Abstract
System justification theory proposes that people are motivated to perceive the existing social system as fair, legitimate, and desirable. However, status‐legitimacy effect, understood as the most disadvantaged living in the most unequal contexts experiencing this need most strongly, has only found mixed support in empirical works. This article presents a comprehensive test of the original reading of status‐legitimacy hypothesis which implied that those with lower objective status are the most motivated to system justify and of the respecified version that posits subjective powerlessness to be the driver of undue system legitimization. Multilevel mixed‐effects linear regression analysis of International Social Survey Programme modules on social inequality, covering almost 50,000 respondents from 28 countries, shows that the mean effects of both subjective and objective status are in line with predictions of economic rationality. To model contextual inequality, we distinguish between an objective measure, Gini, and perceived amounts of income differences as reported by respondents. The analysis testing contextual moderation lends support for the original reading of status‐legitimacy hypothesis—the objectively, rather than subjectively, disadvantaged experience greater motivation to defend the system.
Highlights
We present a comprehensive test of two readings of status-legitimacy hypothesis using representative cross-cultural data gathered from three rounds of Social Inequality modules of International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) which provide a unique opportunity to distinguish between judgments and beliefs about actual levels of earnings inequalities and the values the respondents would find legitimate
Focusing on the economic dimension of social systems, consistent with the intuitive predictions of models expecting people to behave more or less as rational actors, we found that, on average, people hold attitudes that are reasonably in line with intuitive expectations of the median-voter model and that both objective and subjective status are positively related to acceptance of inequality
We found stronger support for a notion that experiences tied to objective, rather than subjective, low status may motivate people to defend experienced, unequal economic arrangements, while the interpretation that subjective status might be a better predictor of status-legitimacy effect has received only a limited support in data covering 28 countries over two decades
Summary
The model shows that both the long term average inequality and the increase in inequality (measured between the periods when data was gathered) reduced differences in assessment of whether “income differences are too large” between those in objectively higher and lower status, supporting Hypothesis 1. This suggests that the effect originally proposed in the status-legitimacy hypothesis (judgment that the society is fair—or rather not excessively unfair) holds in objectively more unequal contexts as well as in societies experiencing increases in inequality. Our findings corroborate the wealth of empirical evidence in which the subjective potential victims of change rally in order to protect their interests at first and accepting the novel status quo only with the passing of time
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
