The ANGCALM Consortium: Social psychology has faced considerable criticism in the last decade or ... more The ANGCALM Consortium: Social psychology has faced considerable criticism in the last decade or so for the loose nature of its theories: for instance, the observation that it is often nearly impossible to disprove a psychological theory (Gelman and Loken, 2013), even as good theories allow for conditions that falsify them (Klein, 2014). With this in mind, our goal is to revisit and re-evaluate the fundamental elements of a number of mainstream theories that offer insights on status-based judgements of anger and calm. In particular, our investigation will compare explanations derived from the novel hunchback heuristic (Owuamalam, Weerabangsa, Karunagharan, and Rubin, 2016) with the more established cultural moderation hypothesis (Park et al., 2013). We will then test the performance of these newer theories against traditional theories of intergroup relations from which predictions can be generated about status-based anger and calm judgements. Three traditional theories are of interest here: the social identity theory's reality caveat (Spears, Jetten, and Doosje, 2001); the stereotype content model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu, 2002) and the infra-humanization framework (Leyens et al., 2003). Ultimately, we want to see whether the newer theories add more to what we already could derive from traditional formulations.
We examined whether women's support for gender-based pay inequality (i.e., system justification) ... more We examined whether women's support for gender-based pay inequality (i.e., system justification) might be explained by hope. In particular, we considered whether such hope is likely prompted by positive temporal comparisons: It is entirely possible (even if previously untested) that the more women believe that their outcomes are getting better relative to what it had been at some point in the past, the greater their optimism about a better gender-based outcome could be, prompting women to support the systems that permitted such advancements. These central propositions were derived from the social identity model of systems attitude (SIMSA) and were corroborated in a correlational study involving 611 female healthcare professionals (Study 1). Study 2 (213 Italian-and 79 Spanish-women) offered a conceptual replication and extension of the evidence from Study 1: It showed that inducing positive temporal contrasts caused women's hope for a better gender-based outcome in the future to increase, consequently allowing them to support the prevailing gender-system.
We considered the role that egalitarianism might play in boosting consumers' willingness to patro... more We considered the role that egalitarianism might play in boosting consumers' willingness to patronize fairtrade products, and tested whether such tendency might be evident amongst consumers on both sides of the political divide. We tested this idea across four experiments using a fictional chocolate brand that was either social-justice framed (i.e., fair trade) or quality-framed (control). Both left-and right-leaning consumers in America and Malaysia (Studies 1a, N = 200; 1b, N = 269; & 2, N = 410) reported increased willingness to patronize the product when it was framed as fulfilling a social justice goal (vs. control), although this was limited to those with a strong egalitarian worldview. Using a mediated-moderation approach, Study 3 (N = 354) confirmed that a heightened sensitivity to injustice was the mechanism that increased product patronage intentions amongst egalitarians who received a social justice (vs. quality) treatment. Hence, we show that even right-leaning consumers can heed to social justice framing in their product patronage intentions, provided they embraced egalitarian ideals.
This document supplements our reply to Jost et al.'s (2023) rejoinder to our initial article on t... more This document supplements our reply to Jost et al.'s (2023) rejoinder to our initial article on the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Rubin et al., 2023). We respond to issues that we did not address in our main reply. Specifically, we argue that: (1) like SIMSA, Tajfel (1981) considered general, non-ideological, psychological processes; (2) system justification theory also refers to general, non-ideological, social psychological processes; (3) Jost et al. confuse respecting people with respecting people's beliefs; (4) SIMSA proponents do not ignore system justification theory's three motives; and (5) SIMSA may help to explain Osborne et al.'s (2019) results. In addition, (6) we apologise if we mischaracterised some researchers' theoretical affiliations, and we respond to Jost et al.'s (7) questions about ideology; (8) criticisms of Owuamalam et al.'s (2016) work; and (9) criticisms about the validity of Owuamalam and Spears' (2020) pupil dilation measure.
In this article, we reply to Jost et al. (2023) rejoinder to our article reviewing evidence for t... more In this article, we reply to Jost et al. (2023) rejoinder to our article reviewing evidence for the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Rubin et al., 2023). We argue that (1) SIMSA treats system justification as the outcome of an interaction between general social psychological process and specific historical, political, cultural, and ideological environments; (2) it does not conflate perceived intergroup status differences with the perceived stability and legitimacy of those differences, (3) it is not fatalistic, because it assumes that people may engage in social change when they perceive an opportunity to do so; (4) it adopts a non-reductionist, social psychological explanation of system justification, rather than an individualist explanation based on individual differences; (5) it presupposes "existing social arrangements", including their existing legitimacy and stability, and assumes that these social arrangements are either passively acknowledged or actively supported; and (6) it is not reliant on minimal group experiments in its evidence base.
System justification theory (SJT) assumes that social identity theory (SIT) cannot fully account ... more System justification theory (SJT) assumes that social identity theory (SIT) cannot fully account for system justification by members of low-status (disadvantaged) groups. Contrary to this claim, we provide several elaborations of SIT that explain when and why members of low-status groups show system justification independent from any separate system justification motive. According to the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA), the needs for social accuracy and a positively distinct social identity fully account for system justification by members of low-status groups. In the present article, we (a) explain SIMSA's accounts of system justification, (b) develop associated hypotheses, (c) summarise evidence that supports each hypothesis, and (d) highlight issues to be addressed in future research. We conclude that SIMSA provides a more parsimonious explanation of system justification by the disadvantaged than SJT, because it does not refer to an additional separate system justification motive.
The question of why (or even when) the disadvantaged might be more or less
supportive of existing... more The question of why (or even when) the disadvantaged might be more or less supportive of existing social arrangements is a matter of debate amongst social and political psychologists (e.g., Passini, 2019; Jost, 2020, see also Rubin et al., 2022). Accordingly, for this Research Topic, we chose a title that was deliberately broad in scope, accommodating several aspects that included: (a) the drivers of system justification; (b) the socio-structural conditions that enhance or dampen system justification, (c) the ideological correlates of system support, and (d) the impact of system justification on wellbeing. Taken together, the contributions comprised in this Research Topic provide a comprehensive analysis of these four issues.
Previous research has demonstrated that becoming vaccinated with the Coronavirus vaccine may lowe... more Previous research has demonstrated that becoming vaccinated with the Coronavirus vaccine may lower mental distress. However, it remains uncertain whether this relationship holds amid concerns of vaccine side effects and doubts of the vaccine's protective capabilities. We presented three studies that showed how vaccine confidence negatively influences the relationship between vaccine uptake and mental distress. Using two-way fixed effects regression models, Study 1 analyzes longituthe resumption of economic and social activities induced by vaccination. Agrawal et al. (2021) found that being inoculated with COVID-19 vaccines reduces depression and anxiety in the US: an
Members of disadvantaged groups sometimes support societal systems that enable the very inequalit... more Members of disadvantaged groups sometimes support societal systems that enable the very inequalities that disadvantaged them. Is it possible to explain this puzzling system-justifying orientation in terms of rational groupinterested motives, without recourse to a separate system motive? The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) claims that it is. SIMSA proposes that the system justification shown by a disadvantaged group (e.g., African American women) can sometimes support identity needs that are tied to a more inclusive (superordinate) in-group (e.g., Americans). There is already some supportive evidence for this proposition, but it is not yet clear whether: (1) such trends are visible in a wider range of disadvantaged contexts, and (2) this explanation also applies to those who are strongly invested in their subgroup (e.g., feminists). In two waves of a large nationally representative survey from 21 to 23 European states (N total = 84,572) and two controlled experiments (N total = 290 women), we found that: (a) system justification was positively associated with superordinate ingroup identification across multiple cases of disadvantage (Studies 1-3), (b) system justification increased when this inclusive identity was made more salient (Studies 2 & 3), and (c) system justification was visible even amongst feminists when they activated their superordinate (Italian) identity (Study 3).
Why do poorer and less educated Asians trust their institutions of governance more than their ric... more Why do poorer and less educated Asians trust their institutions of governance more than their richer and well educated counterparts, despite their disadvantaged position within society? System justification theory (SJT) assumes that this trust is driven by a system-level motivation that operates independently from social identity needs. In two nationally representative surveys spanning several years (N total = 221,297), we compared SJT's explanation with a newer social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): that system justification amongst disadvantaged Asians is driven by a group norm for harmony, especially amongst those who are strongly invested in their national ingroup. The results supported SIMSA more than SJT. Specifically, a strong sense of national identification boosted trust in systems of governance amongst poorer and less-educated Asians, both when societal norms for harmony (Study 1), and personal endorsement of this norm (Study 2) were strong. Hence, social identity needs help to explain stronger system justification among objectively disadvantaged Asians.
Why do voters seek to change the political landscape or retain it? System justification theory (S... more Why do voters seek to change the political landscape or retain it? System justification theory (SJT) proposes that a separate system motive to preserve the existing order drives support for the status-quo, and that this motivation operates independently from personal and collective interests. But how does this explanation apply to recent populist shifts in the political order such as Brexit and the emergence of Donald Trump? While the system motive may seem useful in understanding why the usual progressives (Remain/Clinton voters) may want to stick with an established order, it seems insufficient to explain why the more conservative populist voters (Brexit/Trump voters) would want to upend the establishment. Thus, we compared SJT’s system motive explanation for the system attitudes of voters on both sides of the political divide to an alternative explanation drawn from the newer social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA). According to SIMSA, the difficulty in explaining the system attitudes of Brexit/Trump and Remain/Clinton voters from SJT’s system motive standpoint can be resolved by focusing instead on the collective interests that both camps seek to satisfy with their votes. We examined these explanations in two studies conducted soon after Brexit (N = 313) and Trump’s election (N = 289) in 2016, with results providing more support for SIMSA than for SJT.
Scientific evidence suggests that individuals vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines are less likely t... more Scientific evidence suggests that individuals vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines are less likely to require hospitalization, possibly lowering the burden on the healthcare system. Despite such benefits, substantial segments of the world's population remain skeptical of COVID-19 vaccines and are hesitant to take them. Even if such individuals have been inoculated with COVID-19 vaccines out of economic, social, or legal necessity, they may be less inclined to receive booster shots or vaccinate their offspring when such options become available. What might help reduce this hesitancy? We examined this question using nationally representative survey data across 15 developed countries (max N = 122,516). Our findings suggest that inspiring confidence in the government's handling of the pandemic is pivotal in enhancing vaccination intent among vaccine skeptics. Specifically, results from a hierarchical linear analysis showed that among vaccine skeptics, confidence in the government's management of the pandemic was associated with greater intent to (a) take COVID-19 vaccines (b) take booster shots and (c) vaccinate one's children.
Measurement invariance (MI) is vital to any comparison of heterogeneous groups. With multiple-gro... more Measurement invariance (MI) is vital to any comparison of heterogeneous groups. With multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA), which is the standard practice for testing MI, there are widely acknowledged limitations, especially with a large number of groups for which strict invariance is difficult or impossible to achieve. New methods, specifically Alignment optimization, gives increased flexibility and new opportunities to make comparisons across a large number of groups. This article compares MG-CFA with Alignment optimization for MI testing in three demonstrative studies. First, in a study of eight countries looking at eight different measures, the MG-CFA method found strict MI is problematic; only partial invariance was achievable and additionally required some of the countries to be excluded in some analysis. However, in using the Alignment optimization method there were not these drawbacks. Next, in a cross-validation reanalysis of existing data from five countries...
Why would heterosexual men downplay their compassion for masculine (vs. feminine) gay victims of ... more Why would heterosexual men downplay their compassion for masculine (vs. feminine) gay victims of hate crime? Two social identity-inspired explanations provide contrasting answers to this question. The reactive distinctiveness thesis (RD) assumes that heterosexual men would downplay their compassion more, when cued to a gay victim’s masculinity than their femininity, provided evaluative concerns are strong. In contrast, the feminization-threat thesis (FT) assumes that compassion downplays would be more visible when heterosexual men are cued to a gay victim’s femininity (not masculinity), provided evaluative concerns are strong too. Consistent with RD, three experiments (Ntotal = 1,475) revealed that heterosexual men who read news about (gay) victims at a hate crime scene downplayed their compassion to a greater degree when cued to the masculinity rather than the femininity of such targets (Studies 1-3). Meanwhile FT’s prediction received partial support when considering feminine (vs. masculine) heterosexual, but not homosexual victims (Study 3).
How might confidence in government shape the negative association often found between stay home m... more How might confidence in government shape the negative association often found between stay home mandates and mental health? Using a nationally representative sample of UK residents (N = 32,108), we showed that although the stay-home order during the COVID-19 pandemic lowered people’s life satisfaction and increased their mental distress, that this was moderated by confidence in government. Specifically, the mental health toll of movement restrictions was reliably ameliorated amongst citizens who had a high degree of confidence in their government, especially when the restrictions were stringent and when people adhered to this mandate. We conclude with recommendations that could help to optimise public trust in government.
Why do women support social and economic arrangements that disadvantage them? System justificatio... more Why do women support social and economic arrangements that disadvantage them? System justification theory (SJT) proposes that an autonomous system-level motive is responsible for this tendency, beyond any group-interested considerations (e.g. hope of future group advancement). The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) disputes the existence of a unique system-level motive and instead argues that hope of future group advancement can explain women’s system-justifying attitudes. Meta-analyzed results from three experiments (Studies 1, N = 200; 2, N = 200; & 3, N = 700 women) revealed, consistent with SIMSA’s social identity-based explanation, that strongly identified women supported socio-economic systems that historically favor men over women, mostly when they were hopeful about future gender equity. Contrary to SJT’s system motive explanation, we did not find consistent evidence across the studies represented in our meta-analysis that women were more supportive of socio-economic realities that undercuts their group’s interests when group motives were nonsalient.
The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understand... more The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understanding the extent to which people with low status are complicit in their oppression. We use novel data from 66 samples and 30 countries (N = 12,788) and find that people with higher status see the social system as more legitimate than those with lower status, but there is variation across people and countries. The association between subject status and perceived legitimacy was never negative at any levels of eight moderator variables, although the positive association was sometimes reduced. Although not always consistent with hypotheses, group identification, self‐esteem, and beliefs in social mobility were all associated with perceived legitimacy among people who have low subjective status. These findings enrich our understanding of the relationship between social status and legitimacy.
For the past 25 years, the field of social and political psychology has embraced the idea that hu... more For the past 25 years, the field of social and political psychology has embraced the idea that humans possess a special system justification motivation which causes even members of disadvantaged groups to support societal systems that ostensibly operate against their personal and group interests. Recently, this system justification motive explanation has been challenged, based on mounting empirical evidence to the contrary. However, the potential demise of this dominant perspective invites explanations for the system justification phenomenon, especially amongst the disadvantaged. Existing interest-based accounts, such as the social identity model of system attitudes have tried to fill this gap, but have generally focused on system rationalisation processes within dyadic systems that pitch disadvantaged groups against their privileged counterparts alone. The current contribution extends the existing interest-based accounts by explaining system justification effects in multi-stratified social systems. Based on the triadic social stratification theory, we propose that system justification among the disadvantaged may result from favourable inter-status comparisons within a multi-stratified social system.
Compassionate feelings for people who are victimised because of their perceived sexual deviance (... more Compassionate feelings for people who are victimised because of their perceived sexual deviance (e.g., gay men) may be incompatible with support for heterosexual norms among heterosexual men. But, passivity (even indifference) towards such victims could raise concern over heterosexual men’s gay-tolerance attitude. Two classic social psychological theories offer competing explanations on when heterosexual men might be passive or compassionate towards gay victims of hate crime. The bystander model proposes passivity towards victims in an emergency situation if other bystanders are similarly passive, but compassionate reactions if bystanders are responsive to the victims. Conversely, the social loafing model proposes compassionate reactions towards victims when bystanders are passive, but passivity when other bystanders are already responsive toward the victims’ predicament. We tested and found supportive evidence for both models across two experiments (Ntotal = 501) in which passivity and compassionate reactions to gay victims of a purported hate crime were recorded after heterosexual men’s concern for social evaluation was either accentuated or relaxed. We found that the bystander explanation was visible only when the potential for social evaluation was strong, while the social loafing account occurred only when the potential for social evaluation was relaxed. Hence, we unite both models by showing that the bystander explanation prevails in situations where cues to social evaluation is strong, whereas the social loafing effect operates when concern over social judgement is somewhat muted.
To investigate the existence of an autonomous system justification motive that guides human behav... more To investigate the existence of an autonomous system justification motive that guides human behavior, we tested the dissonance-inspired strong system-justification thesis: that the cognitive effort expended to justify societal systems on which people depend, is greater amongst the disadvantaged than amongst the advantaged when their group identities are weak in salience/strength. Using a novel pupil dilation paradigm to tap cognitive effort, we exposed an ethnic minority group (Ntotal = 263) to depictions of their ingroup as disadvantaged or advantaged after they had stated four things they liked about their ethnic group (strong group identity salience) or grandmother (weak group identity salience). We then measured fluctuations in their pupil diameter as they contemplated support for societal systems that were either relevant (high dependency) or irrelevant (low dependency) to their ethnic group. Results revealed that pupil sizes were larger in the group disadvantage condition than in the group advantage condition—indicating greater cognitive effort—but only when group identity was salient (Experiment 1) or when group identification was strong (Experiment 2). These effects occurred only for high dependency systems. Combined, this evidence contradicts the system-justification thesis, and questions the existence of an autonomous system justification motivation in humans.
The ANGCALM Consortium: Social psychology has faced considerable criticism in the last decade or ... more The ANGCALM Consortium: Social psychology has faced considerable criticism in the last decade or so for the loose nature of its theories: for instance, the observation that it is often nearly impossible to disprove a psychological theory (Gelman and Loken, 2013), even as good theories allow for conditions that falsify them (Klein, 2014). With this in mind, our goal is to revisit and re-evaluate the fundamental elements of a number of mainstream theories that offer insights on status-based judgements of anger and calm. In particular, our investigation will compare explanations derived from the novel hunchback heuristic (Owuamalam, Weerabangsa, Karunagharan, and Rubin, 2016) with the more established cultural moderation hypothesis (Park et al., 2013). We will then test the performance of these newer theories against traditional theories of intergroup relations from which predictions can be generated about status-based anger and calm judgements. Three traditional theories are of interest here: the social identity theory's reality caveat (Spears, Jetten, and Doosje, 2001); the stereotype content model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu, 2002) and the infra-humanization framework (Leyens et al., 2003). Ultimately, we want to see whether the newer theories add more to what we already could derive from traditional formulations.
We examined whether women's support for gender-based pay inequality (i.e., system justification) ... more We examined whether women's support for gender-based pay inequality (i.e., system justification) might be explained by hope. In particular, we considered whether such hope is likely prompted by positive temporal comparisons: It is entirely possible (even if previously untested) that the more women believe that their outcomes are getting better relative to what it had been at some point in the past, the greater their optimism about a better gender-based outcome could be, prompting women to support the systems that permitted such advancements. These central propositions were derived from the social identity model of systems attitude (SIMSA) and were corroborated in a correlational study involving 611 female healthcare professionals (Study 1). Study 2 (213 Italian-and 79 Spanish-women) offered a conceptual replication and extension of the evidence from Study 1: It showed that inducing positive temporal contrasts caused women's hope for a better gender-based outcome in the future to increase, consequently allowing them to support the prevailing gender-system.
We considered the role that egalitarianism might play in boosting consumers' willingness to patro... more We considered the role that egalitarianism might play in boosting consumers' willingness to patronize fairtrade products, and tested whether such tendency might be evident amongst consumers on both sides of the political divide. We tested this idea across four experiments using a fictional chocolate brand that was either social-justice framed (i.e., fair trade) or quality-framed (control). Both left-and right-leaning consumers in America and Malaysia (Studies 1a, N = 200; 1b, N = 269; & 2, N = 410) reported increased willingness to patronize the product when it was framed as fulfilling a social justice goal (vs. control), although this was limited to those with a strong egalitarian worldview. Using a mediated-moderation approach, Study 3 (N = 354) confirmed that a heightened sensitivity to injustice was the mechanism that increased product patronage intentions amongst egalitarians who received a social justice (vs. quality) treatment. Hence, we show that even right-leaning consumers can heed to social justice framing in their product patronage intentions, provided they embraced egalitarian ideals.
This document supplements our reply to Jost et al.'s (2023) rejoinder to our initial article on t... more This document supplements our reply to Jost et al.'s (2023) rejoinder to our initial article on the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Rubin et al., 2023). We respond to issues that we did not address in our main reply. Specifically, we argue that: (1) like SIMSA, Tajfel (1981) considered general, non-ideological, psychological processes; (2) system justification theory also refers to general, non-ideological, social psychological processes; (3) Jost et al. confuse respecting people with respecting people's beliefs; (4) SIMSA proponents do not ignore system justification theory's three motives; and (5) SIMSA may help to explain Osborne et al.'s (2019) results. In addition, (6) we apologise if we mischaracterised some researchers' theoretical affiliations, and we respond to Jost et al.'s (7) questions about ideology; (8) criticisms of Owuamalam et al.'s (2016) work; and (9) criticisms about the validity of Owuamalam and Spears' (2020) pupil dilation measure.
In this article, we reply to Jost et al. (2023) rejoinder to our article reviewing evidence for t... more In this article, we reply to Jost et al. (2023) rejoinder to our article reviewing evidence for the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Rubin et al., 2023). We argue that (1) SIMSA treats system justification as the outcome of an interaction between general social psychological process and specific historical, political, cultural, and ideological environments; (2) it does not conflate perceived intergroup status differences with the perceived stability and legitimacy of those differences, (3) it is not fatalistic, because it assumes that people may engage in social change when they perceive an opportunity to do so; (4) it adopts a non-reductionist, social psychological explanation of system justification, rather than an individualist explanation based on individual differences; (5) it presupposes "existing social arrangements", including their existing legitimacy and stability, and assumes that these social arrangements are either passively acknowledged or actively supported; and (6) it is not reliant on minimal group experiments in its evidence base.
System justification theory (SJT) assumes that social identity theory (SIT) cannot fully account ... more System justification theory (SJT) assumes that social identity theory (SIT) cannot fully account for system justification by members of low-status (disadvantaged) groups. Contrary to this claim, we provide several elaborations of SIT that explain when and why members of low-status groups show system justification independent from any separate system justification motive. According to the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA), the needs for social accuracy and a positively distinct social identity fully account for system justification by members of low-status groups. In the present article, we (a) explain SIMSA's accounts of system justification, (b) develop associated hypotheses, (c) summarise evidence that supports each hypothesis, and (d) highlight issues to be addressed in future research. We conclude that SIMSA provides a more parsimonious explanation of system justification by the disadvantaged than SJT, because it does not refer to an additional separate system justification motive.
The question of why (or even when) the disadvantaged might be more or less
supportive of existing... more The question of why (or even when) the disadvantaged might be more or less supportive of existing social arrangements is a matter of debate amongst social and political psychologists (e.g., Passini, 2019; Jost, 2020, see also Rubin et al., 2022). Accordingly, for this Research Topic, we chose a title that was deliberately broad in scope, accommodating several aspects that included: (a) the drivers of system justification; (b) the socio-structural conditions that enhance or dampen system justification, (c) the ideological correlates of system support, and (d) the impact of system justification on wellbeing. Taken together, the contributions comprised in this Research Topic provide a comprehensive analysis of these four issues.
Previous research has demonstrated that becoming vaccinated with the Coronavirus vaccine may lowe... more Previous research has demonstrated that becoming vaccinated with the Coronavirus vaccine may lower mental distress. However, it remains uncertain whether this relationship holds amid concerns of vaccine side effects and doubts of the vaccine's protective capabilities. We presented three studies that showed how vaccine confidence negatively influences the relationship between vaccine uptake and mental distress. Using two-way fixed effects regression models, Study 1 analyzes longituthe resumption of economic and social activities induced by vaccination. Agrawal et al. (2021) found that being inoculated with COVID-19 vaccines reduces depression and anxiety in the US: an
Members of disadvantaged groups sometimes support societal systems that enable the very inequalit... more Members of disadvantaged groups sometimes support societal systems that enable the very inequalities that disadvantaged them. Is it possible to explain this puzzling system-justifying orientation in terms of rational groupinterested motives, without recourse to a separate system motive? The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) claims that it is. SIMSA proposes that the system justification shown by a disadvantaged group (e.g., African American women) can sometimes support identity needs that are tied to a more inclusive (superordinate) in-group (e.g., Americans). There is already some supportive evidence for this proposition, but it is not yet clear whether: (1) such trends are visible in a wider range of disadvantaged contexts, and (2) this explanation also applies to those who are strongly invested in their subgroup (e.g., feminists). In two waves of a large nationally representative survey from 21 to 23 European states (N total = 84,572) and two controlled experiments (N total = 290 women), we found that: (a) system justification was positively associated with superordinate ingroup identification across multiple cases of disadvantage (Studies 1-3), (b) system justification increased when this inclusive identity was made more salient (Studies 2 & 3), and (c) system justification was visible even amongst feminists when they activated their superordinate (Italian) identity (Study 3).
Why do poorer and less educated Asians trust their institutions of governance more than their ric... more Why do poorer and less educated Asians trust their institutions of governance more than their richer and well educated counterparts, despite their disadvantaged position within society? System justification theory (SJT) assumes that this trust is driven by a system-level motivation that operates independently from social identity needs. In two nationally representative surveys spanning several years (N total = 221,297), we compared SJT's explanation with a newer social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): that system justification amongst disadvantaged Asians is driven by a group norm for harmony, especially amongst those who are strongly invested in their national ingroup. The results supported SIMSA more than SJT. Specifically, a strong sense of national identification boosted trust in systems of governance amongst poorer and less-educated Asians, both when societal norms for harmony (Study 1), and personal endorsement of this norm (Study 2) were strong. Hence, social identity needs help to explain stronger system justification among objectively disadvantaged Asians.
Why do voters seek to change the political landscape or retain it? System justification theory (S... more Why do voters seek to change the political landscape or retain it? System justification theory (SJT) proposes that a separate system motive to preserve the existing order drives support for the status-quo, and that this motivation operates independently from personal and collective interests. But how does this explanation apply to recent populist shifts in the political order such as Brexit and the emergence of Donald Trump? While the system motive may seem useful in understanding why the usual progressives (Remain/Clinton voters) may want to stick with an established order, it seems insufficient to explain why the more conservative populist voters (Brexit/Trump voters) would want to upend the establishment. Thus, we compared SJT’s system motive explanation for the system attitudes of voters on both sides of the political divide to an alternative explanation drawn from the newer social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA). According to SIMSA, the difficulty in explaining the system attitudes of Brexit/Trump and Remain/Clinton voters from SJT’s system motive standpoint can be resolved by focusing instead on the collective interests that both camps seek to satisfy with their votes. We examined these explanations in two studies conducted soon after Brexit (N = 313) and Trump’s election (N = 289) in 2016, with results providing more support for SIMSA than for SJT.
Scientific evidence suggests that individuals vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines are less likely t... more Scientific evidence suggests that individuals vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines are less likely to require hospitalization, possibly lowering the burden on the healthcare system. Despite such benefits, substantial segments of the world's population remain skeptical of COVID-19 vaccines and are hesitant to take them. Even if such individuals have been inoculated with COVID-19 vaccines out of economic, social, or legal necessity, they may be less inclined to receive booster shots or vaccinate their offspring when such options become available. What might help reduce this hesitancy? We examined this question using nationally representative survey data across 15 developed countries (max N = 122,516). Our findings suggest that inspiring confidence in the government's handling of the pandemic is pivotal in enhancing vaccination intent among vaccine skeptics. Specifically, results from a hierarchical linear analysis showed that among vaccine skeptics, confidence in the government's management of the pandemic was associated with greater intent to (a) take COVID-19 vaccines (b) take booster shots and (c) vaccinate one's children.
Measurement invariance (MI) is vital to any comparison of heterogeneous groups. With multiple-gro... more Measurement invariance (MI) is vital to any comparison of heterogeneous groups. With multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA), which is the standard practice for testing MI, there are widely acknowledged limitations, especially with a large number of groups for which strict invariance is difficult or impossible to achieve. New methods, specifically Alignment optimization, gives increased flexibility and new opportunities to make comparisons across a large number of groups. This article compares MG-CFA with Alignment optimization for MI testing in three demonstrative studies. First, in a study of eight countries looking at eight different measures, the MG-CFA method found strict MI is problematic; only partial invariance was achievable and additionally required some of the countries to be excluded in some analysis. However, in using the Alignment optimization method there were not these drawbacks. Next, in a cross-validation reanalysis of existing data from five countries...
Why would heterosexual men downplay their compassion for masculine (vs. feminine) gay victims of ... more Why would heterosexual men downplay their compassion for masculine (vs. feminine) gay victims of hate crime? Two social identity-inspired explanations provide contrasting answers to this question. The reactive distinctiveness thesis (RD) assumes that heterosexual men would downplay their compassion more, when cued to a gay victim’s masculinity than their femininity, provided evaluative concerns are strong. In contrast, the feminization-threat thesis (FT) assumes that compassion downplays would be more visible when heterosexual men are cued to a gay victim’s femininity (not masculinity), provided evaluative concerns are strong too. Consistent with RD, three experiments (Ntotal = 1,475) revealed that heterosexual men who read news about (gay) victims at a hate crime scene downplayed their compassion to a greater degree when cued to the masculinity rather than the femininity of such targets (Studies 1-3). Meanwhile FT’s prediction received partial support when considering feminine (vs. masculine) heterosexual, but not homosexual victims (Study 3).
How might confidence in government shape the negative association often found between stay home m... more How might confidence in government shape the negative association often found between stay home mandates and mental health? Using a nationally representative sample of UK residents (N = 32,108), we showed that although the stay-home order during the COVID-19 pandemic lowered people’s life satisfaction and increased their mental distress, that this was moderated by confidence in government. Specifically, the mental health toll of movement restrictions was reliably ameliorated amongst citizens who had a high degree of confidence in their government, especially when the restrictions were stringent and when people adhered to this mandate. We conclude with recommendations that could help to optimise public trust in government.
Why do women support social and economic arrangements that disadvantage them? System justificatio... more Why do women support social and economic arrangements that disadvantage them? System justification theory (SJT) proposes that an autonomous system-level motive is responsible for this tendency, beyond any group-interested considerations (e.g. hope of future group advancement). The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) disputes the existence of a unique system-level motive and instead argues that hope of future group advancement can explain women’s system-justifying attitudes. Meta-analyzed results from three experiments (Studies 1, N = 200; 2, N = 200; & 3, N = 700 women) revealed, consistent with SIMSA’s social identity-based explanation, that strongly identified women supported socio-economic systems that historically favor men over women, mostly when they were hopeful about future gender equity. Contrary to SJT’s system motive explanation, we did not find consistent evidence across the studies represented in our meta-analysis that women were more supportive of socio-economic realities that undercuts their group’s interests when group motives were nonsalient.
The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understand... more The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understanding the extent to which people with low status are complicit in their oppression. We use novel data from 66 samples and 30 countries (N = 12,788) and find that people with higher status see the social system as more legitimate than those with lower status, but there is variation across people and countries. The association between subject status and perceived legitimacy was never negative at any levels of eight moderator variables, although the positive association was sometimes reduced. Although not always consistent with hypotheses, group identification, self‐esteem, and beliefs in social mobility were all associated with perceived legitimacy among people who have low subjective status. These findings enrich our understanding of the relationship between social status and legitimacy.
For the past 25 years, the field of social and political psychology has embraced the idea that hu... more For the past 25 years, the field of social and political psychology has embraced the idea that humans possess a special system justification motivation which causes even members of disadvantaged groups to support societal systems that ostensibly operate against their personal and group interests. Recently, this system justification motive explanation has been challenged, based on mounting empirical evidence to the contrary. However, the potential demise of this dominant perspective invites explanations for the system justification phenomenon, especially amongst the disadvantaged. Existing interest-based accounts, such as the social identity model of system attitudes have tried to fill this gap, but have generally focused on system rationalisation processes within dyadic systems that pitch disadvantaged groups against their privileged counterparts alone. The current contribution extends the existing interest-based accounts by explaining system justification effects in multi-stratified social systems. Based on the triadic social stratification theory, we propose that system justification among the disadvantaged may result from favourable inter-status comparisons within a multi-stratified social system.
Compassionate feelings for people who are victimised because of their perceived sexual deviance (... more Compassionate feelings for people who are victimised because of their perceived sexual deviance (e.g., gay men) may be incompatible with support for heterosexual norms among heterosexual men. But, passivity (even indifference) towards such victims could raise concern over heterosexual men’s gay-tolerance attitude. Two classic social psychological theories offer competing explanations on when heterosexual men might be passive or compassionate towards gay victims of hate crime. The bystander model proposes passivity towards victims in an emergency situation if other bystanders are similarly passive, but compassionate reactions if bystanders are responsive to the victims. Conversely, the social loafing model proposes compassionate reactions towards victims when bystanders are passive, but passivity when other bystanders are already responsive toward the victims’ predicament. We tested and found supportive evidence for both models across two experiments (Ntotal = 501) in which passivity and compassionate reactions to gay victims of a purported hate crime were recorded after heterosexual men’s concern for social evaluation was either accentuated or relaxed. We found that the bystander explanation was visible only when the potential for social evaluation was strong, while the social loafing account occurred only when the potential for social evaluation was relaxed. Hence, we unite both models by showing that the bystander explanation prevails in situations where cues to social evaluation is strong, whereas the social loafing effect operates when concern over social judgement is somewhat muted.
To investigate the existence of an autonomous system justification motive that guides human behav... more To investigate the existence of an autonomous system justification motive that guides human behavior, we tested the dissonance-inspired strong system-justification thesis: that the cognitive effort expended to justify societal systems on which people depend, is greater amongst the disadvantaged than amongst the advantaged when their group identities are weak in salience/strength. Using a novel pupil dilation paradigm to tap cognitive effort, we exposed an ethnic minority group (Ntotal = 263) to depictions of their ingroup as disadvantaged or advantaged after they had stated four things they liked about their ethnic group (strong group identity salience) or grandmother (weak group identity salience). We then measured fluctuations in their pupil diameter as they contemplated support for societal systems that were either relevant (high dependency) or irrelevant (low dependency) to their ethnic group. Results revealed that pupil sizes were larger in the group disadvantage condition than in the group advantage condition—indicating greater cognitive effort—but only when group identity was salient (Experiment 1) or when group identification was strong (Experiment 2). These effects occurred only for high dependency systems. Combined, this evidence contradicts the system-justification thesis, and questions the existence of an autonomous system justification motivation in humans.
Uploads
Papers by Chuma Owuamalam
supportive of existing social arrangements is a matter of debate amongst social and political psychologists (e.g., Passini, 2019; Jost, 2020, see also Rubin et al., 2022). Accordingly, for this Research Topic, we chose a title that was deliberately broad in scope, accommodating several aspects that included: (a) the drivers of system justification; (b) the socio-structural conditions that enhance or dampen system justification, (c) the ideological correlates of system support, and (d) the impact of system justification on
wellbeing. Taken together, the contributions comprised in this Research Topic provide a comprehensive analysis of these four issues.
supportive of existing social arrangements is a matter of debate amongst social and political psychologists (e.g., Passini, 2019; Jost, 2020, see also Rubin et al., 2022). Accordingly, for this Research Topic, we chose a title that was deliberately broad in scope, accommodating several aspects that included: (a) the drivers of system justification; (b) the socio-structural conditions that enhance or dampen system justification, (c) the ideological correlates of system support, and (d) the impact of system justification on
wellbeing. Taken together, the contributions comprised in this Research Topic provide a comprehensive analysis of these four issues.