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.

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).

Moralities, cultural fit and life satisfaction

The study aims to contribute to the literature by investigating the relationships among moralities, cultural fit and life satisfaction. Data are drawn from a representative sample of Türkiye, a country with a permanent record of low well-being scores and indications of polarisation over moral values. Consistent with the hypotheses, binding morality is found to have a strong overall positive effect on life satisfaction, both directly and indirectly via cultural fit. Additionally, results substantiate the prediction that individualising morality will be associated with diminished life satisfaction. Nonetheless, analyses regarding cultural fit exhibit mixed results and should be interpreted with caution. Findings are discussed within the context of the literature and in relation to sociopolitical leanings currently observed in Türkiye.

Combatting Election Stress: Anticipatory Coping and Daily Self-Reported Physical Health

This study's purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of anticipatory coping as a possible mechanism to reduce daily self-reported physical health consequences of forecasting election-related stress. Elections are often stressful for people. However, the research on possible physical consequences of anticipated election-related stress and ways to counter its impact is limited. We used data from the 2018 U.S. Midterm Election Stress Coping and Prevention Every Day (ESCAPED) study, which provided daily diary responses from 140 participants across the U.S. and American Samoa, ages 19-86. Participants were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (mTurk) and were asked to fill out an online survey each day for 22 days before, the day of, and 7 days after the 2018 U.S. midterm election, which fell on November 6, 2018. Questions involved forecasting election-related stress, four forms of anticipatory coping, and daily self-reported physical health. Results from multilevel models suggested that on days when participants experienced an increase in their forecasting of election-related stressors and also experienced a decrease in their anticipatory coping related to problem analysis, their daily self-reported physical health decreased. These results highlight the role that future-oriented tactics could play in managing the physical consequences of election-related stress.

Three Dimensions of American Conservative Political Orientation Differentially Predict Negativity Bias and Satisfaction With Life

Numerous studies have linked political conservatism with negativity bias, whereas others have linked conservatism with indicators of positive adjustment. This research sought to reconcile this seeming contradiction by examining whether distinct dimensions of conservatism differentially predicted measures of negativity bias and positive adjustment. In two studies, we used an empirically derived and validated Attitude-Based Political Conservatism (ABPC) Scale that captures three correlated but distinct factors of American conservatism: Libertarian Independence, Moral Traditionalism, and Ethnic Separateness. In both studies ( N = 1,756), Libertarian Independence was linked with indicators of positive adjustment, whereas Moral Traditionalism and Ethnic Separateness were linked with indices of negativity bias. By identifying which dimensions of conservatism predict negativity bias and positive adjustment, this work illuminates the unique psychological foundations of distinct strands of conservatism in America.

The Dark Triad Traits and the Prediction of Eudaimonic Wellbeing

Although numerous studies have focused on personality traits related to well-being, the relationship between the Dark Triad Traits and eudaimonic well-being is still unclear. The purpose of the present study was to explore how the Dark Triad Traits (i.e., narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) affect eudaimonic well-being. Further, this study also aimed to explore the mediation effect of family support and hedonic wellbeing. The results showed that the present model had a good model fit (χ²/df = 1.91, p < 0.001, comparative-fit-index (CFI) = 0.96, tucker-lewis-index (TLI) = 0.95, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.04). There is a significant association between the Dark Triad Traits and eudaimonic wellbeing. Specifically, narcissism directly predicts eudaimonic wellbeing, while the effects of Machiavellianism and psychopathy on eudaimonic wellbeing are serial two-mediator models, which are mediated by family support and hedonic wellbeing. The results would enrich theoretical studies on personality while providing some practical evidence on how to improve the subjective well-being of individuals.

Beyond Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness: Testing links between lower-level personality traits and American political orientation

INTRODUCTION

Research has consistently revealed positive correlations between political liberalism and Openness to Experience, and between conservatism and Conscientiousness. Most of this research has made use of domain-level models of the Big Five personality traits. Recent work suggests, however, that each Big Five trait domain can be divided into distinct aspects or facets, which offer more nuanced characterizations of each trait.

METHODS

Across four studies (Ns ranging from 1,123 to 116,406), the present research examined the degree to which distinct lower-level traits would be associated with meaningful differences in political orientation. United States residents completed two different hierarchical Big Five personality measures (the Big Five Aspect Scales and the Big Five Inventory-2), as well as a range of measures of political orientation.

RESULTS

Across both personality measures, liberal political orientation showed distinct positive associations with the lower-level traits Openness/Aesthetic Sensitivity, Intellect/Intellectual Curiosity, Compassion, and Withdrawal/Depression, as well as distinct negative associations with Orderliness/Organization, Politeness, and Assertiveness.

DISCUSSION

By examining individual differences at a higher level of granularity, these data provide insight into specific motivations that predispose individuals toward different ends of the political spectrum.

Conservatives Are Happier than Liberals: the Mediating Role of Perceived Goal Progress and Flow Experience — a Pilot Study

Authors presume that conservatives would be happier than liberals because they would develop better mental adjustment especially under contextual threat. The present study aimed at examining whether self-regulatory factors (i.e., dispositional self-control, perception of goal progress, dispositional flow, and dispositional neurotic self-attentiveness) could mediate the link between conservatism and subjective well-being (SWB). It also aimed at testing the view that contextual threat (operationalized through undesired unemployment) may moderate the relationship between conservatism and the mediators under study. In order to examine this, 418 North-American participants from the United States (66.7% females and 33.3% males; Mage = 33.63, SDage = 11.64) answered questionnaires via an online platform, and structural equation model or path analyses were conducted. Main results revealed that: (a) conservatism positively predicted SWB, whereas undesired unemployment negatively predicted SWB; (b) perception of goal progress and dispositional flow fully mediated the conservative-SWB gap; and (c) dispositional self-control was highest in conservatives under contextual threat of undesired unemployment. Finally, this study suggests that conservatives can experience higher SWB because of adaptive cognitive adjustments. Moreover, this study suggests that the rationalization of inequality can have a self-enhancement function that bolsters self-regulation process when exposed to threatening contexts.

Right-wing populism and self-rated health in Europe: a multilevel analysis

BACKGROUND

Individuals who identify as politically conservative have been previously shown to report better self-rated health compared with liberals. We tested whether this association still holds for right-wing populists, which are gaining strength as a political force in Europe in recent decades.

METHODS

We analysed data from 24 617 respondents nested within 18 European countries included in the 2016 European Social Survey. Multilevel analyses were conducted to assess the association between political ideology and self-rated health, adjusting for other individual covariates (happiness and social capital).

RESULTS

Individuals who voted for right-wing populist parties were 43% more likely to report fair/poor health compared with traditional conservatives (OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.67). The association was attenuated (OR=1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42) after controlling for additional individual-level variables, including happiness and access to social capital. Higher levels of social capital (informal networks, OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.56; trust, OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92) and happiness (OR=0.18, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.22) were protectively correlated with fair/poor self-rated health.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals voting for right-wing populist parties report worse health compared with conservatives. It remains unclear whether ideology is just a marker for health-related practices, or whether the values and beliefs associated with a particular brand of ideology lead to worse health.

Speculations on the Evolutionary Origins of System Justification

For centuries, philosophers and social theorists have wondered why people submit voluntarily to tyrannical leaders and oppressive regimes. In this article, we speculate on the evolutionary origins of system justification, that is, the ways in which people are motivated (often nonconsciously) to defend and justify existing social, economic, and political systems. After briefly recounting the logic of system justification theory and some of the most pertinent empirical evidence, we consider parallels between the social behaviors of humans and other animals concerning the acceptance versus rejection of hierarchy and dominance. Next, we summarize research in human neuroscience suggesting that specific brain regions, such as the amygdala and the anterior cingulate cortex, may be linked to individual differences in ideological preferences concerning (in)equality and social stability as well as the successful navigation of complex, hierarchical social systems. Finally, we consider some of the implications of a system justification perspective for the study of evolutionary psychology, political behavior, and social change.

State Resident Neuroticism Accounts for Life Satisfaction Differences Between Conservative and Liberal States of the USA

Past research indicates associations between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction, lower neuroticism and higher life satisfaction, and higher conservatism and lower neuroticism. Qualified deduction led to the following hypothesis: Neuroticism can account for the association between higher conservatism and higher life satisfaction. The 50 American states served as the units of analysis. Responses of 619,397 residents to the 44-item Big Five Inventory in an internet survey conducted from 1999 to 2005 provided mean neuroticism scores for each state. Conservative-liberal leaning of over 84,000 respondents to CBS News/New York Times polls from 1999 to 2003 and the percent voting Republican in each state in the 2000 to 2008 presidential elections combined to form a conservatism score for each state. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index provided life satisfaction scores for over 1,000,000 respondents, transforming to a 2008 to 2010 composite score for each state. In a sequential multiple regression equation with life satisfaction as the criterion, state socioeconomic status and white population percent entered first as a block, conservatism entered second, and neuroticism entered third, the demographic controls accounted for 45.7% of the variance, conservatism accounted for another 10.4%, and neuroticism accounted for an additional 10.6%. However, with the entry order of conservatism and neuroticism reversed, neuroticism accounted for another 19.6% but conservatism accounted for only an additional nonsignificant 1.4%. Therefore, the hypothesis was supported. Three alternative explanations suggested by other researchers were not supported in the state-level analysis.