When and Why People Prefer Higher Educated Politicians: Ingroup Bias, Deference, and Resistance

When choosing between political candidates of different educational levels, do voters show ingroup bias or base their vote choice on candidates' perceived competence? We aim to investigate how (fictional) political candidates of different educational levels are evaluated and voted for, how this is affected by voters' educational level, and the role of perceived (Study 1) and manipulated competence (Study 2). Higher educated participants preferred higher to less educated candidates over and above their level of competence, particularly when they identified strongly with their educational level. This reflects ingroup bias among the higher educated. Less educated participants preferred higher educated candidates in Study 1, but did not prefer higher educated candidates when competence was manipulated independently from education in Study 2. The less educated, unlike the higher educated, therefore, seem to show deference to the assumed competence of the higher educated, because it disappears when more reliable competence information is available.

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).

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.

System Threat during a Pandemic: How Conspiracy Theories Help to Justify the System

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people have endorsed conspiracy theories about foreign governments yet shown increased trust and support for their own government. Whether there is a potential correlation between these social phenomena and the psychological mechanisms behind them is still unclear. Integrating insights from the existential threat model of conspiracy theories and system justification theory, two experimental studies were conducted to investigate whether belief in out-group conspiracy theories can play a mediating role in the effects of system threat on people's system justification beliefs against the background of the pandemic. The results show that system threat positively predicts individuals’ system-justifying belief, and belief in out-group conspiracy theories mediated this relationship.

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.

Do Members of Disadvantaged Groups Explain Group Status With Group Stereotypes?

Recent research on group attitudes in members of disadvantaged groups has provided evidence that group evaluations closely align with societal stigma, reflecting outgroup favoritism in members of those groups that are most strongly stigmatized. While outgroup favoritism is clearly evident among some groups, there is still debate about the psychological mechanisms underlying outgroup favoritism. The current research focuses on a less intensively examined aspect of outgroup favoritism, namely the use of status-legitimizing group stereotypes. We present data from members of four disadvantaged groups (i.e., persons who self-categorize as gay or lesbian, n = 205; Black or African American, n = 209; overweight n = 200, or are aged 60-75 years n = 205), who reported the perceived status of their ingroup and a comparison majority outgroup and provided explanations for their status perceptions. Contrary to assumptions from System Justification Theory, participants rarely explained perceived group status differences with group stereotypes, whereas they frequently explained ingroup disadvantage with perceived stigmatization and/or systemic reasons. Further exploratory analyses indicated that participants' status explanations were related to measures of intergroup attitudes, ideological beliefs, stigma consciousness, and experienced discrimination. Our results highlight the need to develop a better understanding whether, under what circumstances, and with which consequences members of disadvantaged groups use group stereotypes as attributions of ingroup status and status differences.

Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy

We discuss the idea that competition-based motives boost low-status group members’ support for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Specifically, the more low-status group members feel motivated to compete with a relevant high-status outgroup, based on the belief that existing status positions may be reversed, the more they will defend status differentials (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO). Using minimal groups (N = 113), we manipulated ingroup (low vs. high) status, and primed unstable status positions to all participants. As expected, we found that SDO positively mediates the relation between ingroup identification and collective action, when ingroup’s status is perceived to be low and status positions are perceived as highly unstable. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality, and the advantages of considering ideological processes in predicting collective action.

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.

Social Dominance Orientation Boosts Collective Action Among Low-Status Groups

We propose that low-status group members' support for group-based hierarchy and inequality (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) may represent an ideological strategy to guarantee the legitimacy of future ingroup status-enhancement. Specifically, we argue that, under unstable social structure conditions, SDO serves as an ideological justification for collective action tendencies aimed at competing for a higher status. In such context, SDO should be positively related with actions aimed to favor the ingroup (i.e., collective actions) by increasing group members' motivation to engage in direct competition with a relevant higher-status outgroup. We conducted two studies under highly competitive and unstable social structure contexts using real life groups. In Study 1 (N = 77), we induced Low vs. High Ingroup (University) Status and in Study 2 (N = 220) we used competing sports groups. Overall, results showed that, among members of low-status groups, SDO consistently increased individuals' motivation to get involved in actions favoring the ingroup, by boosting their motivation to compete with the opposing high-status outgroup. We discuss the results in light of the social dominance and collective action framework.

Revisiting the status-legitimacy hypothesis: Concepts, boundary conditions, and psychological mechanisms

The status-legitimacy hypothesis proposes that low-status groups are more inclined to justify the status quo as fair and legitimate than high-status groups. Although there are some research evidences for this hypothesis, many studies have found the opposite result, that disadvantaged groups are more dissatisfied with the social system. To resolve this disagreement, this article integrates relevant ideas and empirical research in three aspects. First, the conceptual approach emphasises that the controversy is a result of different operational definitions of social status and system justification in previous studies. The second approach, focusing on moderator variables, proposes that the disputes over past studies are probably due to moderator variables, which can influence the relationship between status and system justification. The third approach, based on psychological mechanisms, proposes that system justification theory cannot completely explain the psychological underpinnings of status differences in system justification, and in order to clarify this, it is necessary to explore other psychological processes. Future studies should continue to examine the mediation mechanisms and boundary conditions of the status-legitimacy hypothesis and may try to establish a nonlinear hypothesis. Moreover, researchers should also pay attention to the application of experimental methods and big-data methods.

Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications

The present paper aims at revealing and ranking the factors that most frequently cause bias in marketing-related publications. In order to rank the factors causing bias, the authors employed the Analytic Hierarchy Process method with three different scales representing all scale groups. The data for the study were obtained through expert survey, which involved nine experts both from the academia and scientific publishing community. The findings of the study confirm that factors that most frequently cause bias in marketing related publications are sampling and sample frame errors, failure to specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for researched subjects and non-responsiveness.

Subjective status and perceived legitimacy across countries

The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understanding the extent to which people with low status are complicit in their oppression. We use novel data from 66 samples and 30 countries (N = 12,788) and find that people with higher status see the social system as more legitimate than those with lower status, but there is variation across people and countries. The association between subjective status and perceived legitimacy was never negative at any levels of eight moderator variables, although the positive association was sometimes reduced. Although not always consistent with hypotheses, group identification, self-esteem, and beliefs in social mobility were all associated with perceived legitimacy among people who have low subjective status. These findings enrich our understanding of the relationship between social status and legitimacy.

Psychology of Turkish University Students as Electorate: The Mediating Role of Political Trust

Turkey has been ruled by a secular and democratic government since 1923 under the name of ‘the Republic of Turkey’. In this rarely examined culture, we tested the effects of political trust(PT), social values(SV), system justification(SJ) and social dominance orientation(SDO) on university students’ intention of voting before the June 2015 election. Depending on the theory of planned behavior and the cognitive hierarchy model of human behavior, it is conceptualized that SV, SJ and SDO are placed higher in cognitive structure than PT, therefore PT would mediate the relations between those cognitions and the intention of voting. About 300 university students completed the following questionnaires: PVQ-R, Political Trust, Social Dominance Orientation, and System Justification Scales, in addition to intention of voting, and demographics. Results show that conservation and social dominance orientation was positively related to the intention of voting for MHP and openness to change and system justification was positively related to intention of voting for AKP. When we tested the role of mediation for PT; we have found extensive evidence that, the relationships between SV (i.e. openness to change), SJ, and SDO and intention of voting for AKP and MHP were significantly mediated by PT. Ideological differences between and within left and right wing parties in Turkey were discussed to explain the results.

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.

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.

Individual differences in system justification predict power and morality-related needs in advantaged and disadvantaged groups in response to group disparity

Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members’ needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies ( N = 819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup’s morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members’ responses to social inequality.