For Better or Worse? System‐Justifying Beliefs in Sixth‐Grade Predict Trajectories of Self‐Esteem and Behavior Across Early Adolescence

Abstract

Scholars call for more attention to how marginalization influences the development of low-income and racial/ethnic minority youth and emphasize the importance of youth's subjective perceptions of contexts. This study examines how beliefs about the fairness of the American system (system justification) in sixth grade influence trajectories of self-esteem and behavior among 257 early adolescents (average age 11.4) from a diverse, low-income, middle school in an urban southwestern city. System justification was associated with higher self-esteem, less delinquent behavior, and better classroom behavior in sixth grade but worse trajectories of these outcomes from sixth to eighth grade. These findings provide novel evidence that system-justifying beliefs undermine the well-being of marginalized youth and that early adolescence is a critical developmental period for this process.

Black Adolescents’ Critical Reflection Development: Parents’ Racial Socialization and Attributions About Race Achievement Gaps

“…People are exposed to multiple system‐justifying ideologies (e.g., the Protestant work ethic, just‐world beliefs, etc.) across the lifespan (Godfrey et al., ; Jost & Hunyady, ). Unless targeted by critical social intervention, adolescents’ endorsement of individual attributions of success is likely to remain stable across adolescence (Aldana & Byrd, ; Freire, ).…”

“…In the U.S., children learn from an early age that success and failure are due to a strong work‐ethic, merit, motivation, and other individual characteristics and behaviors (Jost & Hunyady, ). Although little longitudinal research has examined changes in individual causal attributions for societal disparities, one study with an ethnically diverse sample of early adolescents found that youths’ system‐justification beliefs (i.e., perceptions that society is fair, and thus individuals who fail do so because of a lack of effort or merit) were similar across grades among all groups except for Latino boys (Godfrey, Santos, & Burson, ). Although the assessment of age differences in those beliefs was cross‐sectional, these results nonetheless lend support to the current study's hypothesis that adolescents’ individual attributions would not change over time.…”

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

“…For those who are disadvantaged by the status quo, system justification comes with social and psychological costs. It tends to be negatively associated with self‐esteem, ingroup favouritism, and long‐term psychological well‐being – measured in terms of depression, neuroticism, ambivalence, and stigma internalization (Godfrey, Santos, & Burson, in press; Jost & Thompson, ; Pacilli, Taurino, Jost, & van der Toorn, ). A study of gay men in Chile found that system justification was associated with internalized homonegativity, which was associated with increased symptoms of anxiety and depression.…”

The development of the Systems and Individual Responsibility for Poverty (SIRP) Scale

“…Godfrey and colleagues () also found that although system‐justifying beliefs among 257 low‐income and racial/ethnic minority adolescents were positively associated with desirable outcomes in the sixth grade (e.g., higher self‐esteem and better classroom behavior); in older middle school students this relation was reversed. In sum, endorsement of individual blame for being in poverty is common even among those who are living in poverty.…”

“…Poverty is a widespread social problem that affects a substantial number of Americans each year. For example, in 2015, 43.1 million people lived below the federal poverty line in the United States (United States Census Bureau, 2016), a figure which vastly underestimates the number of citizens who were unable to meet their basic needs (i.e., earned a living wage; Glasmeier, 2017). Individuals who are living in poverty are at increased risk of experiencing a host of deleterious outcomes, including emotional difficulties, cognitive deficits, educational difficulties, and malnourishment (e.g., Aber, Bennett, Conley, & Li, 1997;Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997).…”