The Palliative Function of Hostile Sexism among High and Low-Status Chilean Students

Abstract

Previous studies have demonstrated that justifying the social, economic, and political systems is associated with psychological well-being, which has been termed as the palliative function of ideology. However, little research has been conducted on gender stereotypes among children, comparing by socioeconomic status. This study aimed to fill this gap in the system justification literature. We present data from the Chilean version of the International Survey of Children Well-Being (ISCWeB), which was conducted in 2012. We found that the palliative function of gender stereotypes is present among this sample, being qualified by a socioeconomic status by hostile gender stereotype interaction. In other words, the effect on the psychological well-being was observed in low-status, but not in high-status students. These results extend the previous knowledge about the palliative function of the ideology, suggesting why the low-status members of a society actively engage in system justification.

System justification enhances well‐being: A longitudinal analysis of the palliative function of system justification in 18 countries

“…However, in our sample the expected interaction term between system justification and an individual's social status was not significant. This general pattern of results, in which the palliative function of ideology tends to be similarly distributed across social‐status positions, is similar to findings from New Zealand (Sengupta et al ., ) and Chile (Vargas‐Salfate, ), providing support for an alternative view of the hedonic consequences of system justification beliefs.…”

“…Finally, as an anonymous reviewer suggested, the divergent results within the palliative function of ideology may be due to different measures of social status. For example, status has been treated as ethnicity (e.g., O'Brien & Major, ; Sengupta et al ., ), body weight (e.g., Quinn & Crocker, , study 2), income (e.g., Godfrey et al ., ), gender (Vargas‐Salfate, ), among others. In this article, we treated status as subjective social–economic status, because we were using a cross‐cultural sample.…”

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

“…These findings were broadly consistent with the notion derived from dissonance theory that those who suffer most intensely from a given state of affairs would be especially motivated to justify it (see also Henry & Saul, ; Sengupta, Osborne, & Sibley, ). A few studies have recently picked up on this idea, suggesting that the palliative effects of system justification may be stronger for the disadvantaged than the advantaged, at least under some circumstances (Sengupta, Greaves, Osborne, & Sibley, ; Vargas‐Salfate, ).…”

System justification theory at 25: Evaluating a paradigm shift in psychology and looking towards the future

“…Bahamondes, Sibley, and Osborne's () revealed that the palliative effects of system justification on minorities’ and women's well‐being in New Zealand were mediated by reductions in perceived ethnic‐ and gender‐based discrimination, respectively. Relatedly, women who endorse hostile sexism – a belief system that portrays women as manipulative, power‐hungry, and likely to exaggerate gender discrimination – experience boosts to their well‐being over time through increases in system justification (Osborne, Jost, Bahamondes, Stone, & Sibley, under review; also see Vargas‐Salfate, ). Notably, the palliative effects of system justification are most pronounced among those with a heightened need to justify inequality (i.e., those who live in highly unequal areas; Sengupta, Greaves, Osborne, & Sibley, ), implying that those who encounter particularly harsh social environments may endorse system‐justifying beliefs as a way to cope with their chronic exposure to systemic unfairness.…”