Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
System Justification (system + justification)
Selected AbstractsSocial Identity, System Justification, and Social Dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al.POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 6 2004Mark Rubin The articles by Reicher (2004), Jost, Banaji, and Nosek (2004), and Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar, and Levin (2004) discuss the strengths and weaknesses of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), and social dominance theory (Sidanius, 1993). The latter two theories grew out of a critique of social identity theory, but this critique relates more to deficiencies in social identity research than to deficiencies in the theory itself. More balanced and comprehensive social identity research is required in order to allow a fair assessment of the theory's limitations. In addition, Reicher (2004) and Huddy (2004) are correct that only social identity theory offers the potential for explaining social change and social stability. [source] Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantagedEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 1 2003John T. Jost According to system justification theory, people are motivated to preserve the belief that existing social arrangements are fair, legitimate, justifiable, and necessary. The strongest form of this hypothesis, which draws on the logic of cognitive dissonance theory, holds that people who are most disadvantaged by the status quo would have the greatest psychological need to reduce ideological dissonance and would therefore be most likely to support, defend, and justify existing social systems, authorities, and outcomes. Variations on this hypothesis were tested in five US national survey studies. We found that (a) low-income respondents and African Americans were more likely than others to support limitations on the rights of citizens and media representatives to criticize the government; (b) low-income Latinos were more likely to trust in US government officials and to believe that ,the government is run for the benefit of all' than were high-income Latinos; (c) low-income respondents were more likely than high-income respondents to believe that large differences in pay are necessary to foster motivation and effort; (d) Southerners in the USA were more likely to endorse meritocratic belief systems than were Northerners and poor and Southern African Americans were more likely to subscribe to meritocratic ideologies than were African Americans who were more affluent and from the North; (e) low-income respondents and African Americans were more likely than others to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary; and (f) stronger endorsement of meritocratic ideology was associated with greater satisfaction with one's own economic situation. Taken together, these findings are consistent with the dissonance-based argument that people who suffer the most from a given state of affairs are paradoxically the least likely to question, challenge, reject, or change it. Implications for theories of system justification, cognitive dissonance, and social change are also discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] System-perpetuating asymmetries between explicit and implicit intergroup attitudes among indigenous and non-indigenous ChileansASIAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 3 2010Andrés Haye The present research demonstrates a dissociation between explicit and implicit intergroup evaluation in the reciprocal attitudes between indigenous (Mapuche) and non-indigenous Chileans. In both social groups, the explicit measures of attitudes towards the respective in-group and out-group were compared with the Implicit Association Test scores. The results indicate that the members of the low-status minority might explicitly express a moderate evaluative preference for their in-group but might implicitly devalue it. Conversely, the members of the high-status majority might implicitly devalue their out-group but might explicitly express no bias. These results are theoretically framed in terms of system justification, conventional stereotypes and motivated correction processes. [source] | ||||||||||