Individual Differences in the Resistance to Social Change and Acceptance of Inequality Predict System Legitimacy Differently Depending on the Social Structure

When Social Hierarchy, Power, and Collective Autonomy Motivate Social Movement and Counter-Movement Mobilization Among Disadvantaged and Advantaged Groups

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

What happens when disadvantaged groups feel that their freedom to define and practice their collective identity (i.e., collective autonomy) is restricted? The present theoretical review outlines the conditions under which social inequality activates the feelings of collective autonomy restriction among disadvantaged group members and motivates the mobilization of social movements seeking social equality. As these social movements gain traction, advantaged group members may feel that their privileged position and collective autonomy are threatened. These feelings of threat and collective autonomy restriction among advantaged groups in turn motivate them to mobilize counter-movements that seek to protect social hierarchy and their privileged position within it. The process outlined in this case is relevant to individuals from both marginalized and privileged backgrounds, as it illustrates the different ways in which real-world power structures shape the way they experience and navigate social movements and counter-movements as they unfold in real time.

The association between system-justifying ideologies and attitudes toward the social market economy in Germany

Although the legitimacy of an economic system is often dependent on citizen support, psychological research has paid little attention to attitudes toward economic systems. In the present study, we examined the link between two system-justifying ideologies, namely, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), and attitudes toward the social market economy in Germany. Drawing on system justification theory, we hypothesized that RWA would be positively and SDO negatively associated with support for the social market economy because the social component of the German economic system conflicts with beliefs inherent in SDO favoring a group-based hierarchy. Based on a quota sample of German adults (N = 886), we found support for the predicted associations of both system-justifying ideologies with economic system support, except that RWA was negatively associated with support for the welfare component of the social market economy. However, the positive relationship of RWA with support for the social market economy only emerged after SDO was statistically controlled, suggesting a suppressor situation. These findings demonstrate that system-justifying ideologies bear different relations to pro-market attitudes depending on the type of economic regime. Implications for system justification theory are discussed.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04483-7.

System Justification or Social Dominance? A Multilevel Test of the Ideological Motivators of Perceived Discrimination

Although system-justifying beliefs often mitigate perceptions of discrimination, status-based asymmetries in the ideological motivators of perceived discrimination are unknown. Because the content and societal implications of discrimination claims are status-dependant, social dominance orientation (SDO) should motivate perceptions of (reverse) discrimination among members of high-status groups, whereas system justification should motivate the minimization of perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. We tested these hypotheses using multilevel regressions among a nationwide random sample of New Zealand Europeans (n = 29,169) and ethnic minorities (n = 5,118). As hypothesized, group-based dominance correlated positively with perceived (reverse) discrimination among ethnic-majority group members, whereas system justification correlated negatively with perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. Furthermore, the proportion of minorities within the region strengthened the victimizing effects of SDO-Dominance, but not SDO-Egalitarianism, among the advantaged. Together, these results reveal status-based asymmetries in the motives underlying perceptions of discrimination and identify a key contextual moderator of this association.

Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy

We discuss the idea that competition-based motives boost low-status group members’ support for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Specifically, the more low-status group members feel motivated to compete with a relevant high-status outgroup, based on the belief that existing status positions may be reversed, the more they will defend status differentials (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO). Using minimal groups (N = 113), we manipulated ingroup (low vs. high) status, and primed unstable status positions to all participants. As expected, we found that SDO positively mediates the relation between ingroup identification and collective action, when ingroup’s status is perceived to be low and status positions are perceived as highly unstable. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality, and the advantages of considering ideological processes in predicting collective action.

Social Dominance Orientation Boosts Collective Action Among Low-Status Groups

We propose that low-status group members' support for group-based hierarchy and inequality (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) may represent an ideological strategy to guarantee the legitimacy of future ingroup status-enhancement. Specifically, we argue that, under unstable social structure conditions, SDO serves as an ideological justification for collective action tendencies aimed at competing for a higher status. In such context, SDO should be positively related with actions aimed to favor the ingroup (i.e., collective actions) by increasing group members' motivation to engage in direct competition with a relevant higher-status outgroup. We conducted two studies under highly competitive and unstable social structure contexts using real life groups. In Study 1 (N = 77), we induced Low vs. High Ingroup (University) Status and in Study 2 (N = 220) we used competing sports groups. Overall, results showed that, among members of low-status groups, SDO consistently increased individuals' motivation to get involved in actions favoring the ingroup, by boosting their motivation to compete with the opposing high-status outgroup. We discuss the results in light of the social dominance and collective action framework.

Revisiting the status-legitimacy hypothesis: Concepts, boundary conditions, and psychological mechanisms

The status-legitimacy hypothesis proposes that low-status groups are more inclined to justify the status quo as fair and legitimate than high-status groups. Although there are some research evidences for this hypothesis, many studies have found the opposite result, that disadvantaged groups are more dissatisfied with the social system. To resolve this disagreement, this article integrates relevant ideas and empirical research in three aspects. First, the conceptual approach emphasises that the controversy is a result of different operational definitions of social status and system justification in previous studies. The second approach, focusing on moderator variables, proposes that the disputes over past studies are probably due to moderator variables, which can influence the relationship between status and system justification. The third approach, based on psychological mechanisms, proposes that system justification theory cannot completely explain the psychological underpinnings of status differences in system justification, and in order to clarify this, it is necessary to explore other psychological processes. Future studies should continue to examine the mediation mechanisms and boundary conditions of the status-legitimacy hypothesis and may try to establish a nonlinear hypothesis. Moreover, researchers should also pay attention to the application of experimental methods and big-data methods.

Examining the relational underpinnings and consequences of system-justifying beliefs: Explaining the palliative effects of system justification

People often perceive social systems as fair and legitimate in order to satisfy existential, epistemic, and relational needs. Although much work has examined the existential and epistemic roots to system justification, the relational motives underlying the tendency to justify the system have received comparatively less attention. We addressed this oversight by examining the associations approach and avoidance relational goals have with system justification in a national probability sample (N = 21,938). Consistent with the thesis that the need to belong motivates system justification, avoidance goals (i.e., the desire to avoid social conflict) correlated positively with system justification (approach goals also unexpectedly correlated positively with system justification). Also as hypothesized, system justification mediated the relationship between avoidance goals and belongingness. Moreover, system justification mediated the relationship between avoidance goals and belongingness. Finally, sequential mediation analyses revealed that avoidance goals predicted higher well-being via system justification and belongingness. This study is the first to demonstrate that system justification confers palliative benefits by satisfying two different relational goals.

The Evolution of Social Beliefs 1960-2016 in the United States and Its Influence on Empathy and Prosocial Expression in Medicine

This perspective surveys healthcare's response to the increased prominence of racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities as well as females in American culture. It argues for understanding physicians both as products of the broader society and its changes. Starting in the 1960s, empiric evidence for the rise of reactionary viewpoints in response to major social movements is outlined. Structural reasons for the prevalence of such ideologies within medicine are highlighted. Its negative consequences for minority health are addressed. Finally, the author turns to compensatory strategies to improve the social environment within healthcare. Alternative selection strategies for medical school are proposed, with a stronger focus on empathetic candidates.

The Resistance to Change-Beliefs Scale: Validation of a New Measure of Conservative Ideology

The motivated social cognition (MSC) model of conservative ideology posits there are two core facets of conservative political ideology-endorsement of hierarchies and resistance to change. The present research tested the validity and reliability of a scale developed to measure resistance to change. Five studies support the validity, reliability, and factor structure of the Resistance to Change-Beliefs (RC-B) scale. Scores on the RC-B scale correlated with social and cognitive motivations as well as self-identified conservatism. RC-B also predicted more conservative stances on political issues and factor analyses supported the predicted internal structure of the RC-B scale. This provides the field with a validated instrument that avoids problems inherent in previous measures, can be used to test predictions from the MSC model, and has potential applications beyond political psychology.

Individual Differences in the Resistance to Social Change and Acceptance of Inequality Predict System Legitimacy Differently Depending on the Social Structure

We propose that individual differences in the resistance to social change and the acceptance of inequality can have divergent effects on legitimacy depending on the context. This possibility was tested in a sample of 27 European countries (N = 144 367) and across four experiments (total N = 475). Individual differences in the resistance to social change were related to higher levels of perceived legitimacy no matter the level of inequality of the society. Conversely, individual differences in the acceptance of inequality were related to higher levels of perceived legitimacy in unequal societies, but either a relationship near zero or the opposite relationship was found in more equal societies. These studies highlight the importance of distinguishing between individual differences that make up political ideology, especially when making predictions in diverse settings. © 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Personality published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Personality Psychology