Do superordinate in-group bias as well as temporal and social comparisons offer standalone explanations for system justification? We addressed this question using the latest World Value Survey (7th Wave), combining the responses of 55,721 participants from 40 different nations. Results from a random slope multilevel model showed that superordinate (national) identification, temporal comparison (i.e., the outcomes of an individual relative to those of his/her parents at different time points), and social comparison (based on income levels) were independent and positive predictors of system justification. Specifically, system justification increased when national identification was high, when income increased (i.e., the socioeconomic comparison was positive), and when the outcomes of citizens improved relative to the outcomes of their parents at relevant time points (i.e., the temporal comparison was positive). Incidentally, we also observed an interaction between national identification and temporal comparison (but not with social comparison), indicating that positive temporal comparison seemed to have a reduced effect (but still significant) for highly identified citizens. These results are supportive of the social identity approach to system justification and suggest that support for societal systems is a positive function of people’s personal and group interests.
Right-wing people usually justify the system more than left-wing people. The social identity approach suggests that system justification may be an ingroup bias at overarching national levels and that differences between leftists and rightists could be linked to differences in party norms in promoting national identification. A cross-sectional design was used in which 192 adults (64.6% men, mean age of 35.61 years) were enrolled. Political orientation, national identification and general and economic system justification were collected. Results from structural equation modelling indicated that rightists, as compared with leftists, were higher in national identification and both general and economic system justification. National identification mostly mediated the relationship between political orientation and general system justification, while mediation on the relationship between political orientation and economic system justification was less marked. The social identity approach expectation that differences in system justification could be linked to the extent to which people identify with their overarching social category appears to be supported.
RESUMENLos simpatizantes de la derecha política tienden a justificar el sistema en mayor medida que los partidarios de la izquierda. Desde el enfoque de la identidad social se sugiere que la justificación del sistema podría constituir un sesgo endogrupal a nivel predominantemente nacional y que las diferencias entre partidarios de izquierda y de derecha podrían estar vinculadas a las diferencias en las normas políticas relacionadas con la identificación nacional. En este estudio se aplicó un diseño transversal con una muestra de 192 participantes (64.6% hombres, media de edad de 35.61 años). Se recabaron datos sobre su orientación política, identificación nacional y justificación del sistema, tanto en general como del sistema económico. Los resultados del modelo de ecuaciones estructurales indican que los simpatizantes de la derecha, comparados con los de la izquierda, muestran un nivel más elevado de identificación nacional y de justificación del sistema, en ambas variantes (general y económica). La identificación nacional ARTICLE HISTORY
The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) suggests that system justification among low-status groups can be explained by ingroup identification and the hope for a collective future improvement. In this report, we summarize the results of a cross-sectional investigation concerning the relationship between system justification, hope and identification based on a sample of 200 LGBTQIA+ individuals (identifying themselves as non-normative with respect to gender identity and sexual orientation). The results were supportive of SIMSA expectations and showed that system justification was positively linked to hope for future advancement. Importantly, hope played a key role influencing the relations between ingroup identification and perceived ingroup status: for low-status individuals who had high hope, ingroup identification was positively associated with system justification. Limits are acknowledged.
Three studies have tested the hypothesis that intermediate-status groups are more oriented to ally with outgroups when their social position is under threat. In study 1, participants believed that their ingroup was intermediate in status and social stratification was manipulated as either stable or status-detrimental unstable. Results indicated that participants were more likely to seek alliances a) with a high-status group and b) when social stratification was status-detrimental unstable. Study 2 showed that participants were more likely to seek alliances with a lower status group when social stratification was status-detrimental unstable rather than stable, while they were supportive of policies helping disadvantaged groups regardless of the stability of social stratification. Study 3 showed that when social stratification was status-detrimental unstable, intermediate-status group members were more oriented to ally with a low-status group, equally supportive of policies helping disadvantaged groups, but less oriented to supplying direct help to a low-status group.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.