Do Superordinate Identification and Temporal/Social Comparisons Independently Predict Citizens’ System Trust? Evidence From a 40-Nation Survey

Abstract

Do superordinate in-group bias as well as temporal and social comparisons offer standalone explanations for system justification? We addressed this question using the latest World Value Survey (7th Wave), combining the responses of 55,721 participants from 40 different nations. Results from a random slope multilevel model showed that superordinate (national) identification, temporal comparison (i.e., the outcomes of an individual relative to those of his/her parents at different time points), and social comparison (based on income levels) were independent and positive predictors of system justification. Specifically, system justification increased when national identification was high, when income increased (i.e., the socioeconomic comparison was positive), and when the outcomes of citizens improved relative to the outcomes of their parents at relevant time points (i.e., the temporal comparison was positive). Incidentally, we also observed an interaction between national identification and temporal comparison (but not with social comparison), indicating that positive temporal comparison seemed to have a reduced effect (but still significant) for highly identified citizens. These results are supportive of the social identity approach to system justification and suggest that support for societal systems is a positive function of people’s personal and group interests.

Further evidence that system justification amongst the disadvantaged is positively related to superordinate group identification

“…In sum, the present findings demonstrate that system-justifying attitudes can (and do) go hand-in-hand with social identity needs of members of disadvantaged groups and that understanding system justification processes in such groups may require some attention to the identity that is relevant (or salient) at the time that these rationalizations take place. But the present findings are not unique: Indeed, a growing number of studies have reported a positive association between system justification and social identities (Brandt et al, 2020;Caricati et al, 2021Caricati et al, , 2022Vargas-Salfate et al, 2018). The evidence from proponents of SJT corroborate the current findings too and sometimes show a positive link between group identities and system justification (e.g., Osborne et al, 2019).…”

Brexit and Trump: Which Theory of Social Stasis and Social Change Copes Best With the New Populism?

“…Both studies found that personal and collective motives (a) were more consistently prominent for system supporters (i.e., supporters of the extant/prior system) than for system changers and (b) group interest operated as mediator of the relation between voter group and post-voting support for the imminent system. In relation to point "b, " in particular, the findings that system supporters were more likely to embrace the imminent system "because it was in the best interest of my country" aligns with SIMSA's proposition that an awareness of interests that are connected to an inclusive identity can elicit an ingroup favoring system justification at the superordinate level of selfcategorization (Owuamalam et al, 2018(Owuamalam et al, , 2019aCaricati et al, 2021). That is, Remain/Clinton supporters may embrace the status quo because it serves the interest of their country to do so.…”

“…In light of the new political populism across Europe, North America and elsewhere, we examined whether a system justification perspective or a social identity model of system attitudes best explains the motivations of people who wanted to retain the existing order or to change it. Findings from our analyses suggest that the motivations for both camps of the political divide are best characterized as rooted in personal and collective interests rather than resulting from a separate system justification motivation (see also in this issue works by Caricati et al, 2021;Carvalho et al, 2021;Degner et al, 2021;Lönnqvist et al, 2021).…”

“…However, much of the theoretical debate between system justification theorists (e.g., Jost et al, 2004Jost et al, , 2019Jost, 2019Jost, , 2020 and social identity theorists (Spears et al, 2001;Reicher, 2004;Rubin and Hewstone, 2004;Owuamalam et al, 2019a,b) has centered on whether a system justification motive is necessary to explain cases of system support or change, especially among people who might be disadvantaged by the established political system. Social identity theorists have suggested that a separate system justification motive may not be necessary to explain system justification-like attitudes, and that rationalization of the status quo may be more parsimoniously explained as either (a) a passive acceptance of the social realities of the intergroup context (Spears et al, 2001;Rubin and Hewstone, 2004), (b) a form of ingroup bias expressed at a superordinate level of self-categorization (e.g., Afro-Americans may support American systems when their collective American identity is salient; Caricati et al, 2021), or (c) an identity-management strategy in which the system is supported in the hope that it will eventually yield benefits for the ingroup Owuamalam et al, 2016aOwuamalam et al, , 2017Owuamalam et al, , 2021Bonetti et al, 2021;Carvalho et al, 2021). We refer to this family of social identity explanations as the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Owuamalam et al, 2018Owuamalam et al, , 2019a.…”

Generalized trust and military attitudes in Russia: The role of national and global human identification

“…Numerous studies have shown NI to be positively associated with support of one's country's actions, justification of its political and economic systems (Luca et al, 2021; Vargas‐Salfate et al, 2018) and acceptance of official narratives concerning political events (Bilali, 2014). At the same time, GHI was positively associated with concern for global problems and readiness to take action to resolve them (Katzarska‐Miller et al, 2012; McFarland, 2017; McFarland et al, 2012; McFarland & Hornsby, 2015; Renger & Reese, 2017; Reysen et al, 2013).…”