Social identity model of system attitudes

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.

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.

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.