Can moral convictions against gender inequality overpower system justification effects? Examining the interaction between moral conviction and system justification

Reducing economic inequality is 'just right': Moral conviction predicts support for redistributive government policies

Individuals may support economic redistribution because of practical considerations, but also because they perceive it as morally necessary according to their personal ethical beliefs. Across three studies, we investigated whether attitudes towards reducing economic inequality can be experienced with moral conviction (i.e. perceived as rooted in one's core beliefs about right and wrong) and motivate support for redistributive government policies. In Study 1 (N = 138), reducing economic inequality moral conviction scores were comparable to other highly moralized topics (e.g. euthanasia) and higher than lowly moralized topics (e.g. tattoos). In Study 2 (N = 325) and Study 3 (N = 271), the moral conviction for reducing economic inequality positively predicted support for several redistributive government policies. Additionally, while empathic concern (Study 2 and 3) provided mixed results, structural causal attributions (Study 3) mediated this effect. Therefore, our findings highlight the importance of personal moral significance in understanding what motivates support for redistributive policies.

Men's reactions to gender inequality in the workplace: From relative deprivation on behalf of women to collective action

Over recent years, the role of men as women's allies in the struggle for gender equality has become increasingly important. Previous research has shown that often men do not fight gender inequalities as they fail to recognize the severity of discrimination against women (e.g., in hiring). In this study (N = 427), we examined whether men who experienced relative deprivation on behalf of women-a form of relative deprivation that stems from the awareness that women hold a less privileged position in society-were more motivated to engage in collective action to support gender equality in the workplace. The findings showed that men's feelings of deprivation on behalf of women were associated with a greater willingness to engage in collective action for gender equality. This relationship was sequentially mediated by two emotional reactions related to deprivation-increased guilt about gender inequalities and decreased fear of a potential backlash-and the moral conviction of acting for gender equality. These results suggest that men's awareness of gender inequality at work is an important antecedent to their acting in solidarity with women and that emotions and moral conviction are two psychological processes that turn cognition into behavior. Action to reduce gender inequalities should make men more sensitive to seeing that they hold a privileged position in society and to recognizing the pervasive and harmful nature of women's deprivation.

Together to Welcome, Together to Exclude

Abstract. This preregistered study examined whether positive and negative intergroup contact with migrants relates to collective action supporting and opposing migrants as well as to interpersonal exclusion toward them via the key processes identified in the Social Identity Model of Collective Action. Structural equation models conducted on cross-sectional data from 506 Italian and English participants showed that positive (negative) contact related to higher (lower) collective inclusion and lower (higher) collective and interpersonal exclusion of migrants via group anger, identification, and efficacy. Considering positive and negative contact, collective action pro and against migrants and interpersonal behaviors simultaneously, this study provided a nuanced picture of the antecedents and processes underlying the advantaged group members’ behaviors toward migrants.

"The New State That We Are Building": Authoritarianism and System-Justification in an Illiberal Democracy

The authoritarian personality is characterized by unquestionining obedience and respect to authority. System justification theory (SJT) argues that people are motivated to defend, bolster, and justify aspects of existing social, economic, and political systems. Commitment to the status quo is also a key characteristic of the authoritarian personality. It can be argued that the social context matters for how an underlying latent authoritarian character is expressed. This means that authoritarian regimes could be expected to lead to increased authoritarianism and stronger system-justification. We investigated this hypothesis in two representative samples of Hungarians, collected before (2010) and after (2018) 8 years of Fidesz' rule (N = 1,000 in both samples). Moreover, the strong version of SJT argues that members of disadvantaged groups are likely to experience the most cognitive dissonance and that the need to reduce this dissonance makes them the most supportive of the status quo. This argument dovetails nicely with claims made by the political opposition to Fidesz, according to which Fidesz is especially popular among low-status members of society. We found that measures assessing authoritarian tendencies did not change between 2010 and 2018. However, more specific beliefs and attitudes did change, and these effects were especially pronounced among Fidesz supporters. Their belief in a just world and a just system has grown stronger, while their attitudes toward migrants had hardened. Low status was associated with lower levels of system-justifying ideologies. However, low status Fidesz voters justified the system more than high status opposition voters in 2018, lending some support for the strong version of SJT. Our results suggest that beliefs and attitudes of Hungarians have changed between 2010 and 2018, and that political leadership played a crucial role in this.