Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on “Ideology and system justification processes”

Toorn, Jojanneke van der; Jost, John T.

doi:10.1177/1368430214531509

Cited by 52 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…System justification theory (SJT) gives a reasonable explanation that people are motivated to defend and legitimize social systems even when doing so is not necessarily in their own interest ( Jost et al, 2004 ; Jost and van der Toorn, 2012 ; van der Toorn and Jost, 2014 ). In particular, the more people feel dependent on an authority, the more they should be motivated to perceive him or her as legitimate ( Kay et al, 2009 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Justice and Public Cooperation Intention: Mediating Role of Political Trust and Moderating Effect of Outcome Dependence

Zhang

Zhou

2018

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperation is vital to human evolution and the development of society. In addition, social justice is one of humanity’s long pursuits. Based on social exchange theory and system justification theory, we built and tested a comprehensive mediated moderation model of the relationship between social justice and public cooperation intention via the mediation of political trust and with the moderation of outcome dependence. This research consisted of two studies using laboratory experiment (N = 320) and field survey (N = 1240) methods. Data were collected from participants located in China. The results showed that (1) both competence-based trust and motive-based trust mediated the relationship between social justice (i.e., distributive justice and procedural justice) and public cooperation intention; (2) outcome dependence moderated the relationship between social justice and public cooperation intention; and (3) the moderation of outcome dependence functioned through the mediating effect of competence-based and motive-based trust. The theoretical and practical significance of these findings is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Justice and Public Cooperation Intention: Mediating Role of Political Trust and Moderating Effect of Outcome Dependence

Zhang

Zhou

2018

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…None of the items in these scales tap the system justification motive itself (i.e., “I am motivated to defend societal institutions for the sake of those institutions” or “I support system ‘X’ because I want it to remain the way it is”). This is an important omission in over two decades of system justification research (Van der Toorn & Jost, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical review of the (un)conscious basis for system‐supporting attitudes of the disadvantaged

Owuamalam

Rubin

Spears

2018

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is support for societal systems amongst the disadvantaged driven by an (un)conscious system justification motive that is independent from self-interests? System justification theory (SJT) is unique in its affirmative answer to this question.SJT proposes (a) that support for societal systems operates in the service of maintaining the status quo, (b) that the evidence for this system justification motive lies with the fact that members of disadvantaged groups (un)consciously support societal systems that are detrimental to their interests, and (c) that these processes are most apparent when group interests are weak. The present article reviews emerging evidence for these propositions and concludes that (a) an unconscious manifestation of system justification is unlikely based on SJT's "strong" dissonance-based predictions, which assumes that competing group and system motives are cognitively salient, and (b) a conscious system justification motive is also unlikely amongst the disadvantaged when group interests are weak. In addition, we suggest ways in which to explain system justification effects amongst the disadvantaged without recourse to an (un)conscious system justification motive.

show abstract

“…We must return for a moment to the problem of paradigmatic differences: Key authors in HM are deeply resistant to individualized interpretations of hegemony (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005;Messerschmidt 2012;Pfeffer et al 2016), whereas SJT has been specifically described as a model of the cognitive basis for hegemony (Jost & Burgess 2000;van der Toorn & Jost 2014). The finding that women's ideals for masculinity support traditional and patriarchal versions of masculinity could be interpreted according to SJT as evidence of participants' individual false consciousness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, women's investments in patriarchal features of the gender system have been thoroughly explored by research in system justification theory, which has been described as a model of the cognitive basis for hegemony (Jost & Burgess 2000;van der Toorn & Jost 2014). SJT research has provided substantial evidence that people subordinated by hierarchical systems are often-perhaps even usually-complicit in representing them in ways that support their own subordination.…”

Section: Women's Ideals For Masculinity Across Social Contexts: Patrimentioning

confidence: 99%

Women’s Ideals for Masculinity Across Social Contexts: Patriarchal Agentic Masculinity is Valued in Work, Family, and Romance but Communal Masculinity in Friendship

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study explores women's ideals for masculinity in different social contexts (work, family/romance, and friendship) and compares how traditional (agentic) and non-patriarchal (communal) masculinity are valued in each context. Survey data were collected from one international (N = 159) and three South African samples (Ns = 86, 100, 161) of women. Results show that although women value patriarchal ideals for masculinity, agentic and communal versions of masculinity are valued differently across contexts. Specifically, traditional agentic versions of masculinity were most valued in the contexts most important to the long-term production of viable identity (family/romance and work). It was only in friendship that nonpatriarchal communal masculinity was consistently idealized over traditional agentic masculinity. The results are discussed in relation to hegemonic masculinity (HM) and system justification theory (SJT). Congruent with SJT, women idealized versions of masculinity that may not be in their own or their group's best interests, but in line with HM, the results emphasized the fluidity of masculinity and that the same individual can simultaneously idealize different versions of masculinity depending on the context. Because stereotypes are both explanations for the status quo and warrants for behaving in one way or another, these collective ideals for masculinity and contextual boundaries may be important obstacles to achieving gender equity.

show abstract

Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on “Ideology and system justification processes”

Cited by 52 publications

References 44 publications

Social Justice and Public Cooperation Intention: Mediating Role of Political Trust and Moderating Effect of Outcome Dependence

Social Justice and Public Cooperation Intention: Mediating Role of Political Trust and Moderating Effect of Outcome Dependence

A critical review of the (un)conscious basis for system‐supporting attitudes of the disadvantaged

Women’s Ideals for Masculinity Across Social Contexts: Patriarchal Agentic Masculinity is Valued in Work, Family, and Romance but Communal Masculinity in Friendship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About