The role of system-justification motivation, group status and system threat in directing support for hate crimes legislation

Mallett, Robyn K.; Huntsinger, Jeffrey R.; Swim, Janet K.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.014

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Greater "injunctification" (i.e., going from "is" to "ought," judging the current representation of women in politics [whether high or low] as most desirable individuals than others (e.g., see Friedman & Sutton, 2013;Mallett, Huntsinger, & Swim, 2011; van der Toorn, Nail, Liviatan, & Jost, in press). Importantly, Cutright, Wu, Banfield, Kay, and Fitzsimons (2011, Study 5) found that whereas system threat caused chronically high system justifiers to bolster the status quo directly and explicitly (e.g., by preferring T-shirts emblazoned with American flags and logos such as "U.S.…”

Section: Postulate IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

"The world isn't fair": A system justification perspective on social stratification and inequality.

Jost

Gaucher

Stern

2015

APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 2: Group Processes.

108

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Postulate IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

"The world isn't fair": A system justification perspective on social stratification and inequality.

Jost

Gaucher

Stern

2015

APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 2: Group Processes.

108

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, 38% were property crimes, whereas an overwhelming 59% were interpersonal crimes, including simple assault, aggravated assault, and intimidation, demonstrating that hate crimes most often involve harm to an individual. Due to occurrence and deleterious impact on victims, research on legal issues involving hate crimes has grown considerably (e.g., Cramer, Chandler, & Wakeman, 2010;Mallett, Huntsinger, & Swim, 2011;Plumm & Terrance, 2013). One domain showing promise in understanding perceiver judgments of hate-crime victims and offenders is a growing body of work addressing attitudes or beliefs concerning hate crimes and associated legislation (e.g., Cramer, Kehn, et al, 2013;Johnson & Byers, 2003;Mallett et al, 2011;Spoor, 2004).…”

Section: Abstract Hate Crimes Scale Development Prejudice Blame Atmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Attitudes About Hate: Development of the Hate Crime Beliefs Scale

Cabeldue

Cramer

Kehn

et al. 2016

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employing the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) of 2009 and other such legislation as a backdrop, the present study evaluated the nature of beliefs about hate-crime legislation, offenders, and victims. In addition, it investigated construct validity (i.e., political beliefs and prejudice) and predictive validity (i.e., blame attribution and sentencing recommendations). A total of 403 U.S. adults completed measures of prejudice and an initial pool of 50 items forming the proposed Hate Crime Beliefs Scale (HCBS). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four hate-crime vignettes, which varied in regard to type of prejudice (racial-, sexual orientation-, transgender-, and religion-based prejudices) and then responded to blame and sentencing questions. Factor analyses of the HCBS resulted in four sub-scales: Negative Views (i.e., higher scores reflect negative views of legislation and minority group protection), Offender Punishment (i.e., higher scores suggest endorsement of greater punishment), Deterrence (i.e., greater scores denote support for hate-crime legislation as a deterrent of more violence), and Victim Harm (i.e., higher scores reflect pro-victim attitudes). Greater pro-legislation and pro-victim beliefs were related to liberal political beliefs and less prejudicial attitudes, with some exceptions. Controlling for a number of demographic, situational, and attitudinal covariates, the Negative Views sub-scale displayed predictive utility, such that more negative views of legislation/minority group protection were associated with elevated victim blame, as well as lower perpetrator blame and sentencing recommendations. Results are discussed in the context of hate-crime research and policy, with additional implications considered for trial strategy, modern prejudice, and blame attribution theory.

show abstract

“…Initially, system justification theory focused specifically on stereotyping, prejudice, and outgroup favouritism (Jost, ), but it was subsequently expanded to account for a much wider range of outcomes, including appraisals of fairness, justice, legitimacy, deservingness, and entitlement (Brandt & Reyna, ; Jost, ; Jost & Major, ; O'Brien, Major, & Gilbert, ; van der Toorn, Tyler, & Jost, ); attributions and explanations for poverty and inequality (Ali, Ohls, Parker, & Walker, ; Durrheim, Jacobs, & Dixon, ; Godfrey & Wolf, ); spontaneous and deliberate social inferences and judgements about individuals and groups (Jost, Kivetz, Rubini, Guermandi, & Mosso, ; Kay, Jost, & Young, ; Monteith, Burns, Rupp, & Mihalec‐Adkins, ); attitudes and opinions about social, economic, and political issues (Jost, Blount, Pfeffer, & Hunyady, ; Kay et al ., ; Mallett, Huntsinger, & Swim, ; Tan, Liu, Huang, & Zheng, ; van der Toorn, Jost, Packer, Noorbaloochi, & Van Bavel, ); rationalizations for certain sociopolitical outcomes or events (Kay, Jimenez, & Jost, ; Laurin, ); and full‐fledged political and religious ideologies (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, ; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, ; Jost et al ., , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Jost

2018

British J Social Psychol

346

378

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A theory of system justification was proposed 25 years ago by Jost and Banaji (1994, Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 33, 1) in the British Journal of Social Psychology to explain 'the participation by disadvantaged individuals and groups in negative stereotypes of themselves' and the phenomenon of outgroup favouritism. The scope of the theory was subsequently expanded to account for a much wider range of outcomes, including appraisals of fairness, justice, legitimacy, deservingness, and entitlement; spontaneous and deliberate social judgements about individuals, groups, and events; and full-fledged political and religious ideologies. According to system justification theory, people are motivated (to varying degrees, depending upon situational and dispositional factors) to defend, bolster, and justify aspects of existing social, economic, and political systems. Engaging in system justification serves the palliative function of increasing satisfaction with the status quo and addresses underlying epistemic, existential, and relational needs to reduce uncertainty, threat, and social discord. This article summarizes the major tenets of system justification theory, reviews some of the empirical evidence supporting it, answers new (and old) questions and criticisms, and highlights areas of societal relevance and directions for future research.Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV, And you think you're so clever and classless and free. . .. (John Lennon, 'Working Class Hero')Learning to love the questions A theory of system justification was proposed by Jost and Banaji (1994) in a special issue of the British Journal of Social Psychology (BJSP) devoted to the structure and functions of social stereotyping. In that article, which is now 'celebrating' its 25th anniversary, we conjectured that in addition to ego-justifying and group-justifying tendencies to defend and rationalize the interests and esteem of the self and the ingroup, respectively, people exhibit system-justifying tendencies to defend and rationalize existing social, economic, and political arrangementssometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest. Specifically, we felt that existing theories in social psychology did not

show abstract

The role of system-justification motivation, group status and system threat in directing support for hate crimes legislation

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

"The world isn't fair": A system justification perspective on social stratification and inequality.

"The world isn't fair": A system justification perspective on social stratification and inequality.

Measuring Attitudes About Hate: Development of the Hate Crime Beliefs Scale

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About