goals are highly valued and that students may endorse these goals either because they believe in their utility (i.e., social utility), in which case mastery goals are positively linked to achievement, or to create a positive image of themselves (i.e., social desirability), in which case mastery goals do not predict academic achievement. The present two experiments induced high versus neutral levels of mastery goals’ social utility and social desirability. Results confirmed that mastery goals predicted performance only when these goals were presented as socially useful but not presented as socially desirable, especially among low achievers, those who need mastery goals the most to succeed.

Theory of the social value of persons applied to organizations: Typologies of “good” leaders and recruitment

Conservative ideology, broadly speaking, has been widely linked to greater happiness and meaning in life. Is that true of all forms of a good life? We examined whether a psychologically rich life is associated with political orientation, system justification, and Protestant work ethic, independent of two other traditional forms of a good life: a happy life and a meaningful life. Participants completed a questionnaire that assessed conservative worldviews and three aspects of well-being (N = 583 in Study 1; N = 348 in Study 2; N = 436 in Study 3; N = 1,217 in Study 4; N = 2,176 in Study 5; N = 516 in Study 6). Happiness was associated with political conservatism and system justification, and meaning in life was associated with Protestant work ethic. In contrast, zero-order correlations showed that psychological richness was not associated with conservative worldviews. However, when happiness and meaning in life were included in multiple regression models, the nature of the association shifted: Psychological richness was consistently inversely associated with system justification and on average less political conservatism, suggesting that happiness and meaning in life were suppressor variables. These findings suggest that happiness and meaning in life are associated with conservative ideology, whereas psychological richness is not.

We examine the role of moral foundations and system justification in explaining support for Donald Trump in the 2016 general election using data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. A number of important findings emerge. First, we find that there are important partisan and ideological differences when it comes to moral foundations and system justification. Second, we find that moral foundations predict support for Trump above and beyond traditional determinants of vote choice such as ideology, partisanship, religiosity, and demographic characteristics. Third, we find that a measure of political system justification is not related to vote choice in our sample. This casts doubt on the idea that support for Trump was mostly about protesting the political system. This paper adds to the growing body of research showing that psychological concepts and theories are important in understanding voter decision-making in the 2016 presidential election and in elections more generally.

What explains variability in African Americans’ sociopolitical attitudes? System justification theory implicates both high- and low-status groups in the maintenance of the socioeconomic and political system, postulating that individuals are motivated to justify the system. Self-interest offers a simple explanation for system justification among high-status groups. However, system justification among African Americans is less well-understood. Using a socioeconomically diverse sample of 275 Black undergraduates, including traditional as well as older students, the current survey and quantitative analyses further understanding of attitudes toward the system and institutions by linking attitudes with Black identity. Findings revealed that highly identifying as Black negatively predicted system justification but not if one rejects a Black nationalist ideology. Endorsing an assimilation ideology positively predicted system justification. An oppressed minority ideology did not predict system justification but positively predicted trust across institutions (police and local and national government). Finally, the Black nationalist ideology negatively predicted trust in police. These findings reveal the utility of a multidimensional model of Black identity in shedding light on attitudes toward the system and institutions.

Beliefs about a social system help people understand and evaluate their environment and are related to their behavior within a society. When people believe that they live in a just social system and develop positive attitudes about the social and political environment, they experience greater satisfaction and well-being. This phenomenon is known as a palliative effect. Two theoretical approaches that explain support for social and political systems are the beliefs in a just world and system justification approaches. The objective of this review was to analyze the literature published between 2019 and 2023 that addressed the associations of beliefs in a just world and system justification with health-related well-being. The search yielded 2064 potentially eligible articles, 26 of which were ultimately selected. The results showed that beliefs in a just world are associated with a more positive perception of the world and better health outcomes. In addition, people with a greater propensity to justify the system experience higher levels of health-related well-being. This positive association is consistently observed across different social groups and contexts. These findings support the phenomenon of palliative effects attributable to beliefs in a just world and system justification.