A Comparison of Social Dominance Theory and System Justification: The Role of Social Status in 19 Nations

110

Do the disadvantaged have an autonomous system justification motivation that operates against their personal and group interests? System justification theory (SJT; Jost & Banaji, 1994, Br. J. Soc. Psychol, 33, 1) proposes that they do and that this motivation helps to (1) reduce cognitive dissonance and associated uncertainties and (2) soothe the pain that is associated with knowing that one's group is subject to social inequality. However, 25 years of research on this system justification motivation has given rise to several theoretical and empirical inconsistencies. The present article argues that these inconsistencies can be resolved by a social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, 2018, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci, 27, 91). SIMSA assumes that instances of system justification are often in alignment with (rather than opposed to) the interests of the disadvantaged. According to SIMSA, the disadvantaged may support social systems (1) in order to acknowledge social reality, (2) when they perceive the wider social system to constitute a superordinate ingroup, and (3) because they hope to improve their ingroup's status through existing channels in the long run. These propositions are corroborated by existing and emerging evidence. We conclude that SIMSA offers a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for system justification than does SJT.

Section: The System Justification Motivationmentioning

confidence: 81%

Revisiting 25 years of system motivation explanation for system justification from the perspective of social identity model of system attitudes

Owuamalam

Rubin

Spears

2018

110

“…In contrast, a leader that advocates substantive social change to achieve group‐based interests should experience increased support when group‐based concerns are salient, but decreased support when system justification concerns are salient. Consideration of when the system justification motive will elicit general or domain‐specific status quo defence (Jost & Kay, ) is also important; recent research has suggested that this distinction moderates the relationship between social status and system justification (Sengupta et al ., ; see also Brandt, ; Vargas‐Salfate, Paez, Liu, Pratto, & Gil de Zúñiga, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

System justification: Experimental evidence, its contextual nature, and implications for social change

Friesen

Laurin

Shepherd

et al. 2018

We review conceptual and empirical contributions to system justification theory over the last fifteen years, emphasizing the importance of an experimental approach and consideration of context. First, we review the indirect evidence of the system justification motive via complimentary stereotyping. Second, we describe injunctification as direct evidence of a tendency to view the extant status quo (the way things are) as the way things should be. Third, we elaborate on system justification's contextual nature and the circumstances, such as threat, dependence, inescapability, and system confidence, which are likely to elicit defensive bolstering of the status quo and motivated ignorance of critical social issues. Fourth, we describe how system justification theory can increase our understanding of both resistance to and acceptance of social change, as a change moves from proposed, to imminent, to established. Finally, we discuss how threatened systems shore up their authority by co-opting legitimacy from other sources, such as governments that draw on religious concepts, and the role of institutional-level factors in perpetuating the status quo.

“…In fact, to the extent that system justification conflicts with motives for self‐enhancement, self‐interest, and ingroup favoritism among members of disadvantaged groups… it should often be tempered by these other motives' (p. 17). Thus, we never regarded dissonance reduction as the ‘engine' of system justification, as an increasing number of scholars appear to have mistakenly assumed (Brandt, ; Caricati, ; Caricati & Sollami, ; Owuamalam et al ., 2016b; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, , ; Vargas‐Salfate et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Brandt found scant evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged – but he also found little or no consistent evidence of group‐based self‐interest. His null results are therefore equally at odds with theories of realistic group conflict, social identification, and social dominance (see Caricati & Sollami, ; Vargas‐Salfate et al ., ). As I have argued elsewhere (Jost, ), we must still confront a fundamental question in social science: Why is it that members of the working class are just as likely – or, in other cases, almost as likely – as the middle and upper classes to defend and justify the societal status quo?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…For members of disadvantaged groups, however, system justification conflicts with ego and group justification motives (Jost, Burgess, & Mosso, ; Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, ; Zimmerman & Reyna, ). Therefore, it does not follow from the logic of system justification theory that the disadvantaged are usually or typically more likely than the advantaged to support the overarching social system, which is a view that has been repeatedly misattributed to us (Brandt, ; Caricati, ; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, ; Owuamalam et al ., ; Vargas‐Salfate, Paez, Liu, Pratto, & Gil de Zúñiga, ). On the contrary, system justification on the part of the disadvantaged is typically attenuated by countervailing motives for ego and group justification, as Jost et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications

Jost

2018

326

378

A theory of system justification was proposed 25 years ago by Jost and Banaji (1994, Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 33, 1) in the British Journal of Social Psychology to explain 'the participation by disadvantaged individuals and groups in negative stereotypes of themselves' and the phenomenon of outgroup favouritism. The scope of the theory was subsequently expanded to account for a much wider range of outcomes, including appraisals of fairness, justice, legitimacy, deservingness, and entitlement; spontaneous and deliberate social judgements about individuals, groups, and events; and full-fledged political and religious ideologies. According to system justification theory, people are motivated (to varying degrees, depending upon situational and dispositional factors) to defend, bolster, and justify aspects of existing social, economic, and political systems. Engaging in system justification serves the palliative function of increasing satisfaction with the status quo and addresses underlying epistemic, existential, and relational needs to reduce uncertainty, threat, and social discord. This article summarizes the major tenets of system justification theory, reviews some of the empirical evidence supporting it, answers new (and old) questions and criticisms, and highlights areas of societal relevance and directions for future research.Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV, And you think you're so clever and classless and free. . .. (John Lennon, 'Working Class Hero')Learning to love the questions A theory of system justification was proposed by Jost and Banaji (1994) in a special issue of the British Journal of Social Psychology (BJSP) devoted to the structure and functions of social stereotyping. In that article, which is now 'celebrating' its 25th anniversary, we conjectured that in addition to ego-justifying and group-justifying tendencies to defend and rationalize the interests and esteem of the self and the ingroup, respectively, people exhibit system-justifying tendencies to defend and rationalize existing social, economic, and political arrangementssometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. Specifically, we felt that existing theories in social psychology did not