On the Unique Justifying Functions of Mind Ethic Ideology

Abstract

Considerable research and theory have pointed to the system-justifying function of Meritocratic Ideology (i.e., the belief that hard work leads to success), noting how useful it can be in justifying inequalities in material well-being (e.g., wealth). We propose that a distinct form of ideology, which we term “Mind Ethic,” has emerged to help people justify inequalities by advocating proper mental habit (e.g., thinking properly about the relevant desire) as a useful tool for goal achievement. Across four studies, we devise a measure to capture individual differences in Mind Ethic, and then demonstrate its unique predictive power. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrate that whereas both Meritocratic Ideology and Mind Ethic predict character derogation (vs. enhancement) of those who suffer (vs. those who are succeeding) in contexts of material well-being (e.g., attributing higher intelligence to a rich person), only Mind Ethic predicts such system-justifying tendencies in contexts of psychological well-being (e.g., attributing increased laziness to those who are unhappy). Studies 2 and 3 further examine Mind Ethic’s system-justifying function across two different domains (i.e., career and health) and show that Mind Ethic predicts justification of target persons’ unequal life outcomes when those are attributed to differences in the targets’ mental habits or mental effort (i.e., having negative thoughts vs. having positive thoughts in Study 2, only receiving radiation therapy vs. receiving additional meditation in Study 3), but not when the outcomes are attributed to differences in what the targets do about the relevant goals (i.e., not working hard vs. working hard in Study 2, only receiving radiation therapy vs. receiving additional chemotherapy in Study 3). This research suggests that Mind Ethic may provide a unique set of rationale for justification of unequal outcomes.