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

A Large-Scale Test of the Reality Constraint and Ingroup Bias Accounts of Women's Support for Male Privilege

“…According to SIMSA, the paradoxical support for male privilege sometimes seen amongst women could be due to (1) a bias expressed at a superordinate level of identification, and (2) constraints imposed by the social reality to accurately represent the status quo with which they are confronted. Although SIMSA's superordinate identification explanation has received support in numerous contexts (e.g., Caricati et al, 2021, 2022; Jaśko & Kossowska, 2013; Owuamalam et al, 2023; van der Toorn et al, 2015), the adequacy of the social reality constraint explanation has not been thoroughly tested. One way of testing whether SIMSA's social reality constraint account helps to explain women's support for systemic male privilege is to look at their stable outcomes in the gendered league table relative to men, and to then determine whether support for male privilege is stronger/weaker when the margins between women and men are wide apart versus narrow.…”

“…That is, increasing the salience/importance of a shared superordinate identity (e.g., as Americans) could deemphasize subgroup identities (e.g., as women) and the needs associated with them, causing people to act in ways that favor their superordinate national ingroup (and it's systems). For example, research has shown that when a superordinate group identity is made salient, members of low-status groups are less likely to pay attention to inequality and more likely to perceive the status quo as being fair (e.g., Mähönen & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2015;Owuamalam et al, 2023;Saguy et al, 2008Saguy et al, , 2009Saguy et al, , 2010. These results, however, come primarily from studies investigating inter-ethnic/racial or inter-faith relations and, to our knowledge, this superordinate ingroup bias account has not been tested in a nationally representative sample of women (but see Caricati et al, 2022).…”

System-justifying beliefs and mental health: The palliative function and an extension

“…, 即 社 会 不 平 等(Hadarics et al, 2021; Onraet et al, 2017;Sengupta et al, 2017); 其二为 个体边界, 即(低)社会地位, 包括财富、性别和种 族等(Hadarics et al, 2021;Li et al, 2020; Vargas-性 , 则 将 获 得 更 高 的 主 观 幸 福 感 收 益(Hadarics et al, 2021; Onraet et al, 2017)。相似地, Sengupta 等 (2017) 探 究 了 象 征 性 偏 见 边 界 效 应 , 同 时 也 暗示 了 系 统 合 理 信 念 维 护 心 理 健 康的 功 能 可 能 还存 在 某 种 非 "防 御 "Owuamalam et al, 2019;Rubin et al, 2023), 并且缓和作用的实证领域也积累了一些非"防御" 的证据(如 Li et al, 2020; Maraş Taşkin & Şingir, Taşkin & Şingir, 2022)、提升人际信任与合作(Samson, 2018; Zhang & Zhou, 2018) 、 增 进 群 体 认 同 感 (Bahamondes,Sengupta et al, 2021;Owuamalam et al, 2023)。此 到 的 是 麻 痹 自 我 的 功 能 , 而 并 不 能 根 本 " 治 愈 " 不 平 等 现 状 的 病 症 (Napier, Bettinsoli & Suppes, 2020)。 因此, , 李静, 杨沈龙. (2016).…”