System-justifying Beliefs Research Articles

Charismatic leaders: the role of admiration and system justification

PurposeThis paper aims to use the stereotype content model to explore the extent to which voter admiration for presidential candidates mediates the charismatic leadership – voting behavior relationship. The paper also seeks to test whether system justification beliefs moderate the mediated relationship.Design/methodology/approachUsing data collected both before and after the 2008 US presidential election, this paper tested the hypothesized relationships using a conditional indirect effects model with 126 undergraduate students enrolled in the psychology department and business school of a large university in the USA.FindingsResults demonstrated that admiration mediates the charismatic leadership – voting behavior relationship. Moreover, this mediated relationship varied by system justification beliefs.Practical implicationsThese results suggest that charismatic leaders arouse specific emotions (i.e. admiration) in followers and that emotional arousal inspires followers to act on the behalf of the leader. However, this relationship only holds when people are motivated to embrace change. This suggests that not all followers will be responsive to charismatic leaders.Social implicationsFor political leaders, these findings suggest that being charismatic is important when change motives are high, but it may be less important when stability is highly valued.Originality/valueThe paper demonstrates that charismatic leaders do arouse the emotions of followers and that such emotions motivate followers to engage in behaviors on behalf of the leader.

Is the belief in meritocracy palliative for members of low status groups? Evidence for a benefit for self‐esteem and physical health via perceived control

Consensually held ideologies may serve as the cultural "glue" that justifies hierarchical status differences in society (e.g. Augustinos, 1998). Yet to be effective these beliefs need to be embraced by low-status groups. Why would members of low-status groups endorse beliefs that justify their relative disadvantage? We propose that members of low-status groups in the United States may benefit from some system-justifying beliefs (such as the belief in meritocracy) to the extent that these beliefs emphasize the perception of control over future outcomes. In 2 studies, among women, lower-SES women, and women of color, we found a positive relationship between the belief in meritocracy and well-being (self-esteem and physical health) that was mediated by perceived control. Members of low-status groups may benefit from some system-justifying beliefs to the extent that these beliefs, like the belief in meritocracy, emphasize the perception of control over future outcomes.

Through Rose-Colored Glasses

Individual-based and group-based forms of relative deprivation (IRD and GRD, respectively) are linked with individual- and group-based responses to inequality, respectively. System justification theory, however, argues that we are motivated to believe that people's outcomes are equitably determined. As such, endorsement of system-justifying beliefs should dampen people's reactions to outcomes perceived to be unequal and ultimately undermine support for political mobilization. We examined these hypotheses in a national probability sample of New Zealanders (N = 6,886). As expected, IRD predicted individual-based responses to inequality (i.e., satisfaction with one's standard of living and psychological distress) better than GRD. Conversely, GRD predicted group-based responses to inequality (i.e., perceived discrimination against one's group and support for political mobilization) better than IRD. Each of these relationships was, however, notably weaker among participants who were high, relative to low, on system justification. These results demonstrate that system-justifying beliefs have a palliative effect on people's experiences with inequality.

Acknowledging Discrimination as a Key to the Gender Pay Gap

I comment again on issues raised in my initial paper in this issue (Lips 2012, this issue) and respond to commentaries by Huffman (2012, this issue), Olson (2012), Stockdale and Nadler (2012) and Tharenou (2012). Even in the light of a large and growing body of evidence for the gender pay gap, a lack of awareness of the gap still exists. This lack of awareness may have roots in system-justification beliefs. Such beliefs can be reinforced by a human capital approach, which may appear to rationalize the gender pay gap by attributing it mainly to the choices individuals make, while downplaying the role of discrimination. Although, as commentators on my original article have pointed out, some researchers who use this model may be aware of its limitations, and some may have moved beyond it because of its limitations, such limitations may not be so obvious to consumers of the research. Thus, a continuing, careful critique of the human capital model, and attention to the impact of cultural gender stereotypes on the variables it encompasses, is warranted. However, as several commentators have also noted, there are other useful ways of analyzing the gender pay gap, such as focusing on institutional variables associated with it or examining it from the perspective of cumulative disadvantage. These too should also be vigorously pursued in the service of understanding and eliminating the gap.

Not All Ideologies are Created Equal: Epistemic, Existential, and Relational Needs Predict System-Justifying Attitudes

Whereas most social psychological perspectives assume that needs to manage uncertainty, existential anxiety, and social cohesion should motivate any form of ideological zeal, System Justification Theory predicts that these needs are positively associated with the endorsement of system-justifying beliefs, opinions, and values but negatively associated with the endorsement of system-challenging ideological outcomes. For the first time we test a full theoretical model in which system justification mediates the effects of individual differences in epistemic, existential, and relational needs on attitudes toward public policy issues and social movements. Specifically, we conducted a national survey of 182 Americans and found that, as hypothesized, lower need for cognition, greater death anxiety, and a stronger desire to share reality each contributed significantly and independently to economic system justification, which, in turn, contributed to support for the Tea Party (a movement aimed at restoring America's “traditional values”) and opposition to Occupy Wall Street (a movement seeking to reduce social and economic inequality and minimize corporate influence on government). Economic system justification also mediated the effects of these needs on the endorsement of status quo positions with respect to health care, immigration, global climate change, and the “Ground Zero mosque.” These findings suggest that epistemic, existential, and relational needs lead disproportionately to support for system-justifying, rather than system-challenging, policies and movements.

What's so insidious about “Peace, Love, and Understanding”? A system justification perspective

We agree that promoting intergroup harmony "carries insidious, often unacknowledged, 'system-justifying' consequences" (sect. 4.1.3, para. 2) and identify several ways in which “benevolent” and “complementary” stereotypes, superordinate identification, intergroup contact, and prejudice reduction techniques can undermine social change motivation by reinforcing system-justifying beliefs. This may "keep the peace," but it also prevents individuals and groups from tackling serious social problems, including inequality and oppression.

The Palliative Function of System Justification: Concurrent Benefits Versus Longer-Term Costs to Wellbeing

We examined the extent to which system justification buffered the negative effect of retrospective experiences of active harm from general sources in society on life satisfaction during the same assessment period, and prospectively 1 year later. Results from a nationally representative sample indicated that the retrospective assessment of active harm and quality of life were uncorrelated for people who endorsed system justifying ideology (N = 6,518). Study 2 replicated the concurrent buffering effect of system justification on subjective wellbeing and demonstrated that the effect reversed over time. For people high in system justification beliefs, societal-level harm prospectively predicted lower life satisfaction 1 year later (N = 136 undergraduates). Perceiving the system as fair and legitimate in the face of harm from others in society has opposing short and longer-term effects on wellbeing. We argue that these opposing effects occur because although system justification trumps experiences of harm and buffers life satisfaction in the short-term; the resulting experience-belief conflict engenders a state of ideological dissonance that predicts negative psychological outcomes down the track.

Gender Differences in Entitlement: The Role of System-Justifying Beliefs

Two studies examine the relationship between system-justifying beliefs and perceived pay entitlement and how this relationship differs as a function of gender. In Study 1, personal endorsement of system-justifying beliefs was associated with higher levels of pay entitlement among men. In contrast, personal endorsement of system-justifying beliefs was associated with slightly, but not significantly, lower levels of pay entitlement among women. In Study 2, a system-justification prime significantly increased reports of pay entitlement among men but had no effect on reports of pay entitlement among women. Results illustrate that system-justifying beliefs contribute to the creation and maintenance of gender differences in entitlement.

Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders

Agentic female leaders risk social and economic penalties for behaving counter-stereotypically (i.e., backlash; Rudman, 1998), but what motivates prejudice against female leaders? The status incongruity hypothesis (SIH) proposes that agentic women are penalized for status violations because doing so defends the gender hierarchy. Consistent with this view, Study 1 found that women are proscribed from dominant, high status displays (which are reserved for leaders and men); Studies 2–3 revealed that prejudice against agentic female leaders was mediated by a dominance penalty; and in Study 3, participants' gender system-justifying beliefs moderated backlash effects. Study 4 found that backlash was exacerbated when perceivers were primed with a system threat. Study 5 showed that only female leaders who threatened the status quo suffered sabotage. In concert, support for the SIH suggests that backlash functions to preserve male dominance by reinforcing a double standard for power and control.

System Justification Beliefs, Affirmative Action, and Resistance to Equal Opportunity Organizations

The present research examined whether system justification results in resistance to companies that promote diversity and equal opportunity by means of affirmative action policies. Results supported hypothesized links among system justification beliefs, attitudes toward affirmative action, and implicit attitudes toward equal opportunity organizations (i.e., companies that recruited employees using affirmative action advertisements). To the extent that participants endorsed the status quo, they implicitly preferred merit-based companies to equal opportunity companies. Furthermore, system justification beliefs predicted attitudes toward affirmative action policies, and these attitudes mediated the relationship between system justification beliefs and both implicit and explicit company attitudes. The implications of these findings for the influence of system-justifying ideologies on support for policies designed to offset systemic, institutionalized discrimination are discussed.

System-Justifying Beliefs Moderate the Relationship Between Perceived Discrimination and Resting Blood Pressure

Perceiving discrimination is a chronic stressor that may negatively impact health. We predicted that the relationship between chronic perceptions of discrimination and chronic stress, as indexed by resting blood pressure, would be moderated by individual differences in system-justifying beliefs (SJBs), specifi cally the extent to which people believe that success is determined by hard work. We reasoned that people who strongly endorse SJBs would fi nd discrimination to be especially stressful because it both violates their expectations about the world and impedes their motivation to justify the system. In two studies, we measured White women’s self-reported SJBs and perceptions of personal discrimination based on gender. We later measured their resting blood pressure. The relationship between perceived discrimination and blood pressure was positive and signifi cant for women who strongly endorsed SJBs, but nonsignifi cant for women who did not endorse SJBs. Implications for Worldview Verifi cation Theory and System Justifi cation Theory are discussed.

The merit of meritocracy.

We argue that the preference for the merit principle is a separate construct from hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies (i.e., system justification beliefs, prejudice, social dominance orientation), including descriptive beliefs that meritocracy currently exists in society. Moreover, we hypothesized that prescriptive beliefs about merit should have a stronger influence on reactions to the status quo when hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies are weak (vs. strong). In 4 studies, participants' preference for the merit principle and hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies were assessed; later, the participants evaluated organizational selection practices that support or challenge the status quo. Participants' prescriptive and descriptive beliefs about merit were separate constructs; only the latter predicted other hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. In addition, as hypothesized, among participants who weakly endorsed hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies, the stronger their preference for the merit principle, the more they opposed selection practices that were perceived to be merit violating but the more they supported practices that were perceived to be merit restoring. In contrast, those who strongly endorsed hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies were always motivated to support the status quo, regardless of their preference for the merit principle.

Why Are Attributions to Discrimination Interpersonally Costly? A Test of System- and Group-Justifying Motivations

In two studies, Whites' endorsement of system-justifying beliefs predicted increased negativity toward Blacks who blamed negative events on discrimination. Whites' system-justifying beliefs were not associated with negativity toward Blacks who blamed negative events on other internal causes, external causes, or nondiscriminatory unfairness. These negative reactions toward discrimination claimants were mediated by perceptions that the claimant held dissimilar values and failed to take personal responsibility for outcomes. In both studies, participants' White Identification did not moderate the relationship between the Black target's attribution for failure and subsequent negative perceptions of that individual, thus providing evidence against a group-justification explanation of these findings.

The Development of System Justification in the Developing World

System justification theorists have proposed that under some circumstances ‘‘people who suffer the most from a given state of affairs are paradoxically the least likely to question, challenge, reject, or change it’’ Jost et al. (2003). These claims are contrary to theories that suggest that group members seek to enhance their self-interest or group-interest (e.g., realistic group conflict theory, rational choice models). The present study, conducted in one of the poorest countries in the world, Bolivia, tested if even the most impoverished people of the world will endorse beliefs justifying the status quo. A survey of 356 Bolivian school children found that low-status children endorse beliefs in the effectiveness of government in meeting the people’s needs more than their high-status counterparts. The results suggest that system-justifying beliefs are endorsed by low-status group members in even the most extreme cases of poverty, and even among the youngest politically aware members of society, and they raise questions about the capacity for true social change in those parts of the world that may need it the most.

System-Justifying Beliefs and Psychological Well-Being: The Roles of Group Status and Identity

This research examined the relationship between endorsing system-justifying beliefs and psychological well-being among individuals from ethnic groups that vary in social status. System-justifying beliefs are beliefs that imply that status in society is fair, deserved, and merited; examples of system-justifying beliefs in the United States include the beliefs that hard work pays off and that anyone can get ahead regardless of their group membership. We found that endorsing system-justifying beliefs was negatively related to psychological well-being among members of low-status groups who were highly identified with their group but positively related to well-being among members of low-status groups who were not highly identified with their ethnic group. In addition, we found that endorsing system-justifying beliefs was positively related to well-being among members of high-status groups, especially among members of high-status groups who were highly identified with the group.

Disaffection and Participation in Western Democracies: The Role of Political Oppositions

Previous articleNext article No AccessDisaffection and Participation in Western Democracies: The Role of Political OppositionsGiuseppe Di PalmaGiuseppe Di Palma Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 31, Number 4Nov., 1969 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2128355 Views: 19Total views on this site Citations: 6Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1969 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Agustin Echebarria Echabe System-justifying beliefs and political disaffection, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 44, no.33 (Jan 2014): 234–240.https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12218Alejandro Mújica, Ignacio Sánchez-Cuenca Consensus and Parliamentary Opposition: The Case of Spain, Government and Opposition 41, no.11 (Mar 2014): 86–108.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2006.00172.xVincent E. McHale, Richard D. Partch Canonical ecology and the analysis of aggregate voting models, Quality and Quantity 9, no.33 (Sep 1975): 245–264.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139642Richard J. Trilling, David P. Lindquist Effective Support, Comparative Political Studies 7, no.44 (Jan 1975): 395–429.https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407500700401Richard Simeon, David J. Elkins Regional Political Cultures in Canada, Canadian Journal of Political Science 7, no.33 (Nov 2009): 397–437.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900040713Larry N. Stern, L. Douglas Dobson, Frank P. Scioli On The Dimensions of Political Culture, Comparative Political Studies 5, no.44 (Jun 2016): 493–511.https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407300500405