System justification

Last updated

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

Contents

According to system justification theory, people desire not only to hold favorable attitudes about themselves (ego-justification) and the groups to which they belong (group-justification), but also to hold positive attitudes about the overarching social structure in which they are entwined and find themselves obligated to (system-justification). This system-justifying motive sometimes produces the phenomenon known as out-group favoritism, an acceptance of inferiority among low-status groups and a positive image of relatively higher status groups. Thus, the notion that individuals are simultaneously supporters and victims of the system-instilled norms is a central idea in system justification theory. Additionally, the passive ease of supporting the current structure, when compared to the potential price (material, social, psychological) of acting out against the status quo, leads to a shared environment in which the existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred. Alternatives to the status quo tend to be disparaged, and inequality tends to perpetuate. [1] [2]

Origins

Previous social psychological theories that aimed to explain intergroup behavior typically focused on the tendencies for people to have positive attitudes about themselves (ego-justification) and their self-relevant groups (group-justification). [2] In other words, people are motivated to engage in behaviors that allow for them to maintain a high self-esteem and a positive image of their group. [3] System Justification theory addressed the additional, prevalent phenomenon known as out-group favoritism, in which people defend the social systems (status quo) even when it does not benefit, and in the long-run may even cause more harm, to the individual or the group to which he or she belongs. Out-group favoritism can manifest as a dis-identification on the part of members of lower social status with their own categorical grouping (social, ethnic, economic, political) and instead further support for the existing structure. Prior social psychology theories lacked explanation for and attention given to popular instances of out-group favoritism; thus, system justification theory was developed to further explain and understand why some people tend to legitimize the prevailing social systems, despite their being against one's interests, in a way that previous social psychological theories did not. [1] [2]

Theoretical influences

While social identity theory, cognitive dissonance theory, the just-world fallacy, social dominance theory, and Marxist-feminist theories of ideologies have heavily influenced system justification theory, it has also expanded on these perspectives, infusing them with the system-justification motive and behaviors.

Cognitive dissonance theory

One of the most popular and well-known social psychological theories, cognitive dissonance theory explains that people have a need to maintain cognitive consistency in order to retain a positive self-image. [3] [4] System justification theory builds off the cognitive dissonance framework, in that it posits people will justify a social system in order to retain a positive image of that social system, due to the fact that they inherently play a role (whether passive or active) in perpetuating it. [2]

Social identity theory

Jost and colleagues interpret social identity theory as suggesting that when people are presented with intergroup conflict that threatens their social group identities people will justify behaviors like stereotyping and discrimination against outgroups in order to maintain their positive group image. [3] People with out-group favoritism will hold more positive images of other, often higher-status, groups (outgroups) than the groups they belong to (ingroups). Thus, the argument is that system justification theory builds on the foundations of social identity theory in attempting to account for the out-group favoritism observed in many disadvantaged group members that social identity theory does not. [3] [5]

Social dominance theory

This theory has widely been compared to system justification theory since they are both system-justifying theories. Social dominance theory focuses on people's motive to maintain a positive group image by generally supporting hierarchical inequality at the group level. Individuals with a high social dominance orientation (SDO) will hold myths that tend to be hierarchy-enhancing, which justify an in-group's place and their relation to it. Thus, in both social dominance theory and system justification theory, there are common threads of group-based opposition to equality and justification for maintaining intergroup inequalities through systemic norms. [3] [6] [7]

Belief in a just world

According to the just world fallacy, people are inclined to believe the world is generally fair, and that the outcomes of people's behavior are subsequently deserved. [8] Ideologies that relate to belief in a just world have to do with maintaining a sense of personal control and a desire to understand the world as non-random. Such ideologies include the Protestant work ethic and belief in meritocracy. Essentially, belief in a just world feeds an epistemic need for predictability, order, and stability in one's environment. System justification theory, while keeping the perspective that people are inclined to believe the world is just, extracts the underlying epistemic needs of the just world ideology and uses them as support for why people are motivated to uphold the system. In other words, preference for stability, predictability, and the perception of personal control, over random chance, motivates one to see the status quo as fair and legitimate. [3] This can be an issue, however, due to the fact that disadvantaged people can easily internalize their low position and blame themselves for 'shortcomings' or lack of 'successes'.

False consciousness

In order to account for the phenomenon of outgroup favoritism that is a main component of system justification, theorists have derived heavily from the Marxist-feminist theories on the prevailing ideologies as tools to preserve the system. In particular, the concept of false consciousness, in which the dominant group in society believes their dominance to be destined, can help to inform why certain members of disadvantage groups sometimes engage in outgroup favoritism. [3] Further, system justification emphasizes that those that lack means of material production (lower status) are subject to the ideas, (cultural values, legislation, and social teachings) of the dominant, controlling group.

Aspects of the theory

Rationalization of the status quo

One of the main aspects of system justification theory explains that people are motivated to justify the status quo and view it as stable and desirable. To this extent, theorists have provided specific hypothesis in which the rationalization of the status quo can manifest. One consequence of the system-justifying motivation, is the rationalization of desirability of likely versus less-likely events.

Since people will be inclined to make sure their preferences are congruent with the status quo, in situations of inevitability, people are more likely to endorse the status quo as a coping mechanism for dealing with unpleasant realities. In essence, people will judge events that are more likely as more desirable than events that are less likely. [1] [2] Anticipatory rationalization studies completed during the 2000 American presidential election demonstrate how future candidate endorsement and desirability is dependent on the likelihood of that candidate winning. When subjects of both the Republican and Democratic parties were told, for example, that it was probable that one candidate would win over the other, people of both parties tended to rationalize support for the more likely winner. System justification for seemingly inevitable and unavoidable outcomes serves as a stress or dissonance reducer and provides psychological and emotional consolation, as well as allowing the individual to feel a sense of control over external events.[ citation needed ]

Another way people rationalize the status quo is through the use of stereotypes. When people perceive threats to the predominant system, they are more inclined to cling to and back the existing structure, and one way of doing so is by means of endorsing stereotypes that rationalize inequality. If one considers oneself a member of a higher social status group (economic standing, race, gender) he or she will hold favorable stereotypes about their group and less positive ones toward lower-status outgroups. As perceived legitimacy of the system or threat to it increases, members of both disadvantaged and advantaged groups will be more motivated to utilize stereotypes as explanatory rationalizations (no matter how weak) for unequal status differences. Those that belong to disadvantaged groups will tend to associate positive characteristics (favorable stereotypes) to high-status members and lead low-status group members to minimize negative feelings about their low status. [2] Thus, stereotype endorsement as system justification is consensual and holds a palliative function. This is true for both the ingroup and outgroup. Stereotypes also deflect blame of unfair status differences from the system and instead, attribute inequality to group traits or characteristics. Such rationalization for inequality via stereotyping is said to be what makes political conservatives happier than liberals.[ citation needed ] In a 2012 research study on the connection of system justification beliefs and ambivalent sexism, researchers found that benevolent sexism beliefs related to higher life satisfaction through system justification. That is, both men and women may be motivated to hold benevolent sexism beliefs because such beliefs may help to promote the notion that the status quo is fair, which in turn can maintain life satisfaction. [9]

Outgroup favoritism

In contrast to ingroup favoritism, which holds that people have a motivation to regard the social groups that they belong in more positively than other groups, outgroup favoritism is when people tend to regard groups to which they do not belong more positively than the groups to which they are members. [3] System justification theorists argue that this is an example or manifestation of how some people have unconsciously absorbed, processed, and attempted to cope with existing inequalities—more specifically, one's own disadvantaged position in the social hierarchy. Because people have a tendency to justify the status quo (which usually consists of inequality among groups) and believe that it is fair and legitimate, certain people from low-status groups will accept, internalize, and hence perpetuate that inequality. [2]

Criticisms of outgroup favoritism have suggested observations of this in disadvantaged group members are simply manifestations of more general demand characteristics or social norms that encourage low-status groups to evaluate other groups more positively. [2] In response to this, system justification theorists introduced both implicit and explicit measures of outgroup favoritism. It was found that low-status group members still exhibited outgroup favoritism (i.e. preference for other groups) on both implicit and explicit measures, and they displayed higher instances of outgroup favoritism on implicit measures than on explicit (self-reported) measures. In contrast, people from high-status groups were found to display ingroup favoritism more on implicit measures. [2] [10]

Thus, it is expected that when motivation to justify the system or status quo increases and it is perceived to be more legitimate, high-status group members will also display increased ingroup favoritism, while low status group members will display increased outgroup favoritism. [2] Researchers have also linked political conservatism with system justification, in that conservatism is associated with upholding tradition and resistance to change, which is similar to justifying the status quo (or current state of social, political, and economic norms). Along this vein, system justification theorists hold that high-status group members will engage in increased ingroup favoritism the more politically conservative they are, while low-status group members will display increased outgroup favoritism the more politically conservative they are. [2]

Depressed entitlement

Research on wage disparities between men and women have found that women often believe they are paid less than men because they do not deserve equal pay. [11] [12] This depressed entitlement was first thought as the manifestation of women internalizing the low status of their gender compared to men. Subsequent research has found depressed entitlement occur across contexts in which gender was not a variable. System justification theorists have suggested that depressed entitlement is another general example of how individuals of low-status groups absorb their inferiority in order to justify the status quo. [3] As such, system justification holds that low-status group members regardless of context will be more likely to display instances of depressed entitlement than high-status group members. This will also be seen more among low-status group members for completed work as opposed to work not yet completed. [13]

Ego, group, and system justification motives

As previously stated, people are motivated by the desire for ego-justification and group-justification to view themselves and their group positively (which can manifest through feelings of self-esteem and value). [2] The system-justification motive is people's desire to view the system or status quo in a favorable light as legitimate and fair. Among high-status group members, all three of these motives are congruent with one another. The need to believe the system is just and fair is easy for high-status group members because they are the groups benefiting from the system and status quo. Therefore, as the advantaged groups, holding positive regard for the self and group corresponds readily with believing the status quo is legitimate. [3]

In particular, as system justification motives increase for high-status group members, ingroup ambivalence will decrease, levels of self-esteem will increase, and depression and neuroticism levels will decrease. [2] For low-status groups, the ego-justification and group-justification motives come into conflict with the system-justification motive. If low-status group members have a desire to believe the status quo and prevailing system is fair and legitimate, then this would conflict with the motivation of these individuals to maintain positive self and group images. Theorists posit that this conflict of justification motives creates conflicting or mixed attitudes in low-status groups as a result of being the disadvantaged group that does not necessarily benefit from the status quo. [3] [14]

As system justification motives increase for low-status group members, ingroup ambivalence will increase and occur at stronger levels compared to high-status groups, levels of self-esteem will decrease, and depression and neuroticism levels will increase. Moreover, researchers suggest that when ego and group justification motives are particularly decreased, system-justification motives will increase. [14]

Enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged

Based on cognitive dissonance theory that holds people have a need to reduce dissonance and maintain cognitive consistency, system justification theory explains that people are motivated to rationalize and justify instances of inequality in order to preserve and defend the legitimacy of the system. [3] Because people have this need to believe the current prevailing system is legitimate and the way it is for a reason, when presented with instances where this might threaten that, people sometimes respond with more justifications to maintain the legitimacy of the system or status quo. [2]

Compensatory stereotypes

Research has found that compensatory stereotypes might lead to increased justification of the status quo. That is, stereotypes that have components that would offset the negative aspects of the stereotypes would allow people to more easily explain or justify the inequality of the prevailing system. [2] One of the more common examples is the compensatory stereotype of "poor but happy" or "rich but miserable." [15] Stereotypes like these that incorporate a positive aspect to counterbalance the negative aspect would lead people to increase their justification of the status quo. Other findings suggested that these compensatory stereotypes are preferred by those with more left-leaning political ideologies, while those with more right-leaning political ideologies preferred non-complementary stereotypes that simply rationalized inequality rather than compensated for it. [16] But that overall, conservatives were more likely to have increased system justification tendencies than liberals. [17] [18]

Consequences of system justification

Consequences of people's motivation to legitimize the status quo are wide-ranging. In needing to believe that the current or prevailing systems are fair and just, results in people justifying the existing inequalities within it. [2] Research on system justification theory has been applied to many different social and political contexts that have found the theory has implications for general social change, social policies, and specific communities. Research has found that people with increased system justification motives are more resistant to change, and thus an implication of this would be greater difficulty to move towards policies, governments, authority figures, and hierarchies that reflect equality. [19]

Research suggests that system justification motives reduce emotional distress in people that would otherwise result in demands for amendments to perceived injustices or inequalities. Specifically, moral outrage, guilt, and frustration are reduced when system justification motives increase. This has shown to result in less support for social policies that redistribute resources in the aim for equality. [20] [21]

In developing countries, in which group inequalities are most evident, researchers were interested in testing the claim of system justification theory that when inequalities are more visible, this will result in greater justification of the status quo. [22] Researchers visited the most impoverished areas of Bolivia, and found that children (aged 10–15) who were members of low-status groups legitimized the Bolivian government as sufficiently meeting the needs of the people more so than children from high-status groups. Observing system-justification motives in low-status groups located in one of the most impoverished countries implies there will be less support for social change in a country that arguably needs it the most. [22]

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, there were different reactions to the devastation it brought to communities as well as the government's relief efforts. Researchers who have studied these reactions, found that the slow and inefficient response of relief efforts were perceived by some to expose "governmental shortcomings, call into question the legitimacy of agency leadership, and highlight racial inequality in America." [23] These perceptions indirectly brought a threat to the legitimacy of the U.S. government (i.e. the system). As a result of this system threat, researchers found that people tended to restore legitimacy to the system through utilizing stereotypes and victim blaming. [2] In particular, since the majority of the communities affected by Hurricane Katrina were generally low-income and composed mostly of minorities, some people used stereotypes to blame the victims for their misfortune and restore legitimacy to the government. [23] Researchers explained how this could have consequences for the victims and the restoration of their homes and communities. Increased system justification, and increased victim blaming could be detrimental in providing the victims the resources needed to work towards repairing the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. [23]

Critiques

Social identity theory debate

This debate arose from social identity theorists who countered a critique of social identity theory by system justification theorists. System justification theorists argued that the theoretical conception of system justification theory derived, in part, from limitations of social identity theory. [2] [3] In particular, system justification theorists have argued that social identity theory does not fully account for outgroup favoritism, and that it is more able to explain ingroup favoritism. Advocates for social identity theory have argued that this critique is more a result of lack of research on outgroup favoritism rather than a limitation of social identity theory's theoretical framework. [6]

More recently, social identity theorists have put forward a social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA), which offers several explanations for system justification that refer to social identity motives rather than a separate system justification motive. [24] [25] [26] In 2019, a series of position and reply articles were published by proponents of both system justification theory [27] [28] and SIMSA [29] [30] in the debate section of the British Journal of Social Psychology . In 2023, this debate continued in the European Review of Social Psychology , with (a) a target article by Rubin et al. [31] that expanded on SIMSA, (b) a rejoinder by Jost et al. [32] that criticized this target article, and (c) a second article by Rubin et al. [33] that responded to Jost et al.'s criticisms.

Relation to status quo bias

Another critique is that system justification theory is too similar and indistinguishable to status quo bias. Given that both deal directly with upholding and legitimizing the status quo, this critique is not unfounded. But system justification theory differs from the status quo bias in that it is predominately motivational rather than cognitive. Generally, the status quo bias refers to a tendency to prefer the default or established option when making choices. In contrast, system justification posits that people need and want to see prevailing social systems as fair and just. The motivational component of system justification means that its effects are exacerbated when people are under psychological threat or when they feel their outcomes are especially dependent on the system that is being justified. [34]

Current research

Congruent with a broader trend toward neuroscience, current research on system justification has tested to see how this manifests in the brain. Findings by researchers have shown that people with more conservative ideologies differed in certain brain structures, which was associated with sensitivity to threat and response conflict. [35] Specifically, those who were more conservative were "associated with greater neural sensitivity to threat and larger amygdala volume, as well as less sensitivity to response conflict and smaller anterior cingulate volume," compared to those who were more liberal. This research is currently exploratory and has not yet determined the direction of the relations to ideology and brain structures. [35]

Recent findings by researchers have shown that system justification motives to legitimize the status quo was found in young children. [36] Through utilizing the developmental psychological theory and data, children as early as age 5 were found to have basic understandings of their ingroup and the status of their ingroup. System justification motives were also observed in that children from low-status groups were found to display implicit outgroup favoritism. [36] Research on system justification in young children remains a current trend.

Utopian thinking has been proposed as an effective way to overcome system justification. Thinking about an ideal society can decrease system justification and increase collective action intentions by increasing hope and abstraction. [37]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prejudice</span> Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

Social dominance theory (SDT) is a social psychological theory of intergroup relations that examines the caste-like features of group-based social hierarchies, and how these hierarchies remain stable and perpetuate themselves. According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary mechanisms: institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. The theory proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors by serving to make privilege normal. For data collection and validation of predictions, the social dominance orientation (SDO) scale was composed to measure acceptance of and desire for group-based social hierarchy, which was assessed through two factors: support for group-based dominance and generalized opposition to equality, regardless of the ingroup's position in the power structure.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Optimal distinctiveness is a social psychological theory seeking to understand ingroup–outgroup differences. It asserts that individuals desire to attain an optimal balance of inclusion and distinctiveness within and between social groups and situations. These two motives are in constant opposition with each other; when there is too much of one motive, the other must increase in order to counterbalance it and vice versa. The theory of optimal distinctiveness was first proposed by Dr. Marilynn B. Brewer in 1991 and extensively reviewed in 2010 by Drs. Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Cynthia L. Pickett, and Marilynn Brewer.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

In social psychology, self-stereotyping is a process by which an individual integrates and internalizes commonly held characterizations of an in-group into their self-concept. It is described as part of social identity theory (SIT) and, more specifically, self-categorization theory (SCT).

An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group. Recent studies have determined that "implicit bias" towards those of the opposite gender may be even more influential than racial implicit bias.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

John Thomas Jost is a social psychologist best known for his work on system justification theory and the psychology of political ideology. Jost received his AB degree in Psychology and Human Development from Duke University (1989), where he studied with Irving E. Alexander, Philip R. Costanzo, David Goldstein, and Lynn Hasher, and his PhD in Social and Political Psychology from Yale University (1995), where he was the last doctoral student of Leonard Doob and William J. McGuire. He was also a doctoral student of Mahzarin R. Banaji and a postdoctoral trainee of Arie W. Kruglanski.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Axes of subordination</span>

In social psychology, the two axes of subordination is a racial position model that categorizes the four most common racial groups in the United States into four different quadrants. The model was first proposed by Linda X. Zou and Sapna Cheryan in the year 2017, and suggests that U.S. racial groups are categorized based on two dimensions: perceived inferiority and perceived cultural foreignness. Support for the model comes from both a target and perceivers perspective in which Whites are seen as superior and American, African Americans as inferior and American, Asian Americans as superior and foreign, and Latinos as inferior and foreign.

Outgroup favoritism is a social psychological construct intended to capture why some socially disadvantaged groups will express favorable attitudes toward social, cultural, or ethnic groups other than their own. Considered by many psychologists as part of a variety of system-justifying motives, outgroup favoritism has been widely researched as a potential explanation for why groups—particularly those disadvantaged by the normative social hierarchy—are motivated to support, maintain, and preserve the status quo. Specifically, outgroup favoritism provides a contrast to the idea of ingroup favoritism, which proposes that individuals exhibit a preference for members of their own group over members of the outgroup.

Social identity threat is a theory in social psychology derived from social identity theory to explain the different types of threats that arise from group identity being threatened as opposed to personal identity. This theory distinguishes between four distinct types of social identity threats: categorization threat, distinctiveness threat, threats to the value of social identity, and acceptance threat. Each type is associated with particular social contexts that make the threats more or less likely to occur. This theory emphasizes how the level of commitment with the social identity shapes the nature of the threat experienced.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Jost, John T.; Banaji, Mahzarin R. (1994). "The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness". British Journal of Social Psychology . 33: 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x. S2CID   144875248.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Jost, John T.; Mahzarin R. Banaji; Brain A. Nosek (2004). "A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo". Political Psychology . 25 (6): 881–919. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Jost, John T.; Orsolya Hunyady (2002). "The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology". European Review of Social Psychology. 13: 111–153. doi:10.1080/10463280240000046. S2CID   1328491.
  4. ↑ Jost, John T.; Brett W. Pelham; Oliver Sheldon; Bilian Sullivan (2003). "Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged". European Journal of Social Psychology. 33 (1): 13–36. doi:10.1002/ejsp.127.
  5. ↑ Jost, John T. (2001). "Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: A paradigm for investigating the effects of socioeconomic success on stereotype content" (PDF). In Moskowitz, Gordon B. (ed.). Cognitive Social Psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition. Psychology Press. pp. 89–102. ISBN   9780805834147. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-07.
  6. 1 2 Mark, Rubin; Miles Hewstone (2004). "Social Identity, System Justification, and Social Dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al". Political Psychology. 25 (6): 823–844. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00400.x. hdl: 1959.13/27347 . S2CID   144929890.
  7. ↑ Sidanius, Jim; Felicia Pratto; Colette Van Laar; Shana Levin (2004). "Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method". Political Psychology. 25 (6): 845–880. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00401.x. S2CID   143967408.
  8. ↑ Lerner, Melvin J. (2003). "The Justice Motive: Where Social Psychologists Found It, How they Lost It, and Why They May Not Find It Again". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 7 (4): 388–399. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_10. PMID   14633474. S2CID   40532419.
  9. ↑ Connelly, K.; Heesacker, M. (2012). "Why is Benevolent Sexism Appealing? Associations with System Justification and Life Satisfaction". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 36 (4): 432–443. doi:10.1177/0361684312456369. S2CID   143442302.
  10. ↑ Jost, John; Brett Pelham; Mauricio Carvallo (2002). "Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 38 (6): 586–602. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00505-X.
  11. ↑ Hough, Mary; Janice D. Yoder (2003). "The Role of Status in Producing Depressed Entitlement in Women's and Men's Pay Allocations". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 27 (4): 330–337. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00113. S2CID   144161408.
  12. ↑ Major, Brenda (1994). "From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership". In Zanna, Mark P. (ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 26. pp. 293–355. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60156-2. ISBN   9780120152261.
  13. ↑ Blanton, Hart; Greg George; Jennifer Crocker (2001). "Contexts of System Justification and System Evaluation: Exploring the Social Comparison Strategies of the (Not Yet) Contented Female Worker". Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 4 (2): 126–137. doi:10.1177/1368430201004002004. S2CID   145377608.
  14. 1 2 Jost, John; Diana Burgess (2000). "Attitudinal Ambivalence and the Conflict between Group and System Justification Motives in Low Status Groups". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 26 (3): 293–305. doi:10.1177/0146167200265003. S2CID   143976942.
  15. ↑ Kay, Aaron; John Jost (2003). "Complementary Justice: Effects of "Poor but Happy" and "Poor but Honest" Stereotype Exemplars on System Justification and Implicit Activation of the Justice Motive". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 (5): 823–837. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823. PMID   14599247. S2CID   14509306.
  16. ↑ Kay, Aaron C.; Czapliński, Szymon; Jost, John T. (2009). "Left–right ideological differences in system justification following exposure to complementary versus noncomplementary stereotype exemplars". European Journal of Social Psychology. 39 (2): 290–298. doi:10.1002/ejsp.500. S2CID   51825186.
  17. ↑ Jost, John; Brian A. Nosek; Samuel D. Gosling (2008). "Ideology: Its Resurgence in Social, Personality, and Political Psychology". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 3 (2): 126–136. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x. PMID   26158879. S2CID   15877726.
  18. ↑ Jost, John; Jack Glaser; Arie W.Kruglanski; Frank Sulloway (2003). "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition". Psychological Bulletin. 129 (3): 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339. PMID   12784934.
  19. ↑ Blasi, Gary; John Jost (2006). "System Justification Theory and Research: Implications for Law, Legal Advocacy, and Social Justice". California Law Review. 94 (4): 1119–1168. doi:10.2307/20439060. JSTOR   20439060.
  20. ↑ Jost, John; Orsola Hunyady (2005). "Antecedents and Consequences of System-Justifying Ideologies". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 14 (5): 260–265. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x. S2CID   13892856.
  21. ↑ Wakslak, Cheryl; John T. Jost; Tom R. Tyler; Emmeline S. Chen (2007). "Moral Outrage Mediates the Dampening Effect of System Justification on Support for Redistributive Social Policies". Psychological Science. 18 (3): 267–274. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01887.x. PMID   17444925. S2CID   18703996.
  22. 1 2 Henry, PJ; Andrea Saul (2006). "The Development of System Justification in the Developing World". Social Justice Research. 19 (3): 365–378. doi:10.1007/s11211-006-0012-x. S2CID   144436708.
  23. 1 2 3 Napier, Jaime L.; Anesu N. Mandisodza; Susan M. Andersen; John T. Jost (2006). "System Justification in Responding to the Poor and Displaced in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 6 (1): 57–73. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2006.00102.x. S2CID   27547108.
  24. ↑ Owuamalam, C. K.; Rubin, M.; Issmer, C. (2016). "Reactions to group devaluation and social inequality: A comparison of social identity and system justification predictions". Cogent Psychology. 3 (1188442). doi: 10.1080/23311908.2016.1188442 . hdl: 1959.13/1313996 .
  25. ↑ Owuamalam, C. K.; Rubin, M.; Spears, R. (2018a). "Addressing evidential and theoretical inconsistencies in system-justification theory with a social identity model of system attitudes". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 27 (2): 91–96. doi:10.1177/0963721417737136.
  26. ↑ Owuamalam, C. K.; Rubin, M.; Spears, R. (2018b). "A critical review of the (un) conscious basis for system-supporting attitudes of the disadvantaged". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 12 (11): e12419. doi:10.1111/spc3.12419.
  27. ↑ Jost, J. T. (2019). "A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications". British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (2): 263–314. doi:10.1111/bjso.12297.
  28. ↑ Jost, J. T.; Badaan, V.; Goudarzi, S.; Hoffarth, M.; Mogami, M. (2019). "The future of system justification theory". British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (2): 382–392. doi:10.1111/bjso.12309. PMID   30593682.
  29. ↑ Owuamalam, C. K.; Rubin, M.; Spears, R. (2019). "Is a system motive really necessary to explain the system justification effect? A response to Jost (2019) and Jost, Badaan, Goudarzi, Hoffarth, and Mogami (2019)". British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (2): 393–409. doi:10.1111/bjso.12323. PMID   30919987.
  30. ↑ Owuamalam, C. K.; Rubin, M.; Spears, R. (2019b). "Revisiting 25 years of system motivation explanation for system justification from the perspective of social identity model of system attitudes". British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (2): 362–381. doi:10.1111/bjso.12285. PMID   30328122.
  31. ↑ Rubin, M.; Owuamalam, C. K.; Spears, R.; Caricati, L. (2023). "A social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system justification by the disadvantaged that do not depend on a separate system justification motive". European Review of Social Psychology. 34 (2): 203–243. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422 .
  32. ↑ Jost, J. T.; Bertin, J. A.; Javeed, A.; Liaquat, U.; Rivera-Pichardo, E. J. (2023). "Rejoinder to Rubin, Owuamalam, Spears, and Caricati (2023): Ideology is not accuracy; identity is not everything; and the social identity model of social attitudes does not explain system justification, it presupposes it". European Review of Social Psychology. 34 (2): 244–267. doi:10.1080/10463283.2022.2122319.
  33. ↑ Rubin, M.; Owuamalam, C. K.; Spears, R.; Caricati, L. (2023). "Social identity explanations of system justification: Misconceptions, criticisms, and clarifications". European Review of Social Psychology. 34 (2): 268–297. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2184578 .
  34. ↑ Kay, Aaron C.; Gaucher, Danielle; Peach, Jennifer M.; Laurin, Kristin; Friesen, Justin; Zanna, Mark P.; Spencer, Steven J. (2009). "Inequality, Discrimination, and the Power of the Status Quo: Direct Evidence for a Motivation to See the Way Things Are as the Way They Should Be". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 97 (3): 421–434. doi:10.1037/a0015997. PMID   19685999. S2CID   15906336.
  35. 1 2 Jost, John; David Amodio (2012). "Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence". Motivation and Emotion. 36 (1): 55–64. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7. S2CID   10675844.
  36. 1 2 Baron, Andrew; Mahzarin Banaji (2009). "Evidence of System Justification in Young Children". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 3 (6): 918–926. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00214.x. S2CID   27494627.
  37. ↑ Badaan, Vivienne; Jost, John T.; Fernando, Julian; Kashima, Yoshihisa (April 2020). "Imagining better societies: A social psychological framework for the study of utopian thinking and collective action". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 14 (4). doi:10.1111/spc3.12525. ISSN   1751-9004.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.