System Justification Research Articles

Examining the role of civic attitudes in the link between family wealth and school dropout among tertiary vocational students

This study examined the relationship between family wealth and school dropout among vocational education students (n = 1,231; mean age=17.81). It investigated whether (1) family affluence and adolescents’ own perceptions and experiences of their family wealth (i.e., perceived family wealth, financial scarcity) predict dropout, (2) adolescents’ civic attitudes (i.e., system justification, institutional trust) explain the association between family wealth and school dropout, and (3) trust in teachers buffers against the risk of dropout among students with lower civic attitudes. Multivariate models revealed that financial scarcity predicted dropout. Financial scarcity showed an indirect only effect on dropout through lower institutional trust, but not through system justification. Trust in teachers was neither associated with dropout, nor a moderator. Controlling for mental health problems did not affect these results. This study helps explain how students’ experienced and perceived family wealth can affect their educational attainment, by reducing their trust in social institutions.

Assessing System Justification in Czech Population Using the System Justification Scale.

System justification (SJ) is an important construct in social psychology that has received considerable attention over the past three decades. At the empirical level, system justification is examined by means of a specially developed System Justification Scale (SJS), which is designed to explain how individuals accept justice, whether they consider a given social order to be fair, how they evaluate the conditions in the country in which they live, how they accept social change, or to what extent they express compliance with established rules. System justification involves not only those who benefit from the existing social order, but also those who are disadvantaged. In their case, system justification mitigates negative perceptions of objective inequalities and asymmetries. Empirical evidence suggests that system justification may also be associated with higher perceived quality of life. The present study translated and validated the SJS, providing complex and detailed information on the psychometric properties of the scale. In addition, the scale's internal consistency, unidimensionality, and construct validity were examined. The conclusions presented are based on the results of exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency assessment, analysis of variance, correlation analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. Results were obtained from face-to-face survey data collected from a sample of 1419 individuals representing the Czech population aged 18-79 years. Since the SJS showed high internal consistency, adequately discriminated levels of system justification, and had robust psychometric properties, it could be recommended for further use.

The general factor of personality and moral hypocrisy: A moderated mediation model

AbstractThis study examines the relationship between the general factor of personality (GFP) and moral hypocrisy, the mediating effect of moral disengagement, and the moderating effect of system justification. Six hundred and four Chinese college students (59.9% female, Mage = 22.58, SD = 1.81) completed questionnaires assessing their personality and the levels of moral disengagement and system justification. The moral situation assessment paradigm was used to measure interpersonal moral hypocrisy (i.e., moral double standards). The task assignment paradigm was used to measure intrapersonal moral hypocrisy (i.e., misalignment between words and deeds). The results revealed that the GFP was negatively associated with moral hypocrisy, and moral disengagement mediated this relationship. In addition, this mediating effect of moral disengagement was moderated by system justification. That is, the mediation effect was stronger for students with a higher level of system justification. These findings provide educational suggestions for preventing and intervening in moral hypocrisy among college students.

Thucydides and L. Bonjour: spontaneous beliefs and the structure of justification restricted to a single source of evidence

The paper aims to show how in practice the requirement to maintain the coherence of the system of beliefs and the corresponding behavior of «spontaneous beliefs» within the concept of empirical knowledge by L. Bonjour can be correlated. The main example considered is P. Kosso’s arguments about the reliability of Thucydides’ «History» connected with the idea of possibility of justification restricted to a single source of evidence. As a heuristics we deal with the problem of how to establish the contextual dependence of inference and, in general, of the structure of the justification of knowledge within the given situation. First, it is possible to extend L. Bonjour’s concept with the idea of the nonmonotonic nature of justification and coherence of the original system of beliefs. Such a step, in particular, will make it possible to abandon the need for the argument «from meta-justification». Second, the interpretation of «spontaneous beliefs», their justification and facts fixing whether these beliefs violate the coherence of the original system or not, as patterns (in the sense of the fundamental concept of existence by D. Ross) makes it possible (for example, due to the exact understanding of «interpretative perspective» and «functional role» of the projection) to meaningfully interpret the «context dependence» in each particular case.

Finding (dis‐)advantaged system justifiers: A bottom‐up approach to explore system justification theory

AbstractSystem Justification Theory (SJT) postulates that individuals are motivated to justify the status quo, including the paradoxical prediction that those who are disadvantaged (e.g., lower social status) by the prevailing system will justify the system more than those who are advantaged by the prevailing system. We test if this assumption holds in an entire sample, or only among subsets of a sample using a bottom‐up approach, Correlational Class Analysis. Using a representative sample from four European countries (Ntotal = 5157) we found six subpopulations. The first subpopulation (Justifiers, ntotal = 1256; 24%) was consistent with SJT, that is, system justification and social status were negatively correlated. The second subpopulation (Rejectors, ntotal = 1688; 33%), however, was characterized by a positive correlation between social status and system justification, which contrasts with the prediction of system justification theory. The other four subpopulations (Ntotal = 2211; 43%) were characterized by an ambivalent pattern. That is, at least one social status indicator, but not all, supported the prediction that disadvantaged individuals justified the system more than advantaged individuals. These heterogeneous patterns would be undetected using traditional approaches. Further, our results show that inequality salience is lower, trust in political institutions is higher, and support for political violence is higher among Justifiers compared to Rejectors. We discuss how understanding the interrelations between multiple indicators of social status and how they differ between subpopulations can help us to obtain a more comprehensive picture regarding under which circumstances and for whom system justification theory applies.

My boss is younger, less educated, and shorter tenured: When and why status (in)congruence influences promotion system justification.

Supervisors are usually older, more educated, and longer tenured than their subordinates, a situation known as status congruence. However, subordinates are increasingly experiencing status incongruence, in which their supervisors lack these traditional status markers. We examine how status congruence versus incongruence interacts with subordinates' judgments of their supervisors' competence to influence subordinates' perceptions of the promotion system. Grounded in system justification theory, we predicted and found that when the supervisor was relatively less competent, status congruence led to perceptions of greater promotion system fairness (Study 1) and promotion system acceptance (Study 2), particularly under conditions known to heighten system justification motivation (a low sense of power in Study 1 and low system escapability in Study 2). Moreover, to triangulate on the role of system justification, we created an implicit measure of the construct and showed in two additional studies (3a and 3b) that participants engaged in more system justification under conditions in which our theoretical rationale suggested they would. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Explaining the paradox of conspiracy theories and system‐justifying beliefs from an intergroup perspective

AbstractBy distinguishing between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories, this research seeks to explain a paradox in conspiracy theory research, namely, that conspiracy beliefs are associated with both derogation and justification of the social system. Study 1 (N = 1,481) was a survey in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic in China, and the results revealed a negative correlation between belief in ingroup conspiracy theories and system‐justifying beliefs. In Study 2 (N = 195), exposure to outgroup conspiracy theories positively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a finding that was serially mediated by external attributions and collective narcissism. In Study 3 (N = 256), exposure to ingroup conspiracy theories negatively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a result that was serially mediated by internal attributions and anomie. In Study 4 (N = 616), exposure to a conspiracy theory about the US government increased system‐justifying beliefs among Chinese participants and decreased them among US participants. The distinction between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories hence implies two different processes through which conspiracy theories affect system‐justifying beliefs.

Identifying hostile versus paternalistic classism profiles: a person-based approach to the study of ambivalent classism

Research on ambivalent classism suggests that individuals can manifest classism not only in a hostile and explicit manner but also in a condescending and paternalistic form. However, researchers have not determined the existence of individual profiles or population subgroups that show this ambivalence pattern. Therefore, to assess the existence of different profiles based on their manifestation of ambivalent classism, we carry out a latent profile analysis with a national representative sample (N = 1536). We identify different classist profiles among the population, including a minority of individuals who score low on both dimensions of classism (low generalized classists, 8.65%) and another minority who score high on both hostile and paternalism classism (high generalized classists, 8.13%). Further, we discovered that most of the population adhered to a moderated classism profile, endorsing both dimensions of classism (moderately generalized classist, 40.95%) or to an ambivalent profile, scoring low in hostile classism and high in paternalistic attitudes (paternalistic classists, 42.25%). The likelihood of adhering to the different profiles seems to be related to the individual’s level of education and system justification beliefs. Those individuals who score higher on system justification and with lower educational attainment are more willing to be highly generalized classists rather than be part of other profiles. Profiles also differ to an extent regarding concerns about economic inequality and social attitudes, with moderate and highly generalized classists being less concerned about economic inequality and less willing to support poor groups. We discuss the implications for developing targeted interventions aimed to confront classism patterns for each profile.

Spanish Adaptation of the Support for Economic Inequality Scale (S-SEIS).

This study presents the adaptation and evidence of the validity of the Spanish version of the Support for Economic Inequality Scale (S-SEIS). This measure evaluates people's tendency to have positive attitudes toward economic inequality. Two correlational studies were conducted, one exploratory ( N = 619) and one confirmatory ( N = 562). S-SEIS showed good reliability in both studies. The factorial analysis showed a one-factor structure in Study 1 that was confirmed in Study 2. We also found a relationship between S-SEIS and other extensively used measures of attitudes toward inequality, such as intolerance toward inequality. S-SEIS positively correlates with belief in a just world, social dominance orientation (SDO), economic system justification (ESJ), institutional trust, and perceived democracy; it correlates negatively with intolerance toward inequality, perceived inequality, perceived warmth/competence of people in poverty and support for redistribution. The current research findings suggest that S-SEIS is a valuable instrument for evaluating the support of economic inequality in Spanish samples.

Individual differences in psychological rigidity and beliefs about system fitness predict attitudes about social determinants of disaster risk

Although events triggered by phenomena such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and landslides are routinely referred to as “natural disasters”, scholars have long argued that they are not natural at all; rather their disastrous consequences are a result of sociopolitical decisions surrounding the accumulation of risk. In the current work, we seek to understand who is more likely to accept or reject the importance of risk reduction by examining two constructs:1) perceived blamelessness in the face of disasters, and 2) lack of support for disaster risk reduction. Across two studies (combined n = 1732), higher perceived blamelessness and lower support for risk reduction via socio-political means were reliably related to individual difference measures of psychological rigidity as well as beliefs about socio-economic system fitness. Specifically, higher levels of system justification, belief in a just world, fair market ideology, need for cognitive closure, intolerance of ambiguity, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism were consistently related to lower likelihood of assigning human blame for disaster damages as well as less endorsement of socio-political interventions to stem disaster risks. Both blamelessness and intervention-avoidance were also related positively to political conservatism. Importantly, observed relationships remained significant after controlling for political ideology which correlates with each of the measured variables. We argue that observed relationships between individual difference variables and support for risk reduction policies around natural hazards that are not reducible to co-relationships with political ideology may be particularly important to consider when crafting successful interventions.

How Neoliberal are You? Development and Validation of the Neoliberal Orientation Questionnaire

We created a novel instrument to assess individual orientations toward the neoliberal capitalist system, the Neoliberal Orientation Questionnaire (NOQ), which is comprised of four dimensions: competitiveness, individual self-regulation, relational detachment, and public divestment. The instrument was intended to complement existing scales by (a) adopting a European perspective, and (b) incorporating personal as well as societal values, including lifestyle considerations. We sought to validate the NOQ in a European country with a strong history of public investment and social welfare provisions, namely France. In three nationally representative French samples, and one US student sample we assessed the internal consistency and construct validity of long and short versions of the scale. In terms of convergent and divergent validity, NOQ scores were positively correlated with scores on the Neoliberal Beliefs Inventory (NBI), general and economic forms of system justification, social dominance orientation, social and economic conservatism, internal locus of control, belief in free will, future-orientation, and a tendency to look on the ‘bright side’ in the face of hardships. The NOQ should prove useful for understanding the antecedents, concomitants, and consequences of attitudinal support versus opposition to the neoliberal capitalist system that dominates contemporary Western societies.

Expectations about system justification predict the ideological gap in attitudes towards immigrants

In the U.S. political conservatives hold less favorable attitudes than liberals about immigration and immigrant groups. We hypothesized that one reason for this ideological gap is that conservatives are more likely to believe that immigrants are not as justifying of the American system as they should be. This hypothesis was tested in an online study (N = 404) with respect to four immigrant groups: Europeans, East Asians, Middle Easterners, and Latin Americans. Results revealed that conservatism was positively associated with (a) prescriptive beliefs that immigrants should engage in high levels of system justification, and (b) descriptive beliefs that immigrants—except for Middle Eastern immigrants—generally do endorse high levels of system justification. Importantly, conservatives perceived a bigger difference than liberals between prescriptive and descriptive beliefs about immigrants’ system justification levels, and this difference mediated the association between conservatism and attitudes and feelings about non-European (but not European) immigrants. These findings support a new “Perceived System Justification Deficit Model of Prejudice” in which expectations about others’ degree of ideological support for the societal status quo may contribute to out-group bias and perhaps even discrimination.

Why do some followers remain silent in response to abusive supervision? A system justification perspective

This study investigates how the system justification motive manifests in employees’ voice/silence behavior at the workplace. It also explores the moderating effects of system justification on the linkage between abusive supervision and voice/silence behavior for blue- and white-collar employees. The field study generated responses from 905 employees in Turkey. Multi-group analysis reveals that the moderating effect of system justification motives varies by occupational class. In particular, the impact of abusive supervision on silence becomes more salient when white-collar employees endorse higher system justification motives. However, in the blue-collar sample, the absence of a moderating effect could be attributed to the strong main effect of system justification motives. The current study adds to the extant literature by applying a system justification perspective to voice and silence behavior by collar differences at work. It also provides important implications for managers in dealing with workplace mistreatment affecting all occupational groups, mainly when blue-collar employee silence is endemic and regulatory policies are inadequate.

Wisdom of the Established Pattern

Wisdom of the Established Pattern

The role of legitimizing the social hierarchy in the impact of status on perceived assertiveness and competence.

The present research aimed to examine how perceivers' system-justifying beliefs moderate the way they evaluate high- versus low-status targets on assertiveness and competence. In three experimental studies, we manipulated a target's hierarchical position within his company's organization. Participants rated the target on traits reflecting assertiveness and competence. Their system-justifying beliefs were assessed in an ostensibly unrelated study. Results consistently showed that participants inferred assertiveness from the target's hierarchical position regardless of system justification, whereas the relationship between social status and competence was consistently moderated by system-justifying beliefs: only participants high in system justification ascribed more competence to the high-status target than to the low-status target. These findings are in line with the hypothesis suggesting that inferring competence from high-status positions could rely on the tendency to justify social inequalities, whereas inferring assertiveness would not.

Are the Paths to Victim-Blaming Paved with Hostile Sexism, Honor System Justification, and Fragile Masculinity? Evidence from Men in Turkey

Are the Paths to Victim-Blaming Paved with Hostile Sexism, Honor System Justification, and Fragile Masculinity? Evidence from Men in Turkey

Group Dominance, System Justification, and Hostile Classism: The Ideological Roots of the Perceived Socioeconomic Humanity Gap That Upholds the Income Gap

Perceiving low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) groups as less human than high-SES groups contributes to justifying socioeconomic inequality. Despite this issue’s relevance, previous research has not acknowledged the possible causes of this perceived humanity gap (differences in humanity between SES groups). In this project, we focus on analysing the possible influence of hierarchy-enhancing ideological variables on this gap. To do so, in a first correlational study (N = 765), we analyse the extent to which certain ideological variables predict the perceived humanity gap between low- and high-SES groups. Our results indicate that group dominance, system justification, and hostile classism are highly predictive of the humanity gap. In a second correlational study (N = 521) we found that the perceived humanity gap, the tendency to blame low-SES groups and praise high-SES groups for their economic standings, sequentially mediated the relationship among social dominance, system justification, and hostile classism with the support of social change policies. Finally, we manipulated each ideological variable in three equivalent studies (N = 631) to test its influence on the previous pattern of mediational results. The results confirmed the ideological variables’ antecedent roles in the mediation analysis. Finally, we discuss the role of the ideological hierarchy variables in the maintenance of socioeconomic differences through (de)humanisation.

Mathematical justification of a compressible bi-fluid system with different pressure laws: A semi-discrete approach and numerical illustrations

In this paper we obtain a one velocity macroscopic description of a mixture of two viscous compressible fluids by homogenization/averaging. The paper is written in two parts that can be read independently one of the other. In the first part, we propose two numerical schemes respectively for a two-fluid immiscible system, (i.e. two fluids separated by sharp interfaces) and for a bifluid mixture system (diffuse interface description via volume fractions). We present various simulations that suggest that the two systems of equations describe the same mixture at different scales and, as a consequence, that averaged velocity, density and pressure of the first model match with the respective velocity, density and pressure of the second model. In a second part, we show how to mathematically formalize the previous assertion via kinetic equations verified by the Young measures associated to oscillatory solutions of the model describing the finer scale.

The Interaction of Unmitigated Communion and Gender on Gender System Justification

This study examined the interaction between unmitigated communion (UC) and gender on gender system justification (GSJ). UC is a trait of putting others before oneself. GSJ is a tendency to maintain the status quo, even if it is unequal. Participants included 200 females and 200 males (Mage=20.5). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted including the interaction terms of UC and GSJ. Since the interaction was significant, a simple main effect test was conducted, a positive association for females, and a negative association for males. The results were interpreted regarding the fit in society for females and a lack of merit for males.

Theorising the dark side of interorganizational relationships: an extension

PurposeThis paper aims to propose mechanisms of the dark side of interorganizational relationships from a social psychological perspective. The purpose is to understand the role of boundary spanners’ social psychological processes that may trigger the dark side effects.Design/methodology/approachMultple mechanisms are developed through three social psychological theories, namely, social identity theory, system justification theory and social learning theory.FindingsBoundary spanners’ social psychological processes can trigger the dark side of interorganizational relationships via mechanisms such as excessive cooperation, reification, system justification and path dependence in learning.Practical implicationsThis paper concludes with a discussion that offers a new perspective on research on dark side effects and the managerial implications of the present analysis.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the current literature by extending the interpersonal social psychological processes that could explain the dark side of interorganizational relationships. This paper is a step forward to answer the calls for multilevel considerations of the dark side effects and inspire future research on the role of social psychological processes in dark side effects.