Victim Derogation and Victim Enhancement as Alternate Routes to System Justification

Abstract

Abstract-Numerous studies have documented the potential for victim-blaming attributions to justify the status quo. Recent work suggests that complementary, victim-enhancing stereotypes may also increase support for existing social arrangements. We seek to reconcile these seemingly contradictory findings by proposing that victim derogation and victim enhancement are alternate routes to system justification, with the preferred route depending on the perception of a causal link between trait and outcome. Derogating "losers" (and lionizing "winners") on traits (e.g., intelligence) that are causally related to outcomes (e.g., wealth vs. poverty) serves to increase system justification, as does compensating "losers" (and downgrading "winners") on traits (e.g., physical attractiveness) that are causally unrelated to those outcomes. We provide converging evidence using system-threat and stereotype-activation paradigms.

Exposure to Benevolent Sexism and Complementary Gender Stereotypes: Consequences for Specific and Diffuse Forms of System Justification.

“…This is suggested by the results of Study 3, and it is also consistent with work investigating complementary stereotypes of the rich and poor (Kay et al, 2005;Kay & Jost, 2003;Lane, 1959Lane, /2004. It is likely that more basic cognitive processes pertaining to automatic, nonconscious goal pursuit also underlie the effects of incidental exposure to complementary stereotypes (e.g., Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Trötschel, 2001;Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998;Glaser & Banaji, 1999;Higgins et al, 1977).…”

On Objects and Actions: Situating Self-Objectification in a System Justification Context

“…Further, people are able to justify the systems to which they belong in a variety of ways (Bem & Bem, 1970;Jost, Pelham, et al, 2002;Jost, Pietrzak, Liviatan, Mandisodza, & Napier, 2008). Scholars have identified a number of culturally dominant ideologies and stereotypes that readily provide people with the content necessary to rationalize the societal status quo, such as fair market ideology (Jost, Blount, Pfeffer, & Hunyady, 2003), political conservatism (Jost, Glaser, et al, 2003), social dominance orientation (Jost & Thompson, 2000;Oldmeadow & Fiske, 2007;Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), denial of system failure (Feyinga, Jost, & Goldsmith, 2010), essentialist beliefs (Rangel & Keller, 2011), meritocratic beliefs (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003;McCoy & Major, 2007;OÕBrien et al, 2009), victim-blaming attributions (Kay, Jost, & Young, 2005;Stahl, Eek, & Kazemi, 2010), complementary stereotyping (Kay & Jost, 2003), self-stereotyping (Laurin, Kay, & Shepherd, 2011), benevolently sexist ideology (Glick & Fiske, 2001;Sibley, Overall, & Duckitt, 2007), and committed relationship ideology (Day, Kay, Holmes, & Napier, 2011). Insofar as the content of these beliefs and stereotypes legitimize inequities in the Running head: OBJECTS AND ACTIONS 14 prevailing systems, the activation and endorsement of such content leads people to provide greater support for the way things are.…”

Anonymously male: Social media avatar icons are implicitly male and resistant to change

“…This is particularly true of people high in political conservatism as they are especially motivated to maintain the status quo and resist change (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003;Jost, Banji, & Nosek, 2004). Even small changes can constitute a system stability threat, leading to status-quo consistent behavior (Kay & Friesen, 2011;Kay, Jost, & Young, 2005). Since increasing the representation of female-typed icons constitutes a change to the status quo found in Study 1, more female-typed icons could lead to reactance and even more male-centric thinking (Jost & Banaji, 1994;Jost et al, 2004;Jost et al, 2003).…”