The Effects of General System Justification on Corruption Perception and Intent

Abstract

Previous research stresses that system justifying belief can weaken corruption perception, by this possibly fostering unjust behaviors. However, general results of the effect of general system justification on corruption are ambiguous, indicating also a lessening impact. We conducted a line of studies trying to elucidate these circumstances by testing the effect of general system justification on corruption perception and intention. In addition, we explored institutional trust as a possible mediator in this process. For this purpose, we conducted three studies. The first two studies examined the association between general system justification and corruption. In Study 1, a correlational design was run using questionnaires to assess the relation between general system justification and corruption perception as well as corruption intention. In Study 2, an experimental design was conducted manipulating general system justification via exposure to high or low system threat condition, then measuring its effect on corruption perception and corrupt intention. In Study 3, two sub-studies using correlational and experimental designs were run to explore the mediating role of institutional trust, respectively. Results replicated former studies showing that general system justification is negatively associated with corruption perception. However, they also showed a negative correlation with corrupt intention. Furthermore, they showed that institutional trust mediated the relation between general system justification and corruption. We suggest to consider these findings to further elucidate the psychological basis underlying different effects of general system justification on human behaviors.

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

“…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.…”

System justification theory at 25: Evaluating a paradigm shift in psychology and looking towards the future

“…These palliative effects are also found in other post‐Communist countries such as Hungary (Dalbert & Katona‐Sallay, ), Slovakia, and the Czech Republic (Napier & Jost, ). Finally, system justification (Tan, Liu, Huang, Zheng, & Liang, ) and meritocracy (Tan et al ., ) both correlate negatively with perceptions of corruption in China, showing that system‐justifying beliefs also reinforce status hierarchies in Asia. Although these studies reveal that system‐justifying processes can (and do) operate outside of Western contexts, more work is needed to examine the causes and consequences of system justification in these – and other – under‐researched populations.…”

A clean self reduces bribery intent

“…A 14‐item corrupt intent scale (Leong & Lin, ; Tan, Liu, Huang, Zheng, & Liang, ) was adapted to measure participants' bribery intent. One sample item is “In some situations, it's alright to pay someone extra in order to get things done quickly even if the law forbids such practices.” The participants were instructed to indicate the extent to which they endorsed each statement on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree ; 7 = strongly agree ).…”