The Dependency–Counterdependency Dynamic: Interactive Effects of System Justification and Power‐Distance Orientation on Radicalization against the Political System

Abstract

System Justification Theory posits that individuals are less prone to engage in radical action against a system on which they depend. In the present research, we investigated how the association between system-justifying tendencies and radical intentions is moderated by individuals' orientation towards power differentials, namely their "power distance." A stronger power distance orientation implies that individuals perceive power differentials as a fixed feature of society, curtailing prospects for change. We hypothesized that, at lower levels of power distance orientation, system-justification tendencies would be associated with reduced radical intentions. We contend this will occur because individuals feel dependent on a system perceived as malleable (dependency hypothesis). Conversely, at higher levels of power distance orientation, we expected system-justification tendencies to be associated with stronger radical intentions. We argue that this effect reflects the rejection of dependency on a system perceived as fixed (counterdependency hypothesis). This dependency-counterdependency dynamic was tested using a multigroup latent structural equation model and samples from four countries (N Total = 2,502), South Korea, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Results were consistent with the hypothesized dynamic across all countries. Theoretical implications of the findings, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

The Meaning of Contention

“…The study of political violence is an especially fertile terrain for criminological approaches (e.g., LaFree and Freilich 2019). Scholars have examined the socio-demographic characteristics related to radicalization (Wolfowicz et al 2021), the role of radical networks and other available ties (Bélanger et al 2020), and the cultural values that may drive violent political intentions against the state (Travaglino and Moon 2020;Travaglino and Moon Forthcoming). Conversely, criminological backlash models have theorized the way that state response can increase the likelihood of violence by depriving individuals of alternative channels to put their political grievances forward (LaFree et al 2009).…”