System Justification Theory
From PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki
System Justification Theory (SJT) postulates that human beings possess a psychological tendency to justify and rationalize the social, economic, political and cultural status quo, so that the preexisting system appears just, legitimate, acceptable, inevitable and natural. SJT grew out of efforts to expand upon and draw connections between a number of already established studies, including Marxist and feminist theories concerning the role of ideology; cognitive dissonance theory belief in a just world theory; and social identity theory. System Justification theory can be used to explain the seemingly paradoxical conservatism of the lower classes and oppressed minorities.
Contents |
Ideology and System Justification
The justification process involves the adoption of an ideology that supports the status quo. The presence of inequality within a society contradicts the belief in the justness of society; such disparity creates a conflict which is resolved through the use of certain ideologies. These ideologies are meant to explain the inequalities and injustices of a given society as either inevitable or the result of the failings of the disadvantaged groups (who are themselves blamed for their poverty and low status). Furthermore, they are meant to instill the belief that the socio-economic and political environment is fair and just.Jost and Hunyady (2005) enumerated a number of such ideologies that exist within Western Capitalistic countries. Among them are the Protestant Work Ethic (The belief that hard work is a virtuous activity which has value within its self), meritocracy, belief in a just world, free market ideology (the belief that the workings and end results of the laissez-faire market are just and unavoidable even if unequal), political conservatism, opposition to equality and forms of Social Darwinism and elitism.
Stereotypes and System Justification
The role of stereotypes within SJT is to justify injustices and inequalities within society. System justification stereotypes attribute the misfortunes of disadvantaged groups to the alleged traits and characteristics of that group as a whole. As postulated by Kay et al (2007) two different types of stereotypes can used to justify the prevailing status quo: Status congruent stereotypes and complementary stereotypes. Status congruent stereotypes correlate higher social status with better qualities and lower status with lesser qualities. Thus the dominating groups in society are bestowed with positive attributes (such as integrity, thrift, strong work ethic etc…) while oppressed groups are associated with negative qualities (such as laziness and dishonesty). Through congruent stereotypes, the social hierarchy is seen as a function of the deservedness of society’s constituent groups. More effective at system justification are complimentary stereotypes which attribute both good and bad qualities to all subsets in society. Complimentary stereotypes allot both advantaged and disadvantaged groups benefits and liabilities. For example, African Americans are stereotyped both as aggressive (a negative stereotype) and athletic (a positive stereotype). According to Kay et al (2007), complimentary stereotypes are so effective because they present a more fair view of the racial, ethnic and class-based playing field. They imply that no one race or social group has a complete monopoly on skills and that each race has some asset to offer. In this sense, complimentary stereotypes justify the status quo by presenting it as fair and by postulating a form of racial, class and ethnic equality in terms of division of labor in which each social group makes some contribution.
Dispositional and Situational Antecedents to System Justification
The extent to which individuals engage in system justification depends both on situational and dispositional factors. According to Jost and Hunyady (2005) there are several important dispositional factors that facilitate system justification. 1. High need for closure, order, certainty and structure 2. Heightened sensitivity to dangers of the social world, belief in a hostile dangerous world. 3. The lack of curiosity, flexibility, creativeness and openness to novel experiences. People with a heightened fear of ambiguity and social violence are much less likely to support novel or unprecedented reforms because they fear the unpredictable nature of change and prefer to maintain the status quo, even at the cost of stifling needed changes. System justification increases when the system is perceived to be under attach or threat, either literally or symbolically, or during times of heightened mortality salience and existential recognition of the inevitability of death. For example, Jost and Hunyady (2005) suggest that following 9/11 (which evoked both threats to the status quo and mortality anxiety) there was an outburst of support for the Republican government, by both conservatives and liberals.
The Political, Social and Economic Consequences of System Justification
The individual effects of system justification vary according to the individual’s status as either advantaged or disadvantaged (Jost and Hunyady, 2005). Low status groups are likely to experience a decline in in-group favoritism and an increase in out-group favoritism. In contrast, high status groups will experience an increase in in-group favoritism. Further more, members of low status groups who engage in system justification will exhibit lower individual and group self esteem, the opposite holds true for high status groups. Both disadvantaged and advantaged groups experience an increase in the perceived legitimacy of the system, and a corollary lack of support for social change. Both groups also experience increase in positive emotions. System justification also leads to a reduction in moral outrage, guilt (in high status members) and frustration (in low status members). Since these conditions are necessary for social change, system justification dissolves the motivation for social change. Jost and Hunyaydy (2002) theorized that the most disadvantaged groups in society would be the exhibit the strongest tendencies to engage in systems justification, due to the same principles as effort justification and cognitive dissonance.
Why do people engage in systems justification?
According to Jost and Hunyady (2005), systems justification serves a hedonic function, in that it grants people a degree of trust and optimism for the future (2005). Furthermore, there are interpersonal reasons to support the status quo, as Kay et al (2007) notes, other humans, particularly those who accept system justifying ideologies will reject and chastise any individual who brings attention to the moral or material shortcomings of the status quo.
Evidence
One study preformed by Kay and his colleagues found that people willingly change their system justification ideologies when they perceive change to the status quo to be imminent (2007). This study suggests that people adopt different ideologies in order to legitimize the status quo. The independent variable was the likelihood that a tuition increase would be implemented in the university. It was found that students who were told that tuition increases were very likely, were more likely to increase their favorable views of the increases, thus exhibiting a system justification of a likely event. However, when the likelihood of the tuition is presented as unlikely, students decrease their evaluation of the perceived as a threat to the status quo, thus exhibiting system justification.
References
Kay, Aaron, Jost, John T., Mandisodza, Anesu N., Sherman, Stephen J., Petrocelli, John V., and Johnson, Amy L. “Panglossian Ideology in the Service of System Justification: How Complimentary Stereotypes Help us Justify Inequality”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 39 (2007): 305-358.
Jost, John T., and Hunyady, Orsolya. “Antecedents and Consequences of System Justification Ideologies”. American Psychological Foundation. 14 (2005): 260-264.
Jost, John T., and Hunyady, Orsolya. “The Psychology of System Justification and the Palliative Function of Ideology”. European Review of Social Psychology. 13 (2002): 111-153.
--Pancho Debord-Michael Hobin 09:19, 1 May 2008 (PDT)
