Revisiting 25 years of system motivation explanation for system justification from the perspective of social identity model of system attitudes

Abstract

Do the disadvantaged have an autonomous system justification motivation that operates against their personal and group interests? System justification theory (SJT; Jost & Banaji, 1994, Br. J. Soc. Psychol, 33, 1) proposes that they do and that this motivation helps to (1) reduce cognitive dissonance and associated uncertainties and (2) soothe the pain that is associated with knowing that one's group is subject to social inequality. However, 25 years of research on this system justification motivation has given rise to several theoretical and empirical inconsistencies. The present article argues that these inconsistencies can be resolved by a social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, 2018, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci, 27, 91). SIMSA assumes that instances of system justification are often in alignment with (rather than opposed to) the interests of the disadvantaged. According to SIMSA, the disadvantaged may support social systems (1) in order to acknowledge social reality, (2) when they perceive the wider social system to constitute a superordinate ingroup, and (3) because they hope to improve their ingroup's status through existing channels in the long run. These propositions are corroborated by existing and emerging evidence. We conclude that SIMSA offers a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for system justification than does SJT.

The future of system justification theory

“…The article by Owuamalam, Rubin, and Spears (2019), to my mind, illustrates perfectly the state of confusion when it comes to social identity theory today. It is much clearer what they are against than what they are for (in a scientific sense).…”

“…In a sharp departure from the enthusiastic tone struck by the first two commentaries, Owuamalam et al (2019) are highly critical of system justification theory. They challenge the notionso adeptly defended by Friesen et al (2019) that system justification motivation cannot be reduced to self-and group justification processes.…”

“…They also review a long and successful programme of research that originated at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and has continued to provide strong empirical support for the basic tenets of system justification theory. Friesen and colleagues provide an especially accessible overview of experimental evidence that system justification motivation operates independently of self-and group justification processes, which should be of interest to Owuamalam et al (2019). For instance, they review studies in which the triggering of motivated system defensiveness leads people to treat aspects of the societal status quo ('what is') as what is normatively right ('what ought to be')regardless of whether the status quo is congenial to selfand group-interest.…”

“…Theoretical hand-waving about 'superordinate group identification' brings us no closer to answering these important questions about the specific contents of ideologies and identities. 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.…”

“…One of the original goals of system justification theory was to provide a social psychological understanding of ideological processes and outcomesincluding instances of false consciousnessthat lend legitimacy and stability to historically situated, enduring systems of inequality and exploitation. 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.…”