Individual differences in system justification predict power and morality-related needs in advantaged and disadvantaged groups in response to group disparity

Self Cite

Competitive victimhood denotes group members' efforts to establish that their ingroup has suffered greater injustice than an adversarial outgroup. Previous research in contexts of structural inequality has stressed the role of the need to defend the ingroup's moral identity, rather than the need for power, in leading advantaged and disadvantaged group members to engage in competitive victimhood. Focusing on the structural inequality between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel (Study 1) and Israeli women and men (Study 2), we found that across all groups and contexts, power needs predicted competitive victimhood. Also, the need to protect the ingroup's moral reputation (i.e., defensive moral needs) positively predicted competitive victimhood, whereas among advantaged group members, the need to protect the ingroup's moral essence negatively predicted competitive victimhood. Finally, exploratory analyses revealed that competitive victimhood correlated, positively for advantaged and negatively for disadvantaged group members, with support for policies securing realistic and symbolic resources for the disadvantaged group. Theoretical and practical implications of these results, which are consistent with the logic of the needs-based model of reconciliation, are discussed.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power matters: The role of power and morality needs in competitive victimhood among advantaged and disadvantaged groups

Kahalon

Shnabel

Halabi

et al. 2018

Self Cite

“…System justification theory, as I conceive of it, is highly ‘practical' or ‘relevant' in the Lewinian sense that it is useful for diagnosing and addressing social problems, including many problems that apologists for the status quo would prefer to ignore. These include racism, colorism, sexism, classism, self‐objectification, tolerance of corruption, legitimation of social and economic inequality, hostility towards immigrants, scepticism about climate change, and acceptance of environmentally harmful industrial practices, among many other things (e.g., Brescoll et al ., ; Calogero & Jost, ; Chapleau & Oswald, ; Choma & Prusaczyk, ; Feygina et al ., ; García‐Sánchez et al ., ; Hässler et al ., ; Hennes et al ., ; Intawan & Nicholson, ; Jost, ; Jost & Kay, ; Kay & Jost, ; Napier & Jost, ; Napier et al ., ; Pacilli et al ., ; Shepherd & Kay, ; Tan, Liu, Huang, Zheng, & Liang, ; Vainio, Mäkiniemi, & Paloniemi, ; van der Toorn et al ., , ). Throughout this article I have sought to provide examples of the ways in which system justification theory can be applied to better understand societal phenomena.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…System justification not only decreases negative affect and increases satisfaction with the status quo, it diminishes support for system‐challenging protest activity (Jost, Becker, Osborne, & Badaan, ; Jost et al ., ) and the ‘will to power' among members of disadvantaged groups (Hässler, Shnabel, Ullrich, Arditti‐Vogel, & SimanTov‐Nachlieli, ). For instance, an experiment conducted in Germany revealed that when young women were exposed to relatively subtle, ‘benevolent' justifications for sexism, they subsequently expressed more positive affect, scored higher on gender‐specific system justification, and were less willing to participate in collective action on behalf of women (Becker & Wright, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jost

2018

345

378

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

“…That is, how the strength of the motive ebbs and flows based on contextual factors that heighten or diminish it in that moment. In this way, the system justification motive operates like many other types of goals (Jost et al ., ; Liviatan & Jost, , ) and is, in a sense, a multifinal subgoal (Kruglanski et al ., ) that satisfies a broad constellation of other psychologically important needs (Hässler, Shnabel, Ullrich, Arditti‐Vogel, & SimanTov‐Nachlieli, ; Hennes, Nam, Stern, & Jost, ; Jost, Becker, Osborne, & Badaan, ; Vargas‐Salfate, Paez, Khan, Liu, & Gil de Zúñiga, ). These include epistemic needs to see the world as consistent, structured, and orderly (Federico, Ergun, & Hunt, ; Jost & Krochik, ; Kay, Whitson, Gaucher, & Galinsky, ), existential needs to reduce threat and anxiety (Jost et al ., ), and relational needs to see the world in the same way that others do (Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

System justification: Experimental evidence, its contextual nature, and implications for social change

Friesen

Laurin

Shepherd

et al. 2018

We review conceptual and empirical contributions to system justification theory over the last fifteen years, emphasizing the importance of an experimental approach and consideration of context. First, we review the indirect evidence of the system justification motive via complimentary stereotyping. Second, we describe injunctification as direct evidence of a tendency to view the extant status quo (the way things are) as the way things should be. Third, we elaborate on system justification's contextual nature and the circumstances, such as threat, dependence, inescapability, and system confidence, which are likely to elicit defensive bolstering of the status quo and motivated ignorance of critical social issues. Fourth, we describe how system justification theory can increase our understanding of both resistance to and acceptance of social change, as a change moves from proposed, to imminent, to established. Finally, we discuss how threatened systems shore up their authority by co-opting legitimacy from other sources, such as governments that draw on religious concepts, and the role of institutional-level factors in perpetuating the status quo.