System-justifying behaviors: When feeling dependent on a system triggers gender stereotype-consistent academic performance

System Justification theory: a new perspective on the problem of inequality

This article outlines the concept of system justification proposed by J. Jost and M. Banaji. Motivational basis of system justification as well as the core assumption that low-status individuals tend to justify the existing system more than high-status individuals are described thoroughly. The factors that enhance system justification motivation as well as the relations between system justification and behavioral patterns that preserve social inequality are described in specific paragraphs.

Is a system motive really necessary to explain the system justification effect? A response to Jost (2019) and Jost, Badaan, Goudarzi, Hoffarth, and Mogami (2019)

The debate between the proponents of SIMSA and SJT does not pivot on whether system justification occurs - we all agree that system justification does occur. The issue is why it occurs? System justification theory (SJT; Jost & Banaji, 1994, British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1) assumes that system justification is motivated by a special system justification motive. In contrast, the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, , Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 2) argues that there is insufficient conclusive evidence for this special system motive, and that system justification can be explained in terms of social identity motives, including the motivation to accurately reflect social reality and the search for a positive social identity. Here, we respond to criticisms of SIMSA, including criticisms of its social reality, ingroup bias, and hope for future ingroup status explanations of system justification. We conclude that SJT theorists should decide whether system justification is oppositional to, or compatible with social identity motives, and that this dilemma could be resolved by relinquishing the theoretically problematic notion of a system justification motivation.

The future of system justification theory

In this article, we respond to commentaries by Friesen et al. (2018, Br. J. Soc. Psychol.), Osborne et al. (2018, Br. J. Soc. Psychol.), and Owuamalam et al. (2018, Br. J. Soc. Psychol.) on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of system justification theory. The first two commentaries are highly favourable in their evaluation of the state of theory and research on system justification, and they provide insightful suggestions for new directions. The third commentary is far more critical of system justification theory. We address each objection in some detail, seeking to correct a number of misconceptions about system justification theory and clarify the fact that the theory specifies three - ego, group, and system justification - motives rather than one. Finally, we end by proposing exciting new areas for future research, such as (1) distinguishing between subjective and objective consequences of system justification in a broader array of social and political contexts and (2) developing practical interventions to reduce system justification motivation and strengthen the motivation to improve upon the status quo.

System justification: Experimental evidence, its contextual nature, and implications for social change

We review conceptual and empirical contributions to system justification theory over the last fifteen years, emphasizing the importance of an experimental approach and consideration of context. First, we review the indirect evidence of the system justification motive via complimentary stereotyping. Second, we describe injunctification as direct evidence of a tendency to view the extant status quo (the way things are) as the way things should be. Third, we elaborate on system justification's contextual nature and the circumstances, such as threat, dependence, inescapability, and system confidence, which are likely to elicit defensive bolstering of the status quo and motivated ignorance of critical social issues. Fourth, we describe how system justification theory can increase our understanding of both resistance to and acceptance of social change, as a change moves from proposed, to imminent, to established. Finally, we discuss how threatened systems shore up their authority by co-opting legitimacy from other sources, such as governments that draw on religious concepts, and the role of institutional-level factors in perpetuating the status quo.

Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths

The issue of gender equality in employment has given rise to numerous policies in advanced industrial countries, all aimed at tackling gender discrimination regarding recruitment, salary and promotion. Yet gender inequalities in the workplace persist. The purpose of this research is to document the psychosocial process involved in the persistence of gender discrimination against working women. Drawing on the literature on the justification of discrimination, we hypothesized that the myths according to which women’s work threatens children and family life mediates the relationship between sexism and opposition to a mother’s career. We tested this hypothesis using the Family and Changing Gender Roles module of the International Social Survey Programme. The dataset contained data collected in 1994 and 2012 from 51632 respondents from 18 countries. Structural equation modellings confirmed the hypothesised mediation. Overall, the findings shed light on how motherhood myths justify the gender structure in countries promoting gender equality.

Changes in the Positivity of Migrant Stereotype Content

Complementing well-established antecedents of anti-migrant opinion (e.g., threat), we investigated how system-sanctioned ideologies—that is, the collection of beliefs and values espoused by the government in power—are linked with migrant stereotypes. Using Canada as a case study, across three waves of national survey data ( N = 1,080), we found that system-sanctioned pro-migrant ideologies corresponded with (relatively) more positive migrant stereotype content (i.e., increases in perceived warmth and competence). Moreover, controlling for other political ideologies, increases in migrant stereotype positivity were linked to people’s motivation to justify their sociopolitical systems, suggesting that system-sanctioned ideologies may be especially likely to influence the positivity of migrant stereotypes when people are motivated to justify their sociopolitical systems.

Gender stereotype-consistent memories: How system justification motivation distorts the recollection of information related to the self

Research based on system justification theory has shown that women's self-perceptions may be altered by the motivation to justify the system and its inequalities. Self-perceptions being built on past experiences, the present study aimed to explore how system justification motivation induced through a system dependency manipulation may alter both women's recall of autobiographical memories and their behavior. Women who were led to feel highly dependent on the social system perceived themselves as more competent and recalled memories of higher competence in the verbal domain compared with the negatively stereotyped scientific domain. Women's behavioral choices (between doing a verbal or a math exercise) also revealed a higher preference for the gender stereotype-consistent verbal exercise in the high-system dependency condition, as compared with the low-system dependency condition. These results suggest that gender stereotypes may not only satisfy self- or group-serving motivation but also the need to perceive the system in a positive light.