Subjective status and perceived legitimacy across countries

Ni justo ni legítimo: The role of social status and neoliberal context on perceived social justice in Latin America and its political consequences

We study the role of social status and neoliberal contexts on perceptions of social justice and their consequences for political behaviour in Latin America. While most literature measures these perceptions through personal assessments of income distribution fairness, we resort to a wider understanding including perceptions of fairness on access to fundamental rights. Using data from the Latinobarómetro 2020 survey (N ≈ 20,204), we find that perceived social justice involves assessments of income inequality and access to education, health and justice. Based on self-interest theory, we expect higher-status individuals to perceive the world as more just, as this perception aligns with their interests. We also argue that neoliberal contexts moderate this relationship by narrowing justice perception gaps across status groups, as these contexts advance ideologies emphasizing individual responsibility and meritocracy. Regression models suggest that social status, measured through three indicators (social class, socioeconomic status, and subjective income) is positively related to perceived social justice. Interaction models suggest that, in more neoliberal societies, differences in perceived social justice among social status groups tend to narrow. Finally, we find that perceived social justice is associated with satisfaction with life, democracy and economic system, and reduced intention to participate in protests.

From Privilege to Threat: Unraveling Psychological Pathways to the Manosphere

In this research, we explore how identity influences the adoption of misogynistic beliefs central to the manosphere, online communities known for sexism and linked to increasing extremism and real-world violence against women. Through two correlational studies (Study 1: N = 311; Study 2: N = 470), we examined how identity factors related to privilege, identification, and perceived threat from feminism predict the endorsement of manosphere attitudes. We focus on two key manosphere attitudes: anti-feminism and evolutionary beliefs about women's manipulative nature. As predicted, results showed that the less men acknowledge their privileged status relative to women, the more they feel threatened by feminists, which in turn was associated with endorsing manosphere attitudes. In Study 2, we found evidence that perceptions of status stability moderate this relationship. Men who recognized their privilege and foresee changing gender dynamics reported feeling less threatened and showed lower affinity for manosphere attitudes. We discuss the potential for mitigating the appeal of manosphere attitudes and emphasized the need for future research on conceptualizations of masculine identity and updated measures of sexism that reflect the content of contemporary gender discourse and the manosphere.

Effects of group membership on adults' essentialism of ethnicity and SES

Previous research suggests that adults' essentialist beliefs depend on their own social-group membership. However, these studies have examined the effects of one social-group membership at a time (e.g., the influence of race on essentialism of race), even though all individuals belong to multiple social groups. It is therefore unclear whether membership in one social category (e.g., ethnicity) predicts essentialism of another category (e.g., SES). To address this question, the present study simultaneously explored the relationship between individuals' racial and ethnic background and subjective SES and their essentialism of ethnicity and SES. Results showed that participants' racial and ethnic background predicted their essentialist beliefs about ethnicity, but their subjective SES did not. In contrast, participants' subjective SES and ethnicity interacted to predict their essentialist beliefs about SES: for non-Hispanic White individuals, higher subjective SES predicted stronger essentialist beliefs about SES across multiple dimensions of essentialism, but no such pattern emerged for members of racial and ethnic minority groups. These findings suggest that adults' essentialist beliefs are influenced by a complex interplay of their multiple social-group memberships.

System justification, subjective well-being, and mental health symptoms in members of disadvantaged minority groups

Although system justification-believing that the societal status quo is legitimate and desirable-is positively associated with subjective well-being and mental health outcomes for members of advantaged groups, the picture is more complicated for members of disadvantaged minority groups. According to system justification theory, believing that the social system is legitimate and desirable is a way of coping with one's own and fellow in-group members' state of disadvantage. At the same time, it is also a potential stressor, insofar as it implies that there are deficiencies of the individuals and groups who "fail" to succeed in a fair system. In this article, we quantitatively summarize the results of 34 articles (and 65 effect sizes) identified through computerized searches of scientific databases. Meta-analytic results revealed that system justification among members of disadvantaged minority groups was associated with lower levels of psychological distress (r = -0.131, k = 22, N = 25,506) and higher levels of subjective well-being (r = 0.190, k = 31, N = 172,075) and self-esteem (r = 0.106, k = 12, N = 4,839). These findings are consistent with the notion that, in general, system justification serves the palliative function of reducing distress and improving subjective well-being, most likely by increasing perceptions of personal control and individual mobility and decreasing perceptions of discrimination. At the same time, system justification can come at the expense of mental health when associated with the internalization of inferiority. Suggestions for future research are provided.

Observers' motivated sensitivity to stigmatized actors' intent

Does a harmful act appear more intentional-and worthy of opprobrium-if it was committed by a member of a stigmatized group? In two studies (N = 1,451), participants read scenarios in which an actor caused a homicide. We orthogonally manipulated the relative presence or absence of distal intent (a focus on the end) and proximal intent (a focus on the means) in the actor's mind. We also varied the actor's racial (Study 1) or political (Study 2) group. In both studies, participants judged the stigmatized actor more harshly than the non-stigmatized actor when the actor's level of intent was ambiguous (i.e., one form of intent was high and the other form of intent was low). These data suggest that observers apply a sliding threshold when judging an actor's intent and moral responsibility; whereas less-stigmatized actors elicit condemnation only when they cause the outcome with both types of intent in mind, more-stigmatized actors elicit condemnation when only one type, or even neither type (Study 2) of intent is in their mind. We discuss how these results enrich the literature on lay theories of intentionality.

Is contact among social class groups associated with legitimation of inequality? An examination across 28 countries

Is class-based contact associated with legitimation of inequality? Drawing from the idea that people adopt beliefs predominant in groups with whom they interact, we hypothesized that upper-class contact would correspond to greater legitimation of inequality, whereas lower-class contact would correspond to lesser legitimation of inequality among lower- and upper-class individuals. We also hypothesized that middle-class individuals might possess a more precarious identity, leading lower-class contact to correspond to higher legitimation of inequality. We tested hypotheses using a nationally representative sample from Chile (N = 4446; Study 1), and nationally representative samples from 28 countries (N = 43,811; Study 2). Support for hypotheses was mixed. Upper-class contact was often associated with greater legitimation of inequality, whereas lower-class contact was frequently related to lower legitimation of inequality. Patterns emerged among most social class groups, but there was also variation across groups. We discuss potential explanations for results along with theoretical implications for class-based contact.

The role of legitimizing the social hierarchy in the impact of status on perceived assertiveness and competence

The present research aimed to examine how perceivers' system-justifying beliefs moderate the way they evaluate high- versus low-status targets on assertiveness and competence. In three experimental studies, we manipulated a target's hierarchical position within his company's organization. Participants rated the target on traits reflecting assertiveness and competence. Their system-justifying beliefs were assessed in an ostensibly unrelated study. Results consistently showed that participants inferred assertiveness from the target's hierarchical position regardless of system justification, whereas the relationship between social status and competence was consistently moderated by system-justifying beliefs: only participants high in system justification ascribed more competence to the high-status target than to the low-status target. These findings are in line with the hypothesis suggesting that inferring competence from high-status positions could rely on the tendency to justify social inequalities, whereas inferring assertiveness would not.

Income Is a Stronger Predictor of Subjective Social Class in More Economically Unequal Places

In this research, we examine how the lay conceptualization of subjective social class varies based on economic contexts. We argue that income should be a more central component of subjective social class in areas with higher income inequality. To address the issue of low power in existing research, we combined local-level income inequality indicators with large-scale repeated cross-sectional data, enabling the most reliable test to date on how the relationship between income and subjective social class is moderated by inequality. We used nationally representative datasets from the United States and South Korea (encompassing 25,000+ participants from 1,246 regional-year units). In both cultural contexts, our multilevel models revealed that income is a stronger predictor of subjective social class in regions with higher levels of income inequality. This work advances the theoretical and empirical understanding of how income and income inequality interact to shape the perception of one's position in the social hierarchy.

Explaining inequality tolerance in the lab: effects of political efficacy and prospects of mobility on collective demand for redistribution

The low public demand for redistribution despite growing economic inequality has been characterized as a paradox especially for disadvantaged individuals. One prominent explanation for people's tolerance to growing inequality posits that increased optimism about prospects of upward mobility undermines support for redistribution. A less explored explanation postulates that low political efficacy of disadvantaged individuals to enact meaningful change erodes collective demand for redistribution. In two preregistered experiments, we create a dynamic environment where low-income individuals collectively demand income redistribution by contributing to a public pool (collective action strategy), compete with each other for high-income group positions (individual mobility strategy), or avoid risks and disengage from both strategies (social inaction strategy). Lack of political efficacy, operationalized as high redistribution thresholds, gradually curtailed collective action, while exposure to high prospects of mobility did not influence collective action even when income group boundaries were highly permeable. Across participants, we identified three behavioral types (i.e., "mobility seekers", "egalitarians", and "disillusioned") whose prevalence was affected by political efficacy but not by prospects of mobility or actual group permeability. These results cast doubt on the universality of the prospects of mobility hypothesis and highlight the prominent role of political inequality in the perpetuation of economic inequality.

Assessing System Justification in Czech Population Using the System Justification Scale

System justification (SJ) is an important construct in social psychology that has received considerable attention over the past three decades. At the empirical level, system justification is examined by means of a specially developed System Justification Scale (SJS), which is designed to explain how individuals accept justice, whether they consider a given social order to be fair, how they evaluate the conditions in the country in which they live, how they accept social change, or to what extent they express compliance with established rules. System justification involves not only those who benefit from the existing social order, but also those who are disadvantaged. In their case, system justification mitigates negative perceptions of objective inequalities and asymmetries. Empirical evidence suggests that system justification may also be associated with higher perceived quality of life. The present study translated and validated the SJS, providing complex and detailed information on the psychometric properties of the scale. In addition, the scale's internal consistency, unidimensionality, and construct validity were examined. The conclusions presented are based on the results of exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency assessment, analysis of variance, correlation analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. Results were obtained from face-to-face survey data collected from a sample of 1419 individuals representing the Czech population aged 18-79 years. Since the SJS showed high internal consistency, adequately discriminated levels of system justification, and had robust psychometric properties, it could be recommended for further use.

The irony of fairness: How procedural fairness climate perceptions can hinder disadvantaged group members’ support for social change

The current research investigated an “ironic” consequence of a perceived procedural fairness climate vis-à-vis disadvantaged groups. Specifically, we examined whether the perception that societal institutions treat one’s underprivileged group in a procedurally fair way negatively impacts upon minority group members’ support for social change. Six studies (total N = 1,076) supported our claims. In survey Study 1 (Belgian ethnic minorities), procedural fairness climate perceptions were negatively related to support for social change. Cross-sectional Studies 2 (colored South Africans) and 3 (Hispanic Americans) further showed that this relationship is mediated by beliefs in minority mobility. Finally, Studies 4–6 (Asian and African Americans) provided experimental evidence corroborating our causal mediation model. Our findings align with literature demonstrating similar “ironic” effects of procedural fairness among advantaged group members, as they illustrate that the perception of a procedural fairness climate can analogously prevent disadvantaged group members from advocating changes that could alleviate their state of deprivation.

Does status stability benefit or hurt team creativity? the roles of status legitimacy and team conflict

Status stability, which refers to the stability of team members’ relative status levels, has a profound effect on team effectiveness, but this effect may be either constructive or destructive; the literature has failed to reach consensus on this topic. To reconcile two contradictory views based on differentiating between different types of conflict, we constructed a comprehensive theoretical model of the mechanism underlying the effect of status stability; this model features relationship conflict and task conflict as mediators, status legitimacy as a moderator, and team creativity as an outcome variable. We also proposed four hypotheses on the basis of theoretical analysis. In this study, we used SPSS 23.0, AMOS 24.0 and R software to conduct empirical analysis and testing of 369 valid questionnaires collected from 83 teams using a two-stage measurement method. The results revealed that status stability negatively affects team creativity via task conflict and positively affects team creativity via relationship conflict. However, under the influence of status legitimacy, the negative effect is restrained, while the positive effect is enhanced. This study thus expands the research on the process mechanism and boundary conditions associated with status stability, and can serve as a useful reference for the design of the status structure of modern enterprises.

Further evidence that system justification amongst the disadvantaged is positively related to superordinate group identification

Members of disadvantaged groups sometimes support societal systems that enable the very inequalities that disadvantaged them. Is it possible to explain this puzzling system-justifying orientation in terms of rational group-interested motives, without recourse to a separate system motive? The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) claims that it is. SIMSA proposes that the system justification shown by a disadvantaged group (e.g., African American women) can sometimes support identity needs that are tied to a more inclusive (superordinate) in-group (e.g., Americans). There is already some supportive evidence for this proposition, but it is not yet clear whether: (1) such trends are visible in a wider range of disadvantaged contexts, and (2) this explanation also applies to those who are strongly invested in their subgroup (e.g., feminists). In two waves of a large nationally representative survey from 21 to 23 European states (N_total = 84,572) and two controlled experiments (N_total = 290 women), we found that: (a) system justification was positively associated with superordinate ingroup identification across multiple cases of disadvantage (Studies 1-3), (b) system justification increased when this inclusive identity was made more salient (Studies 2 & 3), and (c) system justification was visible even amongst feminists when they activated their superordinate (Italian) identity (Study 3).

Economic inequality breeds corrupt behaviour

Economists and political scientists have long debated the relations between economic inequality and corruption at the societal level. Extending this literature, we proposed and tested that economic inequality breeds the corrupt behaviour of individuals. Analyses of 45-year archival data from the United States found that official corruption crimes were more prevalent in years and states with greater economic inequality. Three subsequent experiments (N = 776) using economic games showed that individuals exposed to greater economic inequality exhibited more corrupt behaviour in both Chinese and American cultures. Furthermore, the increased desire for wealth and the perception of reduced fairness accounted for this effect. These findings highlight that excessive economic inequality creates a competitive environment in which people give priority to themselves over others and suggest a vicious cycle between economic inequality and corruption.

Positive contact with working-class people reduces personal contribution to inequality

The current research investigates the effect of a type of intergroup contact that has rarely been studied to date, class-based contact, on one’s personal contribution to inequality. We conducted two studies with middle and upper class individuals. We first longitudinally examined whether positive contact with working-class people reduces contribution to inequality (i.e., participants stating that they themselves contribute to maintaining the social hierarchy) whilst controlling for ideological factors. Lower levels of contribution to inequality were present in people with more and better contact, but the change over time was small in the absence of experimental manipulation. An experiment then showed that recall of positive (vs. negative) contact with working-class people reduced participants’ contribution to inequality and increased their willingness to participate in collective action for equality. These results suggest that facilitating spaces where members of different social classes can have positive interactions can contribute to reducing inequality.

Interplay between different forms of power and meritocratic considerations shapes fairness perceptions

Power imbalance often leads to unequal allocations. However, it remains largely unknown how different forms of power and meritocratic considerations interact to shape fairness perceptions. Using modified Ultimatum Games, we examined how two power forms-decision power and availability of attractive outside option-affect bargaining behavior and fairness perceptions, and how meritocratic considerations are incorporated into the fairness perceptions of powerful and powerless individuals. We identified an asymmetric power effect: having increased decision power or attractive outside options independently increased self-advantageous allocations and self-serving fairness perceptions, whereas the combined lack of both power forms led to self-disadvantageous allocations but had no influence on fairness perceptions. The power effect on fairness perceptions became symmetric when power was obtained through a meritocratic process (procedural justice). In contrast, relative contributions to resource production (distributive justice) did not moderate power effects. We provide causal evidence that the powerful, but not the powerless, strive to minimize cognitive dissonance between behavior and fairness perceptions by interpreting fairness in self-serving ways. This study contributes novel insights into the interplay between different power forms, the asymmetry of power effects, the moderating role of procedural justice, and the mediating role of behavior in the power-driven adjustment of fairness perceptions.

Brexit and Trump: Which Theory of Social Stasis and Social Change Copes Best With the New Populism?

Why do voters seek to change the political landscape or to retain it? System justification theory (SJT) proposes that a separate system motive to preserve the existing order drives support for the status-quo, and that this motivation operates independently from personal and collective interests. But how does this explanation apply to recent populist shifts in the political order such as Brexit and the emergence of Donald Trump? While the system motive may seem useful in understanding why the usual progressives (Remain/Clinton voters) may want to stick with an established order, it seems insufficient to explain why the more conservative voters (Brexit/Trump voters) would want to upend the establishment. Thus, we compared SJT’s system motive explanation for the system attitudes of voters on both sides of the political divide to an alternative explanation drawn from the newer social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA). According to SIMSA, the difficulty in explaining the system attitudes of Brexit/Trump and Remain/Clinton voters from SJT’s system motive standpoint can be resolved by focusing instead on the collective interests that both camps seek to satisfy with their votes. We examined these explanations in two studies conducted soon after Brexit (N = 313) and Trump’s election (N = 289) in 2016, with results providing more support for SIMSA than for SJT.

Lower class people suffered more (but perceived fewer risk disadvantages) during the COVID-19 pandemic

Does COVID-19 affect people of all classes equally? In the current research, we focus on the social issue of risk inequality during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a nationwide survey conducted in China (N = 1,137), we predicted and found that compared to higher-class individuals, lower-class participants reported a stronger decline in self-rated health as well as economic well-being due to the COVID-19 outbreak. At the same time, we examined participants' beliefs regarding the distribution of risks. The results demonstrated that although lower-class individuals were facing higher risks, they expressed lesser belief in such a risk inequality than their higher-class counterparts. This tendency was partly mediated by their stronger endorsement of system-justifying beliefs. The findings provide novel evidence of the misperception of risk inequality among the disadvantaged in the context of COVID-19. Implications for science and policy are discussed.

The Two Faces of Support for Redistribution in Colombia: Taxing the Wealthy or Assisting People in Need

Support for redistribution is crucial for reducing economic inequality. Despite people's desire for reducing extreme inequalities, they still have mixed opinions regarding how to do so. The aim of the article is to examine the underlying latent dimensions of support for redistribution and test its correlates to perceptions of and attitudes toward inequality. In two studies, we found that support for redistribution can be modeled as a latent construct depicting two different dimensions: one focused on taxing the wealthy and changing the income distribution schema, and other focused on assisting people in need and providing opportunities. We also found that the dimension related to taxing the wealthy (vs. assisting people in need) displayed higher internal reliability and correlated consistently with perceptions and attitudes toward inequality: the higher the support for taxing the wealthy, the higher the perceptions and concerns of inequality, and the lower the inequality-justifying ideologies. This research unveils distinct underlying dimensions of support for redistribution that shed light on different motivations that drive people's redistributive preferences.

The paradox of local inequality: Meritocratic beliefs in unequal localities

A puzzle has emerged amidst rising inequality: why do people profess high levels of belief in meritocracy even as income gains are increasingly concentrated at the top? In light of contradictory theories and evidence, we undertake the first assessment of the relationship between local income inequality and meritocratic beliefs outside the United States, using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study. We find that the positive relationship between country-level income inequality and meritocratic beliefs identified in the recent literature does not translate straightforwardly below country level: there is no robust relationship between local income inequality and meritocratic beliefs in England. However, there is a robust-and somewhat paradoxical-positive association between high local income inequality and meritocratic beliefs among those with the lowest incomes. On average, respondents with annual household incomes of £10,000 are five points more likely (on a 100-point scale) to believe their hard work will pay off if they live in the most rather than the least unequal places in England. We also show that this applies beyond the specific case of meritocratic beliefs: low-income respondents in unequal places are also notably more satisfied with their own (low) income than similar respondents in more equal localities. In line with system justification theory, we argue that belief in meritocracy serves as an important tool of psychological resilience for low-income individuals who regularly come into contact with others more economically fortunate than themselves: though it legitimates their current position at the bottom of the status hierarchy, this belief also offers the promise of future advancement. While this reduces concern about the psychological effects of growing local income inequality on the most economically vulnerable, it also suggests that there is little prospect of demand for systemic economic change emerging from what might have been considered the most likely places.

Is use of the general system justification scale across countries justified? Testing its measurement equivalence

System justification is a widely researched topic in social and political psychology. One major measurement instrument in system justification research is the General System Justification Scale (G-SJS). This scale has been used, among others, for comparisons across social groups in different countries. Such comparisons rely on the assumption that the scale is measurement equivalent. However, this assumption has never been comprehensively tested. Thus, the present two studies assessed the measurement equivalence of the G-SJS following classic measurement equivalence guidelines (i.e., multigroup confirmatory factor analyses) in Study 1 and using a new method for comparing larger numbers of groups in Study 2 (i.e., alignment optimization). In Study 1, we analysed the measurement equivalence in Great Britain (n = 444), Germany (n = 454), and France (n = 463). In Study 2, we used a publicly available dataset consisting of 66 samples from 30 countries (N = 13,495) to again assess the measurement equivalence of the scale. Results indicated (partial) metric equivalence, but not scalar equivalence in both studies. Overall, the studies indicate that mean comparisons across the examined countries are not warranted with the current form of the G-SJS. The scale needs to be revised for valid cross-country comparisons of means.

Ingroup identification, hope and system justification: Testing hypothesis from social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) in a sample of LGBTQIA+ individuals

The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) suggests that system justification among low-status groups can be explained by ingroup identification and the hope for a collective future improvement. In this report, we summarize the results of a cross-sectional investigation concerning the relationship between system justification, hope and identification based on a sample of 200 LGBTQIA+ individuals (identifying themselves as non-normative with respect to gender identity and sexual orientation). The results were supportive of SIMSA expectations and showed that system justification was positively linked to hope for future advancement. Importantly, hope played a key role influencing the relations between ingroup identification and perceived ingroup status: for low-status individuals who had high hope, ingroup identification was positively associated with system justification. Limits are acknowledged.