Panglossian Ideology In The Service Of System Justification: How Complementary Stereotypes Help Us To Rationalize Inequality

Effects of status and outcome on attributions and just-world beliefs: How the social distribution of success and failure may be rationalized

“…Thus, exposure to a situation in which a low-status individual succeeds should increase belief in justice, particularly so if success is linked to some compensatory characteristic. As a strand of studies on the effect of complementary stereotypes upon system justification suggests (see Kay, Jost, Mandisodza, Sherman, Petrocelli, & Johnson, 2007), people would justify the system mostly after exposure to situations in which lowstatus targets are presented as possessing compensatory characteristics (e.g. honesty, friendliness, etc.).…”

Social Inequality and System-Justifying Function of Compensatory Judgments in Person Perception

“…Although the article credibility had the marginally significant effect on the perceived legitimacy, F(1, 164) = 3.10, p = 0.080, compensatory such that the target evaluated high on one of the two dimensions would be evaluated low on the other dimension (Judd et al, 2005;Yzerbyt et al, 2008). The present research addresses when and why such compensatory judgments emerge in person perception from the perspective of system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994) combined with the arguments made by Kay et al (2007) regarding the system-justifying function of complementary stereotypes.…”

“…In other words, when one is aware that there is a significant disparity between two social targets (i.e., A is superior to B) on a certain aspect (e.g., wealth or competence), the activation of complementary stereotypes leads to the idea that this difference between these two targets is reversed or balances out (i.e., B is superior to A) on other dimensions (e.g., happiness or morality) and that, as a consequence, they are leveled out. Accordingly, complementary stereotypes encourage us to perceive the current social system as just and legitimate by creating an illusion of equality (e.g., Kay & Jost, 2003;Kay et al, 2005; for a review, see Kay, Jost, Mandisodza, Sherman, Petrocelli, & Johnson, 2007).…”

The Mental Roots of System Justification: System Threat, Need for Structure, and Stereotyping

“…Furthermore, it is important to note that the processes resulting in system justifi cation effects are motivated ones because people tend to show increased system justifi cation in response to experimentally induced forms of threat (see e.g., Kay et al, 2005; see also Ullrich & Cohrs, 2007) and because it has been shown that system justifi cation may serve a palliative function by reducing the emotional distress that is associated with social inequality (Jost & Hunyady, 2002). The idea that the system is just, that structural social differences are legitimate, and that the world we live in is "the best of all possible worlds" (see Leibniz, 1684, as described in Russell, 1900) is a sedative that helps to deal with inequality, unfairness, and injustice (Jost & Hunyady, 2005;Kay et al, 2007). Because of its general applicability, studies conducted in the system justifi cation theory tradition have addressed a broad range of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Jost & Hunyady, 2005).…”

“…As Kay et al (2005) suggest, status-congruent stereotypes are typically about intelligence and competence, whereas status-incongruent stereotypes often refer to traits that are less important to attaining desirable socio-economic outcomes, such as attractiveness and happiness. Thus, people who are fi lthy rich areone hopes-quite miserable and people who are very poor are-somewhere, deep inside-quite happy (Kay & Jost, 2003;Kay et al, 2007).…”