jost_j_t_kay_a_c_thorisdottir_n_social_and_psychological_bas

justify systems in part because these systems control important outcomes in their lives, it follows naturally that people should also justify the authority of those individuals who control those systems. Preliminary evidence suggests this may be the case. Willer (2004) noted that, as the terror alert in the United States increased (which can be viewed as a natural manipulation of system threat), so did support for the American president, George W. Bush.

In an attempt to bottle similar phenomena in the laboratory, Banfield and Kay (2008), in two separate studies, exposed participants to a manipulation of system threat—that is, an article describing the worsening state of the federal social and political system—or a control manipulation, and then measured levels of support for political leaders. In the first study, this manipulation was also crossed with a measure of chronic system satisfaction. Results indicated that participants do in fact respond to system threat by showing increased support for their political leaders: university participants who read a profile of the Minister of Education rated her as significantly more competent if that profile was preceded by a manipulation of system threat (which focused on the Canadian status quo, but said nothing about the educational system) rather than a control condition, despite the fact that participants in both conditions read the identical description of the relevant politician. Interestingly, though, this only occurred for those who were low in general satisfaction with the (Canadian) system. Those high in satisfaction with the system judged the politician very positively in both conditions and were therefore unmoved by our manipulation of system threat (Banfield & Kay, 2008).

The second study in this line of work sought to understand how citizens, especially in contexts that engage the system justification motive, cope with morally dubious behavior by their leaders. President Clinton’s approval ratings remained high throughout his impeachment proceedings and attained an all-time high after their conclusion (CNN, 1998). Given the questionable conduct that produced the media whirlwind before and after the impeachment proceedings, how did people maintain faith in their leader? And did the system justification motive play any role in this?

One argument commonly heard in defense of President Clinton was that his behavior in his personal life, however immoral, should not be used to judge his competence as a President. Without debating the merits of such an argument, we would like to propose that it represents an excellent tool for maintaining faith in one’s leader (and, by extension, one’s socio-political system). To this end, we examined the extent to which participants who read about a political leader who admitted to an ethically questionable personal event (i.e., an affair) would become more likely to view personal behavior as less relevant to political competence following a manipulation of system threat. Results indicated that, as expected, following system threat—which

was manipulated via the same threat passages used in the previous study— participants who read about a leader (i.e., a provincial Minister) who was involved in an extramarital affair judged her personal behavior to be less relevant to her competence as a politician. Importantly, though, when the Minister was described as presiding over a province that was irrelevant to the participants (that is, in a low-dependence condition), the manipulation of system threat exerted no such effect. For this irrelevant leader (that is, a leader who controlled a system that the participants were not dependent upon), participants viewed her personal behavior as equally related to her professional competencies in both the threat and control conditions.

Summary

The system justification motive can have far-reaching effects on social psychological processes. As we have observed in this section, this also includes phenomena of interpersonal perception and judgment. In the context of social inequality, people tend to make interpersonal and intergroup attributions that either deflect blame away from the system and onto the individual (i.e., victim-derogation) and/or reaffirm the system’s ability to ensure balance (i.e., through victim-enhancement). In addition, those who control these systems (such as political leaders) tend to receive rather generous attributions, as well. It is crucial to note, however, that these phenomena do not always occur. Rather, in each of the experimental programs just described, we have demonstrated that such phenomena are highly context-dependent; only in those conditions of heightened system justification needs—for example, conditions of system threat, chronic system concern, system dependence, and system inevitability—did these biases in interpersonal judgment surface.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, we have presented an overview of theory and research describing the consequence of the system justification motive for the maintenance of inequality and general social psychological functioning. Throughout all of this, however, our focus remained exclusively on research demonstrating when such consequences are most likely to arise. Reflecting on the development of the scientific study of attitudes, Zanna and Fazio (1982) noted that programs of research, at least within the field of social psychology, tend to progress through two clear generations. In the first generation, a phenomenon or psychological process is identified. The purpose of this stage is to clearly demonstrate that a theoretically predicted psychological effect does in fact occur. SJT research has spent a good deal of its young life making this precise point: that the system justification motive does exist (for reviews, see

Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Kay et al., 2007). As evidenced by the research presented here, the system justification motive does not merely exist, it holds important interpersonal and intergroup consequences.

In the second generation, according to Zanna and Fazio (1982), researchers move beyond this goal and begin to seek theoretical refinement. A key purpose of this stage is to demonstrate the boundary conditions surrounding the psychological phenomenon or process already identified: that is, when it occurs and when it does not (see also McGuire, 1983). Identifying the variables that strengthen an effect, or turn it “on and off,” so to speak, teaches us not only about the contexts in which we may be most likely to observe a given psychological phenomenon, but, just as importantly, about what causes it (cf. Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005). Beyond demonstrating the consequences of the system justification motive for the maintenance of inequality, the research we presented in this chapter also represents the initial wave of this generation of research: that is, the second generation of system justification research.

That is, we hoped to provide evidence for the nuance of SJT and system justifying effects—evidence of the contextual nature of system-justifying responses. System justification theorists do not argue that system justifying tendencies will always be engaged. One only has to look at George W. Bush’s second term approval ratings, the many anti-war protests, or the countless worker strikes to note that people will not always engage in processes of system justification. Indeed, rarely does the first author of this chapter escape a talk without having to address the occurrence of events such as these to a skeptical audience member. It is important to recall that the system justification motive is believed to exist to help people cope with specific existential and epistemic threats (see Jost & Hunyaday, 2002, 2005). When these threats are not salient or other psychological needs are more pressing, therefore, the system justification motive should fade into the background.

The system justification motive, therefore, like most other sources of motivation, will not always dictate an individual’s psychology. Chronic personality variables, learned values, personal experiences, other sources of motivation, various situational contexts, and even the objective performance of the system itself all hold the potential to affect an individual’s behavior. This does not mean, however, that the system justification motive will not often do so, too. The research presented in this chapter provides some initial insights into when we might expect system-justifying responses to be relatively more likely to occur. As second-generation research in this domain continues to advance, both in the field and in the laboratory, so, it is hoped, will our understanding of when the system justification motive will be most and least active.

To conclude, we would like to offer one final observation. In the studies we have presented here—and, indeed, in most studies demonstrating the

consequences of the system justification motive—the focus has been on the justification of unequal and/or unfair norms, policies, and social arrangements. Theoretically, though, system justification needs should also facilitate the adoption of norms, policies, and social arrangements that uphold principles of fairness and equality, or that, in some way or another, improve upon the status quo (e.g., Blasi & Jost, 2006). Over the past century, we have seen several examples of the introduction of such policies and norms into soci- ety—women’s right to vote, affirmative action policies, increased tolerance of racial and ethnic diversity (for example, in universities), and the radically changing rules and norms regarding the acceptability of drinking and driving are but a few. As each of these was introduced, there were undoubtedly those who insisted that society would not accept these radical changes, and that they would never last.

For example, for years, governments resisted introducing bans on cigarette smoking in public venues for fear society would never comply (indeed, it was likely the case that most smokers themselves also assumed they would not stand for these bans); once these bans arrived, however, people were quick to adjust. Even in Ireland, where it was widely believed that such a ban could never alter behavior in the deep-rooted pub lifestyle, little resistance was encountered (Borland et al., 2006; Fong et al., 2006). Given the research we have presented here, it seems feasible that the system justification motive might have contributed in no small part to this seemingly overnight adjustment to the “new” (and, in the minds of all non-smokers, “better”) status quo (for a similar, and experimental, example in the context of a political election, see Kay et al., 2002).

Of course, in the case of imposed smoking bans, the absolute inevitability of this change (Laurin & Kay, 2008), coupled with the clear health benefits it held for literally everyone, may have been sufficient to trigger its adoption. But if a society’s goal is to promote something more abstract, less easily enforced, and less clearly beneficial to all, such as increased acceptance of women in traditionally male-dominated domains, the task is sure to be more complex.

Changing perceptions of the social landscape—whether through actual changes to social reality itself (e.g., affirmative action policies), changes in perceptions of social reality (e.g., media campaigns that portray considerable gender diversity), or even changes in perceptions of where social reality is inevitably heading—may represent a necessary condition for fostering increased acceptance of a more equal status quo. But, as we have hopefully made clear throughout this chapter, these changes, on their own, may not be enough. The psychological and societal contexts in which these changes are embedded are key determinants of how people will react to them.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1966). The religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5(3), 448–451.

Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. New York: Wiley. Banfield, J. C., & Kay, A. C. (2008). Justifying the powerful. Unpublished data: Uni-

versity of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A. Y., Barndollar, K., & Troetschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014–1027.

Batson, C. D., & Stocks, E. L. (2004). Religion: Its core psychological functions. In J. Greenberg, S. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

Biner, P. M., Angle, S. T., Park, J. H., & Mellinger, A. E. (1995). Need state and the illusion of control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 899–907.

Blanton, H., George, G., & Crocker, J. K. (2001). Contexts of system justification and system evaluation: Exploring the social comparison strategies of the (not yet) contented female worker. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4(2), 127–138.

Blasi, G., & Jost, J. T. (2006). System justification theory and research: Implications for law, legal advocacy, and social justice. California Law Review, 94, 1119–1168.

Borland, R., Yong, H. H., et al. (2006). Support for and compliance with smoke-free restaurants and bars by smokers in four countries: Findings from the ITC Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control, 15 (supplement 3), 42–50.

Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems, and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.

Burger, J. M. (1989). Negative reactions to increases in perceived personal control.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 246–256.

Burger, J. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 381–393.

CNN. (1998). Poll: Clinton’s approval rating up in wake of impeachment. Retrieved December 10, 2007 from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/ 12/20/impeachment.poll/.

Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Davis, D., Sundahl, I., & Lesbo, M. (2000). Illusory personal control as a determinant of bet size and type in casino craps games. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(6), 1224–1242.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.

Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31–44.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.

Fong, G. T., Hyland, A., et al. (2006). Changes in exposure to tobacco smoke pollution and support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: Findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tobacco Control, 15 (supplement 3), 51–58.

Förster, J., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 220–239.

Friedland, N., Keinan, G., & Regev, Y. (1992). Controlling the uncontrollable: Effects of stress on illusory perceptions of controllability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 923–931.

Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617–638.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.

Hafer, C. L. (2000). Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a modified Stroop task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 165–173.

Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128–167.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Oxford, England: John Wiley.

Holmes, J. G., & Strickland, L. H. (1970). Choice freedom and confirmation of incentive expectancy as determinants of attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 39–45.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349–366.

Jackman, M. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition. Special Issue: Stress, coping, and social cognition, 7(2), 113–136.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma.

New York: Free Press.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1998). From terror to appreciation: Confronting chance after extreme misfortune. Psychological Inquiry, 9(2), 99–101.

Janoff-Bulman, R., & Yopyk, D. J. (2004). Random outcomes and valued commitments: Existential dilemmas and the paradox of meaning. In J. Greenberg, S. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology.

New York: Guilford Press.

Ji, L., Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 943–955.

Jost, J. T. (1997). An experimental replication of the depressed entitlement effect among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 387–393.

Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: An experimental paradigm for investigating the effects of socio-economic success on stereotype content. In G. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Hungarian translation]

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology. Special Issue: Stereotypes: Structure, function and process, 33(1), 1–27.

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(6), 881–920.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, Hove, England: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

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

Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.

Jost, J. T., Kivetz, Y., Rubini, M., Guermandi, G., & Mosso, C. (2005). Systemjustifying functions of complementary regional and ethnic stereotypes: Crossnational evidence. Social Justice Research, 18, 305–333.

Kaiser, C. R., Dyrenforth, P. S., & Hagiwara, N. (2006). Why are attributions to discrimination interpersonally costly?: A test of system and group justifying motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1523–1536.

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., & Laurin, K. (2008). System justification and the maintenance of inequality. To appear in R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008a). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18–35.

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S. J. (2008b). Towards an understanding of the naturalistic fallacy: System justification and the shift from is to ought. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kay, A. C., 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(9), 1300–1312.

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

Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., Mandisodza, A. N., Sherman, S. J., Petrocelli, J. V., & Johnson, A. L. (2007). Panglossian ideology in the service of system justification: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 39, pp. 305–358). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., & Young, S. (2005). Victim-derogation and victim-enhancement as alternate routes to system-justification. Psychological Science, 16, 240–246.

Lane, R. E. (1959/2003). The fear of equality. American Political Science Review, 53, 35–51.

Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311–328.

Lau, G. P., Kay, A. C., & Spencer, S. J. (2008). Loving those who justify inequality: The effects of system threat on attraction to women who embody benevolent sexist ideals. Psychological Science, 19, 20–21.

Laurin, K., & Kay, A. C. (2008). Perceptions of inevitability as a cause of system justification. Manuscript submitted for publication.

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

Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.

McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 341–351.

McGuire, W. J. (1983). A contextualist theory of knowledge: Its implications for innovation and reform in psychological research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 1–47). New York: Academic Press.

Napier, J., Mandisodza, A., Andersen, S. M., & Jost, J. T. (2006). System justification in responding to the poor and displaced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 6, 57–73.

Oldmeadow, J. A., & Fiske, S. (2007). System-justifying ideologies moderate status = competence stereotypes: Roles for belief in a just world and social dominance orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1135–1148.

Pepitone, A., & Saffiotti, L. (1997). The selectivity of nonmaterial beliefs in interpreting life events. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 23–35.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (1983). Learned helplessness and victimization.

Journal of Social Issues, 39(2), 103–116.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91(3), 347–374.

Plaks, J. E., Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Violations of implicit theories and the sense of prediction and control: Implications for motivated person perception.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 245–262.

Rodin, J., Rennert, K., & Solomon, S. K. (1980). Intrinsic motivation for control: Fact or fiction. In A. Baum & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology: Vol. 2. Applications of personal control. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rothbaum, F., Weisz, J. R., & Snyder, S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A two-process model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5–37.

Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, 45(4), 489–493.

Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328.

Ruslbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172–186.

Sales, S. M. (1972). Economic threat as a determinant of conversion rates in authoritarian and nonauthoritarian churches. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(3), 420–428.

Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2002). Accepting threatening information: Selfaffirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 119–123.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective in examining psychological process than meditational analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology

(Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). New York: Academic Press.

Steele, C. M., & Liu, T. J. (1983). Dissonance processes as self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 5–19.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1999). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. New York: Psychology Press.

Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2000). Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist, 55(1), 99–109.

Thibault, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Ullrich, J., & Cohrs, J. (2007). Terrorism salience increases system justification: Experimental evidence. Social Justice Research, 20, 117–139.

Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. (2005). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: The stereotype-based behaviours of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 658–672.

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

Weber, M. (1930/1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (translated by T. Parsons). New York: Scribner.

Weisz, J. R., Rothbaum, F. M., & Blackburn, T. C. (1984). Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39(9), 955–969.

Willer, R. (2004). The effects of government-issued terror warnings on presidential approval ratings. Current Research in Social Psychology, 10, 1–12.

Wohl, M. J. A., & Enzle, M. E. (2003). The effects of near wins and near losses on self-perceived personal luck and subsequent gambling behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(2), 184–191.

Young, M. J., & Morris, M. W. (2004). Existential meanings and cultural models: The interplay of personal and supernatural agency in American and Hindu ways of responding to uncertainty. In J. Greenberg, S. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

Zanna, M. P., & Fazio, R. H. (1982). The attitude-behavior relation: Moving toward the third generation of research. In M. P. Zanna, E. T. Higgins, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 2, pp. 283–301). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.