The sigh of the oppressed: The palliative effects of ideology are stronger for people living in highly unequal neighbourhoods

Abstract

Ideologies that legitimize status hierarchies are associated with increased well-being. However, which ideologies have 'palliative effects', why they have these effects, and whether these effects extend to low-status groups remain unresolved issues. This study aimed to address these issues by testing the effects of the ideology of Symbolic Prejudice on well-being among low- and high-status ethnic groups (4,519 Europeans and 1,091 Māori) nested within 1,437 regions in New Zealand. Results showed that Symbolic Prejudice predicted increased well-being for both groups, but that this relationship was stronger for those living in highly unequal neighbourhoods. This suggests that it is precisely those who have the strongest need to justify inequality that accrue the most psychological benefit from subscribing to legitimizing ideologies.

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

“…For instance, Sengupta et al . () found a positive and significant relationship between endorsing legitimizing ideologies (i.e., symbolic prejudice) and psychological well‐being, but more importantly, this relationship was similar when comparing different ethnic groups rather than more prevalent in the dominant ethnic group. Quinn and Crocker (, study 2) on the other hand showed that the priming of a Protestant work ethic increased depression levels among overweight women (as a proxy of low status); this same effect could not be found among non‐overweight participants.…”

“…They found that the effect of symbolic prejudice, the variable used in their study to measure system justification ideology, was positively related to personal well‐being in a New Zealand sample. They hypothesized that symbolic prejudice is a legitimizing ideology, because low‐status groups ‘should not receive any systematic compensation for their poorer social outcomes’ (Sengupta et al ., , p. 4). More importantly, they showed that the relationship between symbolic prejudice and well‐being was stronger in highly unequal regions.…”

“…In addition, after accounting for church attendance, the relationship became non‐significant. Nevertheless, Sengupta, Greaves, Osborne, and Sibley () found different results regarding the role of inequality. They found that the effect of symbolic prejudice, the variable used in their study to measure system justification ideology, was positively related to personal well‐being in a New Zealand sample.…”

“…We inferred that both in more developed, and in less egalitarian countries, the effect of system‐justifying beliefs on well‐being should be higher, as found by Sengupta et al . () in regions within a country. In the case of national‐level development, SJT does not provide specific hypotheses, but we included HDI as a ‘macro measure of status’ in order to test whether individual‐level predictions hold at the national level, as previous studies have done (e.g., Caricati, ; Caricati & Lorenzi‐Cioldi, ).…”

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, ).…”