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

Abstract

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

Is a System Motive Really Necessary to Explain the System Justification Effect? A Response to Jost (2019) and Jost, Badaan, Goudarzi, Hoffarth, and Mogami (2019)

“…According to SIMSA, people may accept and justify the status quo (even if it is currently disadvantageous to them), if they believe that there is a realistic hope for them to improve their social status within the system in the long run. Again, Jost (2019) both disagrees and agrees with this hope for future ingroup status explanation of system justification. Jost's (2019) Americans.…”

“…Our online supplementary document (Table S1) details our response to the other ancillary critiques raised by Jost (2019;and Robbie Sutton) that are connected to SIMSA's ingroup bias explanation.…”

The future of system justification theory

“…Owuamalam et al (2019) also criticize (once again) the dissonance-reduction explanation proposed by Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, and Sullivan (2003) to understand those cases in which those who are most disadvantaged by the social system defend and justify it to an especially high degree. Jost (2017Jost ( , 2019 explicitly answered this and related critiques, so we will not repeat those answers here.…”

“…They challenge the notionso adeptly defended by Friesen et al (2019) that system justification motivation cannot be reduced to self-and group justification processes. Owuamalam et al argue that social identity theory already possesses a completely adequate account of why members of disadvantaged groups defend and justify systems of inequality in which they suffer, but Jost (2019) has disputed this argument. In an effort to grapple with the phenomenon of working class conservatism, Owuamalam et al write that: 'poor Americans may vote for political parties that are against the increased subsidization of national health care, and they may vote for these parties because they identify highly with America, they perceive free market capitalism to be a defining value of this national ingroup, and they are motivated to engage in behaviours (including voting) that support these values' (p. 8), but this is question-begging.…”

“…The analogy of a losing football teamwhich is so popular amongst social identity theorists (Brown, 2010;Leach, Spears, Branscombe, & Doosje, 2003;Owuamalam et al, 2019;Rubin & Hewstone, 2004)has nothing to do with how people do (and do not) cope with oppressive social systems. As Jost (2019) noted, the plight of oppressed people who have long been denied equal opportunities for advancement, such as the working poor, is not comparable to that of a 'losing team' in a game in which rules and procedures can be evaluated objectively as fair and just. Nobody suffers like the poor people suffer.…”