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

Collective action against corruption in Western and non-Western countries: cross-cultural implications of the Axiological-Identitary Collective Action Model

People sometimes protest government corruption, yet our current understanding of why they do so is culturally constrained. Can we separate pancultural factors influencing people's willingness to protest government corruption from factors culturally specific to each socioecological context? Surprisingly little cross-cultural data exist on this important question. To fill this gap, we performed a cross-cultural test of the Axiological-Identitary Collective Action Model (AICAM) regarding the intention to protest against corruption. As a collective action framework, AICAM integrates three classical antecedents of collective action (injustice, efficacy, identity) with axiological variables (ideology and morality). A total sample of 2,316 participants from six countries (Nigeria, Russia, India, Spain, United States, Germany) in a multilevel analysis of AICAM predictions showed that the positive relationship of the intention to protest corruption with moral obligation, system-based anger, and national identification can be considered pancultural. In contrast, the relationships between system justification and perceived efficacy are culturally specific. System justification negatively predicted the intention to participate only in countries with high levels of wealth, while perceived efficacy positively predicted it only in countries perceived as less corrupt. These findings highlight the importance of accounting features of socioecology and separating pancultural from culture-specific effects in understanding collective action.

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.

Environmental threat in France: Two studies testing the effect of threatening messages on system justification and environmental denial

Climate change consequences are affecting our entire political, economic and social system. At a psychological level, it represents a large number of threatening events that we have to deal with. In the scientific literature, there is an active debate about the inconsistent effects of environmental threatening messages. One explanation for this inconsistency is that people respond differently to a threat, depending on some psychological dispositions. Indeed, studies on system justification theory showed that when people with a right political orientation are exposed to a threat to their system, they show a motivation to defend it. Although those tendencies have been linked to environmental denial, there is a lack of experimental studies testing the direct effect of environmental threat, especially in European context. We address this issue with two experiments in which we highlighted the environmental threat for one's system (Study 1, N = 144) and for the continuity of one's habits (Study 2, N = 148) in a French sample. The design was the same for both studies: three types of video-clips were presented to participants (i.e., control, neutral and threat) and we measured general system justification, environmental denial and political orientation. Our results showed no significant effect of our threat manipulation in both studies. However, they support that a right political orientation in France positively predicts system justification tendencies in study 1 and environmental denial in study 2. Findings are discussed through theoretical and methodological implications.

Beliefs about Legality and Benefits for Mental Health

Research on mental health pays increasing attention to the influence of social institutions on subjective well-being over the life course. Yet little research has considered how belief in the promise of legal institutions may have beneficial effects for well-being. Through structural equation models of longitudinal data, our findings suggest that belief in the neutrality and fairness of legal institutions has salutary effects for mental health net of social and economic status and across individuals from a wide range of ethnic groups. By combining research in the sociology of mental health, cultural sociology, social psychology, and the sociology of law, we extend the emerging literature on the institutional determinants of mental health by including attention to law as one of the central organizing institutions of social life.

Perceiving ingroup and outgroup faces within and across nations

The human face is arguably the most important of all social stimuli because it provides so much valuable information about others. Therefore, one critical factor for successful social communication is the ability to process faces. In general, a wide body of social cognitive research has demonstrated that perceivers are better at extracting information from their own-race compared to other-race faces and that these differences can be a barrier to positive cross-race relationships. The primary objective of the present paper was to provide an overview of how people process faces in diverse contexts, focusing on racial ingroup and outgroup members within one nation and across nations. To achieve this goal, we first broadly describe social cognitive research on categorization processes related to ingroups vs. outgroups. Next, we briefly examine two prominent mechanisms (experience and motivation) that have been used to explain differences in recognizing facial identities and identifying emotions when processing ingroup and outgroup racial faces within nations. Then, we explore research in this domain across nations and cultural explanations, such as norms and practices, that supplement the two proposed mechanisms. Finally, we propose future cross-cultural research that has the potential to help us better understand the role of these key mechanisms in processing ingroup and outgroup faces.

Better support for national than local system during the COVID-19 pandemic in China

Individuals increase their support for social systems in response to the threat, panic, and uncertainty that characterized the COVID-19 pandemic. This could be because a powerful social system can compensate for a lack of control at the individual level. However, the levels of public support for national versus local systems could be different in China. Two studies investigate whether people support the national more strongly than the local system during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study 1 analyzed data of 3593 participants from China; the results showed that participants reported higher levels of support for the national system than the local. In Study 2, we further tested a possible moderator for it. With a sample of 275 participants, we found that the difference between public support for national and local systems in China was based on the perceived higher response efficacy with the national government. Implications for research on system justification and governmental pandemic responses were discussed.

Do Superordinate Identification and Temporal/Social Comparisons Independently Predict Citizens' System Trust? Evidence From a 40-Nation Survey

Do superordinate in-group bias as well as temporal and social comparisons offer standalone explanations for system justification? We addressed this question using the latest World Value Survey (7th Wave), combining the responses of 55,721 participants from 40 different nations. Results from a random slope multilevel model showed that superordinate (national) identification, temporal comparison (i.e., the outcomes of an individual relative to those of his/her parents at different time points), and social comparison (based on income levels) were independent and positive predictors of system justification. Specifically, system justification increased when national identification was high, when income increased (i.e., the socioeconomic comparison was positive), and when the outcomes of citizens improved relative to the outcomes of their parents at relevant time points (i.e., the temporal comparison was positive). Incidentally, we also observed an interaction between national identification and temporal comparison (but not with social comparison), indicating that positive temporal comparison seemed to have a reduced effect (but still significant) for highly identified citizens. These results are supportive of the social identity approach to system justification and suggest that support for societal systems is a positive function of people’s personal and group interests.

The Effects of Gender Trouble: An Integrative Theoretical Framework of the Perpetuation and Disruption of the Gender/Sex Binary

In the Western world, gender has traditionally been viewed as binary and as following directly from biological sex. This view is slowly changing among both experts and the general public, a change that has been met with strong opposition. In this article, we explore the psychological processes underlying these dynamics. Drawing on previous work on gender performativity as well as gender as a performance, we develop a psychological framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary on a stage that facilitates and foregrounds binary gender/sex performance. Whenever character, costume, and script are not aligned the gender/sex binary is disrupted and gender trouble ensues. We integrate various strands of the psychological literature into this framework and explain the processes underlying these reactions. We propose that gender trouble can elicit threat-personal threat, group-based and identity threat, and system threat-which in turn leads to efforts to alleviate this threat through the reinforcement of the gender/sex binary. Our framework challenges the way psychologists have traditionally treated gender/sex in theory and empirical work and proposes new avenues and implications for future research.

Social and economic determinants of support for a strong non-democratic leader in democracies differ from non-democracies

A growing body of evidence suggests that support for a strong non-democratic leader is driven, in part, by low economic development and economic inequality at the country level, and low income and interpersonal trust at the individual level. In the current research, we tested the hypothesis that although such a pattern predicts support for a strong non-democratic leader in democracies, it should produce decreased support for a strong non-democratic leader in non-democracies (where the presence of such leaders is the political status quo). Using three waves of World Values Survey data (2005-2020), as predicted, we found that in democracies, low economic development, high inequality, and low interpersonal trust predicted support for a strong non-democratic leader. However, in non-democracies, support for a strong non-democratic leader was higher in more economically developed countries and among individuals with higher social trust. These results contradict modernization theory’s proposition that development promotes support for democratic rule and suggest that economic development reinforces support for the existing political system.

Dealing with a Crisis: Does Covid-19 Promote Traditional Gender Roles?

The Covid-19 crisis has many characteristics susceptible to emphasize gendered prescriptions. In the present research, we argue that the Covid-19 crisis should promote citizenship behaviors (CB) consistent with gender stereotypes. Two pre-registered experiments were conducted during lockdown in France (Study 1) and United Kingdom (Study 2). We manipulated the salience of the Covid-19 crisis using a fake newspaper article and showed that women were more likely than men to engage in CB of altruism and sacrifice. Meta-analysis results of the two studies confirmed that these gender differences were larger when the Covid-19 crisis was highly salient (vs. control condition). For women, more than for men, engaging in altruistic behaviors and making sacrifice for the greater good are perceived as the behaviors to endorse to cope with the Covid-19 crisis.

How Fair is Economic Inequality? Belief in a Just World and the Legitimation of Economic Disparities in 27 European Countries

This article aims to examine the role of Belief in a Just World (BJW) in the legitimation of economic inequality. Using data from 27 European countries (N=47,086), we conducted multilevel analyses and found that BJW positively predicted the legitimation of economic inequality, measured by three indicators: the perceived fairness of the overall wealth inequality, and the fairness of the earnings made by the Top 10% and the Bottom 10% of society. These results persisted after controlling for individual- and country-level variables. Moreover, the BJW effect was stronger on the legitimation of the Bottom 10% incomes, compared to the legitimation of the Top 10%. We also found that economic inequality at the country-level reduced the BJW effect on legitimation of inequality. Finally, BJW displayed a negative indirect effect on support for redistribution, via the legitimation of economic inequalities.

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.

A social change framework for addressing collective action: introducing collective inertia

We argue that dramatic social change arising from collective action does not represent the worst-case scenario for group members. Specifically, we introduce the concept of collective inertia: a societal state where group members face a macro system devoid of clearly articulated collective goals and values coupled with dysfunctional social and normative structures. Our analysis emphasizes the dynamic process of social change, involving a shift from one societal state to another. Collective inertia is the one societal state that may have devastating long-term consequences for groups.

Ease and control: the cognitive benefits of hierarchy

This review identifies two cognitive benefits of social hierarchy that may contribute to hierarchy maintenance. First, research indicates that people pay attention to hierarchies automatically, early, and accurately. As a result, hierarchies feel easy to process, which increases liking and support of hierarchy. Second, through their clear, predictable structures and the opportunities they provide for personal agency, hierarchies help people satisfy their need for control, which may lead people to seek out and maintain hierarchy, especially if they currently hold a high rank or believe in social mobility. These cognitive benefits of ease and control may have effects on the performance of hierarchies and on people's willingness to change unfair structures.

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.

Ideological justification of the sectarian political system in Lebanon

We start by summarizing recent research on system justification theory, highlighting studies conducted outside the U.S. to expand the cross-national scope of the theory. Next we describe major findings in social and political psychology pertaining to religiosity, political conservatism, and various forms of system justification before turning to a specific case of entrenched inequality, namely the sectarian political system in Lebanon. We discuss the results of a nationally representative survey of 500 Lebanese adults conducted in 2016. Consistent with system justification theory, we observed that religiosity and political conservatism were positively associated with general and economic forms of system justification as well as support for the sectarian political system in Lebanon. We situate these findings in a broader historical and cultural analysis of Lebanon and other sectarian societies and highlight ways in which applying psychological theories and methods to novel and distinctive socio-ecological contexts can lead to practical insights and perhaps even policy recommendations.

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.