Life History and System Justification: Higher Individual Fertility and Lower Provincial Life Expectancy Correlate With Stronger Progovernment Attitudes in China

Abstract

System justification theory posits that people sometimes legitimize current social arrangements at their own cost. Indeed, research showed that lower socioeconomic status (SES) correlates with stronger progovernment attitudes, but this correlation does not appear reliable. This research proposes a different class of correlates of progovernment attitudes drawing on life history (LH) theory. People who pursue a faster LH strategy (e.g., reproducing earlier and in larger quantities) should be more progovernment because their lower resourceaccruing potential makes them more dependent on government support (e.g., public services and social welfare) to raise a large family. Supporting this hypothesis, Chinese respondents' individual fertility positively correlated with confidence in government (Study 1) and partially mediated the negative correlation between provincial life expectancy and support of censoring government criticisms (Study 2). These findings suggest an alternative explanation to some of the correlations between SES and progovernment attitudes, provide a new mechanism of system justification, and add to the growing body of work on LH strategy and political psychology.

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

“… Zhang and Zhong (in press) provide evidence from China that adults who are lower (vs. higher) in income and education tend to have more children at an earlier age, and this renders them more dependent on governmental support and therefore more likely to defend and justify the authority of the Chinese government. …”

When Left Is Right and Right Is Left: The Psychological Correlates of Political Ideology in China

“…On the one hand, cross‐cultural psychologists have shown little interest in political science; on the other hand, political psychologists who study ideology seldom explore beyond the Western context (cf. Kim, Kang, & Yun, 2012; Roets, Au, & Van Hiel, 2015; Talhelm et al, 2015; Zhang & Zhong, 2019).…”

Causation and Behavior: The Necessity and Benefits of Incorporating Evolutionary Thinking into Political Science

“…Political scientists are just beginning to investigate evolutionary influences on politics. The volume of research currently focuses on the heritability of political traits; however, other evolutionary perspectives include questions about social deservingness and generosity (Petersen, 2012); political preferences and life history strategies (Liesen, 2017; Murray and Schmitz, 2011; Zhang and Zhong, 2019); overconfidence and war (Johnson, 2009; Johnson and Fowler, 2011); attitudes on immigration (Aarøe, Petersen, and Arceneaux, 2017); and the evolutionary causes of ideological variation (Claessen et al., 2020; Janoff‐Bulman, 2009; Mansell, 2018; Tuschman, 2013). While these studies provide a foundation for the development of a consilient behavioral model, they represent a fraction of the possible evolutionary influences.…”