System Justification Theory (PsychWiki)

Historical and Intellectual Origins of System Justification Theory

System justification theory stems partly from the concept of false consciousness, which is rooted in the work of Karl Marx. In The German Ideology. Marx and Engels (1846/1970) asserted that because the dominant groups of society control the cultural and institutional means through which ideas and beliefs are spread, such dominant ideas prevail throughout society, resulting in the systematic inversion and distortion of social and political realities through the ideological schemes of the elites. Although Marx believed that the oppressed working classes would ultimately see through the ideological illusions of the ruling class and endeavor to overthrow the capitalist system, historically, revolutions against oppressive and exploitative systems have been relatively rare. Bringing together various socialist and feminist approaches, Jost (1995) defined false consciousness as “the holding of false or inaccurate beliefs that are contrary to one’s own social interest and which thereby contribute to the maintenance of the disadvantaged position of the self or the group,” and identified at least six different types of false consciousness beliefs: (1) denial of injustice or exploitation, (2) fatalism about prospects for social change, (3) rationalization of social roles, (4) false attribution of blame, (5) identification with the oppressor, and (6) resistance to social change.

Another intellectual precursor to system justification theory was Lerner’s (1980) theory of “belief in a just world,” which posits that people tend to believe that their social world is predictable, orderly, and just. The theory of belief in a just world holds that people have a “justice motive” that leads them to fight injustice and only engage in rationalization, denial, and victim-blaming to maintain belief in a just world when they are prevented from seeking justice. In contrast, system justification theory maintains that people will defend and bolster the status quo even when potential opportunities to fight injustice are available.

System justification theory was also influenced by psychological research on stereotyping, prejudice, and the internalization of inferiority, including Gordon Allport’s (1954/1979) assertion that stereotyping serves a “rationalizing and justifying function.” System justification theory was developed in part as an effort to explain why people of considerably different statuses in society generally tend to support and justify the often unequal and discriminatory status quo. 

Epistemic, Existential, and Relational Needs

System justification motivation is believed to arise from and satisfy three distinct human needs:

1. Epistemic: needs for consistency, certainty, and meaning

2. Existential: needs to manage threat and distress

3. Relational: needs to coordinate social relationships and achieve shared reality with others 

Dispositional and Situational Antecedents of System Justification and Consequences

System justification theory holds that in general, people are motivated to defend, bolster, and justify the existing economic, social, and political arrangements and institutions. Recent research provides evidence that people from many different kinds of backgrounds appear to engage in system justification to some extent, such as people who are rich or poor, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, old or young, as well as those of varying national, ethnic, and racial backgrounds (Jost et al., 2004). Despite this general tendency, system justification motivation is expected to vary according to dispositional and situational differences. Specifically, system justification motivation increases when people feel dependent on the system, perceive the status quo as inevitable or inescapable, and perceive the system as being challenged or threatened.

When people have a heightened need to system-justify (such as when the system has been threatened), there are various means through which they can accomplish this goal of system justification, including directly endorsing certain ideologies, legitimizing existing institutions and authorities, as well as denying, minimizing, and rationalizing system problems. Often, system justification motivation is satisfied through the stereotyping of members of disadvantaged groups as less competent than members of advantaged groups. Endorsement of complementary stereotypes (e.g., “poor but honest,” “poor but happy”) by members of both disadvantaged and advantaged groups serves to perpetuate the existing hierarchy by creating an “illusion of equality” in society (Kay & Jost, 2003).

In order to defend and bolster the status quo, people can adopt various ideologies or belief systems that are system-justifying, including the Protestant work ethic, belief in a just world, meritocratic ideology, fair market ideology, benevolent sexism, social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, and political conservatism. Such ideologies and belief systems all explain the status quo in a way that maintains the general legitimacy of the existing order (Jost & Hunyady, 2005).

Long-Term Outcomes of System Justification

System justification theory predicts opposite long-term psychological consequences of defending and bolstering the status quo for members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups. For those who are favored by the existing system (members of advantaged groups), the perception of their high status in society is consistent with holding positive attitudes about their own group (group justification) and themselves (ego justification). In other words, for members of advantaged groups, system justification is positively associated with ingroup favoritism, enhanced self-esteem, and psychological well-being.

However, for those who are disfavored by the existing system (members of disadvantaged groups), there is a conflict between their need to justify the system and their motives to perceive their own group (group justification) and themselves (ego justification) positively. As a consequence, for members of disadvantaged groups, system justification is negatively associated in the long term with ingroup favoritism, self-esteem, and psychological well-being (Jost et al., 2004).

Short-Term Palliative Function of System Justification

Jost and Hunyady (2002) suggested that system justification can also serve a short-term palliative function for members of both advantaged and disadvantaged groups by increasing positive affect, decreasing negative affect, and increasing satisfaction with the status quo. For instance, Jost, Pelham, et al. (2003) found that people who tend to endorse meritocratic ideology (that is, a belief that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary in a capitalist society) have increased life satisfaction and contentment among both the poor and wealthy.

System Justification and Resistance to Change

Much of the research on system justification has demonstrated that the motivation to defend and bolster the status quo typically leads people to perceive social change as threatening to the existing social system and therefore to resist change. Wakslak et al. (2007) showed that system justification can dampen moral outrage and thereby reduce people’s intentions to help the disadvantaged.

However, some recent research suggests that people are more likely to support and engage in social change when it is perceived as inevitable or highly likely, and/or when it is perceived as consistent with and upholding the existing social system. Kay et al. (2002) found that when the implementation of a new regime was seen as inevitable, people tended to engage in anticipatory rationalization of the expected change. Furthermore, although system justification motivation is generally associated with a heightened denial of climate change and need for pro-environmental action, Feygina et al. (2010) demonstrated that by framing potential changes as “system-sanctioned” (that is, as patriotic and consistent with protecting the existing social system), high system-justifiers were persuaded to support pro-environmental initiatives. These findings suggest that social change may be achieved by framing potential changes as consistent with and preserving the status quo.

References

Allport, G. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Feygina I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the prospect of “system-sanctioned” change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36: 326-338.

Jost, J. T. (1995). Negative illusions: Conceptual clarification and psychological evidence concerning false consciousness. Political Psychology, 16, 397-424.

Jost, J.T., Banaji, M.R., & Nosek, B.A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111-153.

Jost, J.T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265.

Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13-36.

Kay, A., Jimenez, M. C., & Jost, J. T. (2002). Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1300-1312.

Kay, A. C. & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823-837.

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1846/1970). The German ideology (C.J. Arthur, Ed.). New York: International.

Wakslak, C. J., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. S. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267-274.