On Social Stability and Social Change

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 360-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron C. Kay ◽  
Justin Friesen

More than a decade of research from the perspective of system-justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994) has demonstrated that people engage in motivated psychological processes that bolster and support the status quo. We propose that this motive is highly contextual: People do not justify their social systems at all times but are more likely to do so under certain circumstances. We describe four contexts in which people are prone to engage in system-justifying processes: (a) system threat, (b) system dependence, (c) system inescapability, and (d) low personal control. We describe how and why, in these contexts, people who wish to promote social change might expect resistance.

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 260-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
John T. Jost ◽  
Orsolya Hunyady

According to system justification theory, there is a psychological motive to defend and justify the status quo. There are both dispositional antecedents (e.g., need for closure, openness to experience) and situational antecedents (e.g., system threat, mortality salience) of the tendency to embrace system-justifying ideologies. Consequences of system justification sometimes differ for members of advantaged versus disadvantaged groups, with the former experiencing increased and the latter decreased self-esteem, well-being, and in-group favoritism. In accordance with the palliative function of system justification, endorsement of such ideologies is associated with reduced negative affect for everyone, as well as weakened support for social change and redistribution of resources.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Mollie A. Price-Blackshear

System justification theory suggests that advantaged groups in society frequently express ingroup favoritism and outgroup bias, whereas disadvantaged groups express outgroup favoritism. These tendencies are likely to occur when individuals are motivated to perceive the system as legitimate. This motivation is driven by uncertainty regarding unstable systems. Mindfulness practices emphasize open acceptance and awareness of thoughts and experiences. Participation in mindfulness can engender, among other things, greater acceptance of outgroup members. The current study examined whether mindfulcompassion practice reduced system justification, and whether system threat undermined this influence. Unexpectedly, the results suggest that mindful-compassion lead to more favorable intergroup attitudes under high system threat (i.e., lower race-system justification, lower negative attitudes, and higher othergroup orientation). In addition, interactions for negative racial attitudes and othergroup orientation were qualified by internal motivation to control prejudice. This study was the first to experimentally test them impact of mindfulness on system justification. In addition, it is the first to examine empirically whether compassion meditation is associated with assessments of unjust social systems and attitudes toward ethnic outgroup members, and the extent to which system threat undermines this effect. Key words: mindfulness, compassion meditation, system justification, system threat, intergroup relations, outgroup attitudes


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Jost ◽  
Mahzarin R. Banaji ◽  
Brian A. Nosek

Most theories in social and political psychology stress self-interest, intergroup conflict, ethnocentrism, homophily, ingroup bias, outgroup antipathy, dominance, and resistance. System justification theory is influenced by these perspectives—including social identity and social dominance theories—but it departs from them in several respects. Specifically, we argue that (a) there is a general ideological motive to justify the existing social order, (b) this motive is at least partially responsible for the internalization of inferiority among members of disadvantaged groups, and (c) paradoxically, it is sometimes strongest among those who are most harmed by the status quo. In this article, we review and integrate 10 years of research on 20 hypotheses derived from a system justification perspective, focusing especially on the phenomenon of implicit outgroup favoritism among members of disadvantaged groups (including African Americans, the elderly, and gays/lesbians) and its relation to political ideology (especially liberalism-conservatism).


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J. Thomas ◽  
Spencer Harris

PurposeThe status quo for managing deviant workplace behavior is underperforming. The current research offers a new approach for scholars and managers in approaching these misbehaviors. Namely, we outline how system justification theory, which holds that people are motivated to rationalize and justify the systems—including workplaces—to which they belong even when those systems disadvantage them or others, offers value in explaining and addressing the prevalence of such misbehaviors and contemporary failures in managing them.Design/methodology/approachThis conceptual research explores the situated role of onlookers to patterns of workplace misbehavior, like harassment. We explore existing scholarship on why and how onlookers respond to such actions, including cultural elements, and draw parallels between those accounts and the foundational concepts of system justification theory to demonstrate an unrealized theoretical overlap valuable for its immediate applications in research.FindingsThe current paper establishes clear links between system justification theory and efforts to manage misbehavior, establishing system justifications as freezing forces in the culture of a workplace that must be unfrozen to successfully implement strategies for managing misbehavior. Further, we describe how organizational onlookers to misbehavior are subject to system justifications, which limit prescribed means of stopping these patterns of wrongdoing.Originality/valueVery limited organizational scholarship has utilized system justification theory, despite calls for such applications. Given the existing shortcomings in scholarship and management approaches to workplace misbehavior, the current research breaks from the status quo and offers an established theory as a new way to approach these misbehaviors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 408-427
Author(s):  
Elaine Bell Kaplan

Sociology is being challenged by the new generation of students and scholars who have another view of society. Millennial/Gen Zs are the most progressive generation since the 1960s. We have had many opportunities to discuss and imagine power, diversity, and social change when we teach them in our classes or attend their campus events. Some Millennial/Gen Z believe, especially those in academia, that social scientists are tied to old theories and ideologies about race and gender, among other inconsistencies. These old ideas do not resonate with their views regarding equity. Millennials are not afraid to challenge the status quo. They do so already by supporting multiple gender and race identities. Several questions come to mind. How do we as sociologists with our sense of history and other issues such as racial and gender inequality help them along the way? Are we ready for this generation? Are they ready for us?


2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 240-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron C. Kay ◽  
John T. Jost ◽  
Sean Young

Numerous studies have documented the potential for victim-blaming attributions to justify the status quo. Recent work suggests that complementary, victim-enhancing stereotypes may also increase support for existing social arrangements. We seek to reconcile these seemingly contradictory findings by proposing that victim derogation and victim enhancement are alternate routes to system justification, with the preferred route depending on the perception of a causal link between trait and outcome. Derogating “losers” (and lionizing “winners”) on traits (e.g., intelligence) that are causally related to outcomes (e.g., wealth vs. poverty) serves to increase system justification, as does compensating “losers” (and down-grading “winners”) on traits (e.g., physical attractiveness) that are causally unrelated to those outcomes. We provide converging evidence using system-threat and stereotype-activation paradigms.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 147470491876534 ◽  
Author(s):  
John T. Jost ◽  
Robert M. Sapolsky ◽  
H. Hannah Nam

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.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuma Kevin Owuamalam ◽  
Mark Rubin ◽  
Russell Spears

Is support for societal systems amongst the disadvantaged driven by an (un)conscious system justification motive that is independent from self-interests? System justification theory (SJT; Jost & Banaji, 1994) is unique in its affirmative answer to this question. SJT proposes (a) that support for societal systems operates in the service of maintaining the status quo, (b) that the evidence for this system justification motive lies with the fact that members of disadvantaged groups (un)consciously support societal systems that are detrimental to their interests, and (c) that these processes are most apparent when group interests are weak. The present article reviews emerging evidence for these propositions and concludes that: (a) an unconscious manifestation of system justification is unlikely based on SJT’s “strong” dissonance-based predictions, which assumes that competing group and system motives are cognitively salient, and (b) a conscious system justification motive is also unlikely amongst the disadvantaged when group interests are weak. In addition, we suggest ways in which to explain system justification effects amongst the disadvantaged without recourse to an (un)conscious system justification motive.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanne M Watkins

There is currently extensive debate in psychological science about how to improve the field’s replicability (e.g. Lindsay, 2015). In this paper I explore the meta-scientific question of who is pushing for changes to the way research is done, and why. I aim to contribute to the debate in 2 ways: First, I use system justification theory (SJT; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) to derive (pre-registered) hypotheses about differences between junior and senior researchers, and as a framework for reflecting on the current debate. Results show that tenured social psychologists are more likely to defend the status quo, and to perceive more costs (relative to benefits) to proposed initiatives such as direct replications and pre-registration, than are those who are untenured. Second, all materials and the data from 406 research psychologists are available on the OSF, and I invite other researchers to make full use of them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document