System justification enhances well-being: A longitudinal analysis of the palliative function of system justification in 18 countries

Do conservatives really have an advantage in mental health? An examination of measurement invariance

Many studies have found that conservatives show an advantage in mental health and happiness and various causes of this have been debated (e.g., religiousness, ideology, or genetics). However, not much attention has been given to examining whether this advantage is psychometrically real, or whether it is due to test bias. We analyzed data from two large Finnish surveys of adults (Ns = 848 and 4,978) from Lahtinen (2024), that measured general anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as a new wokeness scale. Using differential item functioning tests, we found no evidence for measurement bias in these scales. The correlation between index scores of wokeness and mental health (internalizing) was -0.36, which increased to -0.41 when measurement error was removed. The association between wokeness and anxiety (r = -0.33, adjusted r = 0.37) was stronger than wokeness and depression (r = 0.20, adjusted r = 0.22).

System-justifying beliefs buffer against psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a detrimental effect on people's mental health. Drawing on the palliative function of ideologies, we suggest that people rely on system-justifying beliefs to mitigate psychological distress during the pandemic. We conducted three studies with correlational and experimental designs to examine whether and how system-justifying beliefs can buffer against psychological distress during COVID-19, and whether this effect may vary across social classes. The results indicated that (a) system-justifying beliefs alleviated psychological distress during the pandemic, (b) personal control mediated this relationship and (c) this effect was consistent across all social classes. This study provides robust evidence for the palliative function of system-justifying beliefs during a massive global health crisis (i.e. COVID-19).

The progressive place paradox: Status-based health inequalities are magnified in more economically progressive Swiss localities

Low socioeconomic status (measured both objectively and subjectively) is systematically associated with worse health. Amid renewed interest in contextual influences on health inequalities, we ask whether variation in the prevailing ideological climate moderates the size of the health gap between low and high status individuals. Based on the minority stress hypothesis, we expect that living in an economically progressive place within Switzerland - places where more residents endorse the need for change to the economic status quo - will reduce the magnitude of the health gap. Multilevel modelling of MOSAiCH 2015-2020 data shows the opposite: low status individuals in progressive places report markedly lower subjective health and life satisfaction than similarly low status individuals in conservative places, such that status-based health inequalities are maximised in progressive places. We interpret this apparent progressive place paradox in terms of collective inefficacy and system frustration, which we argue is the corollary of system justification.

Barriers to Biculturalism: Historical Negation and Symbolic Exclusion Predict Longitudinal Increases in Bicultural Policy Opposition

The colonial ideologies of historical negation and symbolic exclusion (i.e., the "Dark Duo") promote inequality between settler colonizers and Indigenous peoples by denying the contemporary relevance of past injustices and excluding Indigenous culture from the nation's identity, respectively. Although their correlates are established, the temporal ordering of the relationship between the Dark Duo and bicultural policy opposition is unclear. We address this oversight by utilizing nine annual waves of panel data from a nationwide random sample of New Zealand adults (N = 31,104) to estimate two multigroup RI-CLPMs using the Dark Duo to predict symbolic and resource-based policy opposition (and vice versa). Results revealed that within-person increases in historical negation and symbolic exclusion predicted subsequent increases in symbolic and resource-based bicultural policy opposition for both majority and minority ethnic groups. These relationships were, however, bidirectional, demonstrating a self-perpetuating cycle, whereby the Dark Duo undermines biculturalism and antibiculturalism strengthens the Dark Duo.

A Longitudinal Test of the Conservative-Liberal Well-Being Gap

In this article, we test if conservatism predicts psychological well-being longitudinally. We based the study on previous findings showing that conservatives score higher on different measures of well-being, such as life satisfaction and happiness. Most explanations in the literature have assumed that conservatism antecedes well-being without considering the alternative-that well-being may predict conservatism. In Study 1, using multilevel cross-lagged panel models with a two-wave longitudinal sample consisting of data from 19 countries (N = 8,740), we found that conservatism did not predict well-being over time. We found similar results in Study 2 (N = 2,554), using random-intercept cross-lagged panel models with a four-wave longitudinal sample from Chile. We discuss the main implications of these results for the literature examining the association between conservatism and well-being.

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 role of system justification theory in support of the government under long-term conservative party dominance in Japan

The applicability of system justification theory (SJT) in Japan, where political contexts differ from those in Western countries, was evaluated in this study. SJT explains the psychological mechanisms underlying conservatism. Japan, which has a relatively long history as a democracy among East Asian countries, has a special political context. For instance, (1) it has had almost uninterrupted conservative governance since the end of World War II; and (2) unlike Western countries, opinions on economic issues are not clearly linked to conservative attitudes. A web survey of Japanese voters (n = 1,428) revealed that high general system justification (GSJ) and economic system justification (ESJ) were correlated with conservatism. Further, path analysis results showed that GSJ and ESJ predicted conservative attitudes. Additional analysis suggested that the status-legitimacy hypothesis, in which lower status groups have higher system justification motives, is not supported.

Social position and economic system justification in Canada: Implications for advancing health equity and social justice from an exploratory study of factors shaping economic system justification

Objective

Many socio-economic reforms that could reduce health disparities are not implemented because people justify existing systems and fear changes thereto. This study aimed to identify socio-demographic factors associated with system justifying beliefs to better understand how they are maintained in Canada. In doing so, we hypothesized that (1) systems justification is a default cognitive position, buttressed by the palliative benefits of system-justification, (2) lack of success in a given system generally motivates people to doubt the legitimacy of that system, and (3) system-justifying beliefs are rejected only when the costs of doing so are low enough and/or the benefits are high enough to outweigh the innate needs-fulfillment benefits of system-justification.

Methods

Testing these hypotheses, we recruited participants living in Canada, aged 16+, to complete an online survey after being recruited via paid social media advertisements. Multivariable regression models identified factors associated with Economic System Justification Scale (ESJS) scores. Explanatory variables included demographic measures of social position, self-rated health, and patterns of social inclusion.

Results

Among 2,619 participants, system-justifying beliefs were wide-spread, with the average level of support across ESJS scale items exceeding 50%. Lower ESJS scores were associated with worse health, more loneliness, and lower socioeconomic status. Despite the pattern that marginalization erodes system-justification, several historically marginalized characteristics (e.g., non-white ethnicity and non-binary gender) were associated with relatively high system-justification, compared to matching privileged characteristics (e.g., white ethnicity; masculine gender).

Conclusion

Supporting our hypotheses, we identify a general trend that social marginalization is associated with less system-justification. Those benefitting from the status quo (e.g., healthier, wealthier, less lonely) were more likely to hold system-justifying beliefs. However, some groups who are disadvantaged within the existing system reported higher system-justification-suggesting that system oppression may be a key moderator of the effect of social position on system justification.

Distressed Democrats and relaxed Republicans? Partisanship and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic was a potent stressor, yielding unprecedented levels of mental distress. However, public health responses and personal reactions to the pandemic were politically polarized, with Democrats highlighting and Republicans downplaying its severity. Did Republicans subsequently experience as much mental distress as Democrats during the COVID-19 pandemic? This study examines partisan patterns in mental health outcomes at three time points throughout the pandemic. Results demonstrate a clear partisan distress gap, with Democrats consistently reporting worse mental health than Republicans. Trend data suggest that the 2020 pandemic patterns are a continuation and exacerbation of an existing partisan distress gap. Consideration of race, however, demonstrates a widening partisan distress gap, specific to white Americans. Among white Americans, therefore, Democrats experienced a substantially greater increase in distress in response to the pandemic than Republicans.

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.

The Relationship Between Income Inequality and the Palliative Function of Meritocracy Belief: The Micro- and the Macro-Levels Both Count

In the current paper, we report the analysis of the relationship between meritocracy belief and subjective well-being using two large international databases, the European Social Survey Program (N = 44,387) and the European Values Study Program (N = 51,752), involving data gathered from 36 countries in total. We investigated whether low status individuals are more likely to psychologically benefit from endorsing meritocratic beliefs, and the same benefits are more pronounced in more unequal societies. Since meritocracy belief can function as a justification for income differences, we assumed that the harsher the objective reality is, the higher level of subjective well-being can be maintained by justifying this harsh reality. Therefore, we hypothesized that the palliative function of meritocracy belief is stronger for both low social status (low income) individuals, and for those living in an unequal social environment (in countries with larger income differences). Our multilevel models showed a positive relationship between meritocracy belief and subjective well-being, which relationship was moderated by both individual-level income status and country-level income differences in both studies. Based on these results, we concluded that the emotional payoff of justifying income inequalities is larger if one is more strongly affected by these inequalities.

Negative emotions in siblings of individuals with developmental disabilities: The roles of early maladaptive schemas and system justification

BACKGROUND

Developmental disabilities (DD) in close family members have profound effects on psychological adjustment of siblings of individuals with DD. One factor that influences the psychological adjustment of siblings is emotions. However, little is known about emotions among siblings of individuals with DD.

AIMS

This study sought to examine negative emotions of adolescent siblings of individuals with DD and focus on the roles of individual- and system-related factors, namely early maladaptive schemas (EMS) and system justification.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

A cross-sectional study including adolescent 72 siblings of individuals with DD and 109 adolescent siblings of individuals without DD was conducted.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

The siblings of individuals with DD had higher scores on the Other-Directedness schema domain and system justification than the siblings of individuals without DD. However, the frequency of negative emotions did not differ between groups. Lower scores on EMS and higher scores on system justification were associated with less frequent negative emotions.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Negative emotions seem to be common in adolescents regardless of having a sibling with DD or not. Nevertheless, EMS and system justification tendencies in siblings of individuals with DD may act as vulnerability factors for negative emotions.

"The New State That We Are Building": Authoritarianism and System-Justification in an Illiberal Democracy

The authoritarian personality is characterized by unquestionining obedience and respect to authority. System justification theory (SJT) argues that people are motivated to defend, bolster, and justify aspects of existing social, economic, and political systems. Commitment to the status quo is also a key characteristic of the authoritarian personality. It can be argued that the social context matters for how an underlying latent authoritarian character is expressed. This means that authoritarian regimes could be expected to lead to increased authoritarianism and stronger system-justification. We investigated this hypothesis in two representative samples of Hungarians, collected before (2010) and after (2018) 8 years of Fidesz' rule (N = 1,000 in both samples). Moreover, the strong version of SJT argues that members of disadvantaged groups are likely to experience the most cognitive dissonance and that the need to reduce this dissonance makes them the most supportive of the status quo. This argument dovetails nicely with claims made by the political opposition to Fidesz, according to which Fidesz is especially popular among low-status members of society. We found that measures assessing authoritarian tendencies did not change between 2010 and 2018. However, more specific beliefs and attitudes did change, and these effects were especially pronounced among Fidesz supporters. Their belief in a just world and a just system has grown stronger, while their attitudes toward migrants had hardened. Low status was associated with lower levels of system-justifying ideologies. However, low status Fidesz voters justified the system more than high status opposition voters in 2018, lending some support for the strong version of SJT. Our results suggest that beliefs and attitudes of Hungarians have changed between 2010 and 2018, and that political leadership played a crucial role in this.

Expressive suppression as an obstacle to social change: Linking system justification, emotion regulation, and collective action

Research on system justification theory suggests that justifying the societal status quo decreases negative emotions, leading to less collective action. In this investigation, we propose that the degree to which negative emotions mediate the link between system justification and collective action may depend upon whether individuals tend to suppress the expression of their negative emotions. We tested this hypothesis in the diverse socio-political contexts of Turkey, Israel, and the U.S. In one correlational study (Study 1) and three experimental studies (Studies 2-4), we observed that the link between system justification and willingness to participate in collective action through anger (Studies 1-2 and 4) and guilt (Study 3) was moderated by expressive suppression. We found that negative emotions mediated the association between system justification and collective action among those who suppress the expression of their emotions less frequently, but not those who use expressive suppression more frequently. These findings suggest that emotion regulation may undermine, rather than facilitate, efforts to engage in collective action even among people who are low in system justification.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11031-021-09883-5.

Adjusting to the canon

The purpose of the present study is to explore the organization of communicative memory among Hungarians. We were also interested in the factors possibly influencing the composition of communicative memory, such as conspiracy beliefs and system justification. The study involved 339 participants who were asked to name the three historical events that have occurred during the lifetime of people they personally knew and had the most significant impact on their country. A latent class analysis was conducted to explore possible associations of event choice with conspiracy beliefs and system justification. The results showed that the most frequently selected events partly corresponded to the Hungarian national historical canon, but progressive events significant on a European scale were also frequently nominated. The latent class analysis revealed two historical profiles. One was characterized by a progressive and Eurocentric view of history, whereas the other showed a canonical historical view with victimhood orientation. The analysis showed that individuals who believe in conspiracy theories were more likely to select events corresponding to the national historical canon, whereas system justification was unrelated to event choice. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of cultural memory and the measured individual constructs in the forming of communicative memory.

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.

System Justification Enhances Life Satisfaction of High- and Low-Status People in China

Across three studies, we examine whether system justification enhances psychological well-being among members of both advantaged and disadvantaged groups. In addition, we test the novel hypothesis that perceived individual upward mobility explains this positive effect of system justification. We address these issues by focusing on system justification and life satisfaction among individuals with high and low social class in China, an understudied non-Western society. Findings suggest that system justification positively predicts both high-class and low-class individuals’ life satisfaction, and this result holds for both adults (Study 1, N = 10,196) and adolescents (Study 2, N = 4,037). Moreover, we experimentally demonstrate that system justification has a causal effect on life satisfaction through an increased level of perceived individual upward mobility (Study 3, N = 172). These findings help explain why people, especially those from lower social class, are willing to justify the status quo.

Opium of the people? National identification predicts well-being over time

Social group membership and its social-relational corollaries, for example, social contact, trust, and support, are prophylactic for health. Research has tended to focus on how direct social interactions between members of small-scale groups (i.e., a local sports team or community group) are conducive to positive health outcomes. The current study provides evidence from a longitudinal cross-cultural sample (N = 6,748; 18 countries/societies) that the prophylactic effect of group membership is not isolated to small-scale groups, and that members of groups do not have to directly interact, or in fact know of each other to benefit from membership. Our longitudinal analyses suggest that national identification (strength of association with the country/society of which one is a citizen) predicts lower anxiety and improved health; national identification was in fact almost as positively predictive of health status as anxiety was negatively predictive. The findings indicate that identification with large-scale groups, like small-scale groups, is palliative, and are discussed in terms of globalization and banal nationalism.

“We Look (and Feel) Better Through System-Justifying Lenses”: System-Justifying Beliefs Attenuate the Well-Being Gap Between the Advantaged and Disadvantaged by Reducing Perceptions of Discrimination

Low-status groups report lower levels of well-being than do high-status groups. Although system justification theory posits that the endorsement of system-justifying beliefs should decrease this well-being gap, the underlying mechanisms responsible for this hypothesized palliative effect have evaded empirical scrutiny. We address this oversight by arguing that system-justifying beliefs confer palliative benefits upon low-status groups by decreasing perceptions of group-based discrimination. Using nationally representative data from New Zealand ( N = 12,959), we demonstrate that ethnic minorities (Study 1a) and women (Study 1b) generally report lower levels of well-being than do New Zealand Europeans and men, respectively. Nevertheless, as hypothesized, these differences were mitigated by the endorsement of ethnic- and gender-specific system justification, respectively. Mediated moderation analyses further revealed that part of the palliative effects of system justification occurred via reductions in perceived group-based discrimination. The implications of these findings for intergroup relations are discussed.

Revisiting 25 years of system motivation explanation for system justification from the perspective of social identity model of system attitudes

Do the disadvantaged have an autonomous system justification motivation that operates against their personal and group interests? System justification theory (SJT; Jost & Banaji, 1994, Br. J. Soc. Psychol, 33, 1) proposes that they do and that this motivation helps to (1) reduce cognitive dissonance and associated uncertainties and (2) soothe the pain that is associated with knowing that one's group is subject to social inequality. However, 25 years of research on this system justification motivation has given rise to several theoretical and empirical inconsistencies. The present article argues that these inconsistencies can be resolved by a social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, 2018, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci, 27, 91). SIMSA assumes that instances of system justification are often in alignment with (rather than opposed to) the interests of the disadvantaged. According to SIMSA, the disadvantaged may support social systems (1) in order to acknowledge social reality, (2) when they perceive the wider social system to constitute a superordinate ingroup, and (3) because they hope to improve their ingroup's status through existing channels in the long run. These propositions are corroborated by existing and emerging evidence. We conclude that SIMSA offers a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for system justification than does SJT.

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.