System Justification Among the Disadvantaged: A Triadic Social Stratification Perspective

Exploring the Motivation Behind Discrimination and Stigmatization Related to COVID-19: A Social Psychological Discussion Based on the Main Theoretical Explanations

“…This kind of tendency attributes more positive traits to privileged members of society at the cost of seeing their ingroup more negatively referred to as "outgroup favoritism. " This is a systemjustifying bias because having the potential to reinforce and make permanent inequality, especially when these attitudes are held by disadvantaged groups (Caricati and Owuamalam, 2020). In this way, stereotypes help to maintain hierarchical social arrangements (Blasi and Jost, 2006).…”

“…With regards to pandemics, nationalism (Nelson et al, 1997) and the justification of hierarchy (Landau et al, 2004;Hirschberger, 2006), which are significantly related to discrimination, become more widespread and strengthened. These "system-justifying" biases having the potential to reinforce inequality and make them permanent, especially when such attitudes are held by disadvantaged groups (Caricati and Owuamalam, 2020).…”

Ingroup identification, hope and system justification: Testing hypothesis from social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) in a sample of LGBTQIA+ individuals

“…It is common evidence that disadvantaged groups can sometimes justify the system which leads them to a disadvantaged position as much as (or even more than) advantaged groups. The tendency to perceive the existing system as legitimate and fair has been termed system justification (Jost &Banaji, 1994) and has been observed in both high-and low-status groups (as well as in intermediary-status groups, Caricati &Owuamalam, 2020;Caricati &Sollami, 2018). While system justification is congruent with ingroup interest for high-status groups, the system justifying motivation runs counter to interest in disadvantaged groups given that, by justifying the system, they also accept and legitimate their disadvantage (Jost, 2011;Jost et al, 2004;Jost &Banaji, 1994).…”

Intergroup alliance orientation among intermediate-status group members: The role of stability of social stratification

“…The triadic social stratification theory [ 2 , 3 ] focalizes on intermediate-status groups, that is, groups that, in comparison with at least two other groups, occupy the social position that is in-between. TSST is rooted in the social identity theory [ 4 ] and assumes that intermediate-status groups can provide positive social identity because members can compensate the negative upward intergroup comparison with the positive downward intergroup comparison [e.g., 5 , 6 ].…”

“…If one takes into account a “binary” stratification (i.e., high- vs. low-status groups) or a binary path of influence and power (dominant vs. dominated), one can only expect competition or “submission and dominance” between groups [see also 13 ]. A triadic social stratification approach, in contrast, permits taking into account different patterns of competition and alliance between groups within the same social hierarchy [ 2 , 3 ]. Accordingly, the aim of this paper was to consider intergroup alliance orientation of intermediate-status group members when status differences were either stable or status-detrimental unstable.…”