Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Comparing different explanations based on system justification, multiple group membership, and positive adjustment

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.

Hurt on Both Sides: Political Differences in Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Republicans and conservatives report better self-rated health and well-being compared to Democrats and liberals, yet they are more likely to reside in geographic areas with heavy COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. This harmed health on "both sides" of political divides, occurring in a time of rapid sociopolitical upheaval, warrants the revisiting of psychosocial mechanisms linked to political health differences. Drawing on national Gallup data (early 2021), we find that predicted differences in health or well-being vary substantially by ideology, party, voting behavior, and policy beliefs, with model fit depending on how politics are measured. Differences in self-rated health, psychological distress, happiness, trouble sleeping, and delayed health care tend to reveal worse outcomes for Democrats or liberals. Such differences often are reduced to insignificance by some combination of mastery, meritocratic beliefs, perceived social support, and COVID-19-related exposures and attitudes. Policy beliefs predict health differences most robustly across outcomes and mechanism adjustments.

A Longitudinal Test of the Conservative-Liberal Well-Being Gap

In this article, we test if conservatism predicts psychological well-being longitudinally. We based the study on previous findings showing that conservatives score higher on different measures of well-being, such as life satisfaction and happiness. Most explanations in the literature have assumed that conservatism antecedes well-being without considering the alternative-that well-being may predict conservatism. In Study 1, using multilevel cross-lagged panel models with a two-wave longitudinal sample consisting of data from 19 countries (N = 8,740), we found that conservatism did not predict well-being over time. We found similar results in Study 2 (N = 2,554), using random-intercept cross-lagged panel models with a four-wave longitudinal sample from Chile. We discuss the main implications of these results for the literature examining the association between conservatism and well-being.

The Relationship Between Income Inequality and the Palliative Function of Meritocracy Belief: The Micro- and the Macro-Levels Both Count

In the current paper, we report the analysis of the relationship between meritocracy belief and subjective well-being using two large international databases, the European Social Survey Program (N = 44,387) and the European Values Study Program (N = 51,752), involving data gathered from 36 countries in total. We investigated whether low status individuals are more likely to psychologically benefit from endorsing meritocratic beliefs, and the same benefits are more pronounced in more unequal societies. Since meritocracy belief can function as a justification for income differences, we assumed that the harsher the objective reality is, the higher level of subjective well-being can be maintained by justifying this harsh reality. Therefore, we hypothesized that the palliative function of meritocracy belief is stronger for both low social status (low income) individuals, and for those living in an unequal social environment (in countries with larger income differences). Our multilevel models showed a positive relationship between meritocracy belief and subjective well-being, which relationship was moderated by both individual-level income status and country-level income differences in both studies. Based on these results, we concluded that the emotional payoff of justifying income inequalities is larger if one is more strongly affected by these inequalities.

Heteronormativity and the Justification of Gender Hierarchy: Investigating the Archival Data From 16 European Countries

Within the framework of the System Justification Theory, this study tested on the archival data from 16 European countries the general hypothesis that homonegativity (HN), as an expression of gender binarism and heteronormativity, works as a legitimizing myth of gender hierarchy. Specifically, we hypothesized that (1) system justification (SJ) would positively relate to HN and (2) this relation would depend on the country level of gender hierarchy, (3) on the gender of respondents, and (4) on the interaction between gender hierarchy and gender. We selected the Gender Equality Index (GEI) as an indicator of the gender hierarchy of the country system and the items from the European Social Survey-Round 9 (ESS-9) as the indicators of the gender of respondents and the levels of SJ and HN. The Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) partially confirmed the hypotheses, suggesting HN to work as a blatant prejudice and being more viable as a legitimizing myth in females from countries with higher gender hierarchy and in males from more gender-equal countries. In both cases, HN serves as a myth to justify the ontological premise of participants that the world is fair and to counteract the cognitive dissonance generated by the perception of a gender-unequal system (in the case of a woman) or by the perception of a gender-equal system that can threaten gender privileges (in the case of a man).

What predicts perceived economic inequality? The roles of actual inequality, system justification, and fairness considerations

Past studies have mostly focused on investigating actual economic inequality with less work devoted to understanding perceived economic inequality and its antecedents. However, numerous studies have shown that perceived inequality is a strong predictor of psychological, political, and social outcomes and hence is an important outcome in and of itself. This paper aims to identify the socioecological (i.e., actual inequality) and psychological (legitimation and fairness considerations) antecedents of perceived economic inequality. We hypothesized that individuals who legitimized income inequality would perceive less inequality, whereas individuals who experienced unfairness engendered by income inequality would perceive more inequality. We utilized a nationally representative sample in China (N = 33,600 respondents nested within 25 provinces) and conducted multilevel longitudinal analyses to test our hypotheses. In line with our predictions, we found that legitimation of inequality was associated with less perceived inequality six years later, whereas unfairness was associated with more perceived inequality six years later. In addition, we found that in more unequal areas, people perceived less income inequality. These longitudinal effects were robust when controlling for prior years of perceived inequality, economic development, and sociodemographic factors. Findings have implications for system justification and economic inequality theories.

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.

The Palliative Function of Hostile Sexism among High and Low-Status Chilean Students

Previous studies have demonstrated that justifying the social, economic, and political systems is associated with psychological well-being, which has been termed as the palliative function of ideology. However, little research has been conducted on gender stereotypes among children, comparing by socioeconomic status. This study aimed to fill this gap in the system justification literature. We present data from the Chilean version of the International Survey of Children Well-Being (ISCWeB), which was conducted in 2012. We found that the palliative function of gender stereotypes is present among this sample, being qualified by a socioeconomic status by hostile gender stereotype interaction. In other words, the effect on the psychological well-being was observed in low-status, but not in high-status students. These results extend the previous knowledge about the palliative function of the ideology, suggesting why the low-status members of a society actively engage in system justification.