Search

Within‐group apologies restore important values and afford victims their dignity; however, the system justification motive may cause group authorities to hesitate in apologizing or to include system‐justifying expressions to soothe the general public. Two studies were conducted, both on‐campus (Study 1) and off‐campus (Study 2), to empirically illustrate the public reception of within‐group apologies (victim‐focused and system‐challenging) and silence. The results indicate that higher levels of system justification are associated with more favorable attitudes toward responses from authority. For the general public (Study 2), high‐level justifiers supported the government's silence as much as the victim‐focused apology, maintaining trust despite perceiving unfairness. Conversely, low‐level justifiers, though negative overall, supported victim‐focused apology more than system‐challenging apology or silence. Additionally, the general public in Study 2 favored the victim‐focused apology over the system‐challenging one, rendering system‐justifying expressions unnecessary. We propose that authorities prioritize apologies emphasizing dignity and respect for victims, instead of fearing potential negative reception influenced by the system justification motive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rehabilitation programs for terrorists have gained notoriety. Some issues still require thorough investigation, such as the social support they receive. The present research aims to examine the attitudes towards rehabilitation programs for terrorist offenders and the mediating and moderating mechanisms underlying these attitudes. To this end, two studies were conducted: the first study evaluated the mediating mechanisms (negative feelings and threats; N = 407) and the second study analyzed the moderating mechanisms (social dominance orientation, system justification, and political orientation; N = 444). In both cases, the type of offender was manipulated (criminal vs. nationalist terrorist vs. Islamist terrorist offenders) and different attitudes were assessed (general support, incapacitation, treatment effectiveness, and mandated treatment). The results showed less support for rehabilitation programs for Islamist terrorists than for other offenders. Moreover, Islamist terrorists pose a more significant terrorist threat while criminals pose a greater realistic threat, which led to less favorable attitudes towards rehabilitation programs. Finally, individuals with more conservative ideologies had stronger negative attitudes towards programs for Islamist terrorists. We discuss these findings within the framework of integrated threat and system justification theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

System justification theory (SJT) is a thriving field of research, wherein the primary questions revolve around why individuals and groups are motivated to see the systems they depend on as just, fair, and legitimate. This article seeks to answer how accurate the postulates of SJT are when compared to competing self‐interest claims of social identity and social dominance theory. We addressed the ongoing debates among proponents of each theory by identifying who, when, and why individuals decide to system‐justify. We used data comprised of 24,009 participants nested within 42 countries. Multilevel models largely supported the competing claims of social dominance and social identity theories over SJT. The most robust findings were: (1) greater objective socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with greater system justification; (2) the consistent positive relationship between subjective SES and system justification was partially mediated by life satisfaction; and (3) both ends of the political spectrum were willing to system‐justify more when the political party they favored was in power. The results presented are used to discuss both the current state and the future directions for system justification research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the impact of personally experiencing sexual harassment on women's subjective well-being and perceptions of gender relations and society. We draw upon large-scale national probability panel data and utilize propensity score matching to identify (1) women who reported sexual harassment in the past year and (2) a matched control group of women who were comparable in outcome and demographic variables in the previous year but did not report sexual harassment (Nmatched pairs = 609). We then compare pre- and post-event levels of well-being and system justification across groups, including the perceived fairness of gender relations and society in general. Women who reported sexual harassment experienced significant pre-to-post declines in well-being (lower life satisfaction, higher psychological distress) and reductions in perceptions that gender relations, and broader society, are fair. Critically, these changes were significantly different than matched controls who did not show the same pre-post changes in well-being or system justification. These results provide robust evidence that sexual harassment has detrimental effects on well-being and document the previously unexamined effect of sexual harassment on women's reduced support for the (gendered) status quo, which has important implications for social change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractTo solve crime, police rely on the public’s willingness to cooperate (WTC). While scholarship has focused on how people’s current perceptions of police might impact their WTC, it is likely that their views concerning the future might also matter. This study tested the hypothesis that people’s hope in future police procedural justice (HFPPJ) may impact and even overpower the association between how they currently view police and their current WTC. With two convenience samples, one of 311 adolescents and another of 578 adults, and two measurement strategies, the results indicated that, while people’s current perceptions of police are associated with their WTC, HFPPJ conditions moderate (study 1) and may even overpower (study 2) that association. Hope in the future of policing may not blind people to current biases within policing, but it appears to be associated with their willingness to cooperate with police. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although education is arguably one of the most central institutions in contemporary European societies, only recently scholars have started to study opinions that relate to the perceived legitimacy of education among the public at large. This paper contributes to this emerging literature. Based on data from the most recent wave of the European Quality of Life Survey (N = 23,073; 30 countries) we assess what individual- and country-level factors predict citizens' satisfaction with educational quality and the perceived fairness of/corruption in education. At the individual level, we find that indicators of one's material vs. educational position are inversely related to the perceived quality, fairness, and corruption of the education system. At the macro level, it turns out that in countries that perform better on PISA tests the perceived educational quality is higher and the perceived corruption lower. In the conclusion we elaborate on the implications of our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Toxic work environments and bullying are rampant in health care organizations. The Joint Commission asserted that bullying is a threat to patient safety, and furthermore, it implied that bullying affects clinician psychological safety. However, after decades of trying to reduce bullying, it persists. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if system justification (SJ) theory can help explain the persistence of bullying in health care organizations. SJ theory posits that people are motivated to justify the systems with which they are embedded, even if those systems are dysfunctional or unfair. Method: A cross-sectional survey of health care workers (n = 302) was used to test a moderated mediation model to examine relations between instrumental work climate perceptions and psychological safety, as mediated by SJ and moderated by experiences of workplace bullying. Results: Analysis revealed that SJ fully mediated negative relations between instrumental climate and psychological safety; because of SJ the instrumental climate no longer had a direct negative association with psychological safety. Furthermore, bullying was found to play a moderating role in the instrumental climate–SJ relationship. Conclusion: This study found some support for the role of SJ in perpetuating instrumental workplaces and workplace bullying in health care. Practice Implications: Some scholars have proposed that a focus on disrupting workplace contexts that trigger SJ in workers could help break patterns of behavior that enable toxic work environments and bullying to persist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we reply to Jost et al.'s (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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined hypotheses proposed by System Justification Theory (SJT; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) regarding intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups, using large samples of online participants (total N = 715,721), spanning 8 intergroup domains and 14 nations. Using a meta-analytic approach, we tested these hypotheses at the individual level (as SJT is generally articulated), as well as at the social group level. Consistent with SJT, individual-level analyses revealed that disadvantaged groups demonstrated outgroup favoritism on Implicit Association Tests (IATs; i.e., implicit measures), but demonstrated ingroup favoritism or no intergroup preference on self-report (i.e., explicit) measures. Additionally, these average effects were characterized by high heterogeneity, and follow-up exploratory analyses revealed that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by the intergroup domain: Whereas some disadvantaged groups consistently displayed outgroup favoritism (e.g., age, weight), others consistently displayed ingroup favoritism (e.g., sexual orientation, religion), and yet others displayed diverging patterns on implicit and explicit measures (e.g., race, ethnicity). Consistent with SJT, intergroup evaluation on all measures was moderated by self-reported conservatism. Furthermore, the magnitude of these relationships depended on the level of analysis, with small effects emerging at the individual level and medium-sized effects emerging at the social group level. Social group-level analyses also indicated that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by stigma. Overall, these findings support and extend the predictions of SJT, but the relatively complex patterns of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups identified here illustrate a need for further theory development and more theory-driven research in this domain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The detrimental impact of visitor-induced litter pollution on ecosystems, wildlife, and overall quality of life emphasizes the urgency of mitigating it. This study uniquely focuses on diverse visitors' perceptions of littering behavior in open spaces, facilitating comprehensive assessment and targeted mitigation strategies. This study aimed to analyze attitudes, willingness to act, and responsibility perceptions, considering diverse demographics in Israel's multicultural context. It sought insights into littering rationales, potential remedies, and the identification of relatively acceptable littering behaviors for focused attention. This profound comprehension is crucial for conserving ecologically sensitive open areas, necessitating optimized management for interface preservation. Leveraging insights from an online survey involving 401 recent open-space visitors, this research reveals a disparity between self-professed and actual littering practices. Intriguingly, 32% of participants who claimed never to litter described instances of doing so. Furthermore, disparities emerged between anti-litter attitudes, willingness to act, and individual accountability, which were influenced by demographic variables. While individuals from various demographic cohorts attested to littering behavior, young ultra-Orthodox Jews possessing solely a high school level of education exhibited a proclivity for increased littering. Perceptions predominantly attribute purposeful and recreational motives to littering, rather than substantial reasons. Participants conceive a diverse range of effective strategies to address the issue, highlighting its intricate and multifaceted nature. Consequently, this study advocates for a multifaceted approach combining enhanced enforcement, educational campaigns, informative initiatives, and infrastructural enhancements. By acknowledging the complexities of littering behavior and embracing multifarious interventions, policymakers can enhance the likelihood of successfully curbing this pervasive challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Narratives within mainstream psy disciplines around 'medically unexplained symptoms' (MUS), as constructed through (bio)psychosocial theorising, have been charged with promoting victim blaming. Psychosocial discourse and practice within this field are also critiqued on grounds of inadequate empirical support and associated with patient harms, yet (bio)psychosocial hegemony persists. Understanding what drives current practice and attendant victim blaming in the field of MUS is therefore important in challenging dominant discourse and changing psychotherapy practice, thus precluding patient harm. In this article, practitioner psychology is explored through a critical lens, locating this within a context of organisational and biopolitical influences which likely reinforce mainstream theory and practice. It is argued that victim blaming tendencies within dominant discourse around MUS may serve relational, existential and epistemic needs for practitioners and social actors more broadly, alongside fulfilling a need to assert moral value in the face of social injustices that threaten the neoliberal 'just world' view. In other words, (bio)psychosocial constructions of MUS satisfy society's need to create and ascribe to a shared reality, dominated by a belief in a just, meaningful and relatively predictable world that justifies the status quo. Critical reflexivity is emphasised as a starting point for transforming practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rising socio-economic inequality has been paired with tolerance of inequality. When explaining individual tolerance of unequal income distribution, contextual factors capturing socio-economic conditions and objective inequality are less important than individual-level values and beliefs about the origins of and reasonings behind the unequal circumstances. These inequality-legitimizing narratives constitute a range of ideas from equal opportunities and individual liberties to egalitarian values and beliefs about the function of meritocracy. Findings from the linear mixed effects models on the cross-sectional data from the Integrated Values Study (2017–2020) on 34 OECD countries support the argument that individuals' agreement with inequality legitimizing narratives predicts higher tolerance of unequal income distribution. However, country-level objective inequality and economic prosperity both fail to directly predict tolerance of unequal incomes. When compared to contextual factors, the acceptance of inequality legitimizing narratives is a significantly better predictor of inequality tolerance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research suggests that beliefs about inequality are often biased in ways that serve people's own interests. By contrast, people might uphold system-justifying beliefs, such as meritocratic beliefs. We test these assumptions against real-life experience of highly selective university admission. Using panel data on German medical school applicants allows us to measure belief changes through experiences of success or failure in admission. We find support that self-serving bias in beliefs outweighs the motivation for system justification: success strengthens the belief that admission depends on effort, while failure reinforces the belief that admission depends on luck. These patterns partly manifest themselves in beliefs about societal inequality. Additionally, we argue that previous experiences (long-term experiences of social upbringing and short-term experiences in university admissions) provide a frame for new experiences, examine respective effect heterogeneity, and discuss implications of our findings of diverging paths in inequality beliefs of winners and losers for the persistence of inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three studies examined the relationship between threats to the Japanese healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic and perceived system justification in Japan. Study 1 confirmed the validity of the Japanese version of the General System Justification Scale (Kay & Jost, 2003). Study 2 examined the relationship between the perceived threat to the healthcare system, the dependency on that system, and system justification. The results showed that the perceived system threat was not associated with system justification while dependency on the healthcare system was found to be associated with perceived legitimacy toward the healthcare system as well as with dependency on the government. Finally, Study 3 manipulated the system threat through criticism of Japan's healthcare system during the pandemic by a foreign journalist and examined its effect on system justification. The results showed no effect of system threat on system justification. The applicability of system justification theory to Japanese society was discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Entrepreneurship resilience during a crisis is an important research area. However, prior research has not examined cognitive antecedents of entrepreneurial resilience. Using the 2014 oil price crisis in the Middle East as a natural experiment, we draw on system justification theory to understand why and how entrepreneurs differ in the extent of their attitudinal changes toward corruption. We find foreign entrepreneurs substantially increased their willingness to engage in corruption whereas local entrepreneurs did not. Among foreign entrepreneurs, corruption willingness increases more among those from countries where corruption is not the norm, than those from more corrupt home countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The applicability of system justification theory (SJT) in Japan, where political contexts differ from those in Western countries, was evaluated in this study. SJT explains the psychological mechanisms underlying conservatism. Japan, which has a relatively long history as a democracy among East Asian countries, has a special political context. For instance, (1) it has had almost uninterrupted conservative governance since the end of World War II; and (2) unlike Western countries, opinions on economic issues are not clearly linked to conservative attitudes. A web survey of Japanese voters (n = 1,428) revealed that high general system justification (GSJ) and economic system justification (ESJ) were correlated with conservatism. Further, path analysis results showed that GSJ and ESJ predicted conservative attitudes. Additional analysis suggested that the status-legitimacy hypothesis, in which lower status groups have higher system justification motives, is not supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An ongoing debate in the United States relating to COVID-19 features the purported tension between containing the coronavirus to save lives or opening the economy to sustain livelihoods, with ethical overtones on both sides. Proponents of opening the economy argue that sustaining livelihoods should be prioritized over virus containment, with ethicists asking, "What about the risk to human life?" Defendants of restricting the spread of the virus endorse saving lives through virus containment but contend with the ethical concern "What about people's livelihoods and individual freedoms?" A commonly held belief is that political ideology drives these differential preferences: liberals are more focused on saving lives, whereas conservatives favor sustaining livelihoods with no additional government intervention in the free-market economy. We examine these lay beliefs among US residents in four studies and find that economic system justification (ESJ), an ideology that defends the prevailing economic system when under threat, is a reliable psychological predictor beyond political ideology. Specifically, compared to those who scored low on ESJ, people who scored high on ESJ judged China as more justified in downplaying the spread of virus to protect its interest in the global free-market economy, supported in-person over online learning, viewed shelter in place as less desirable, and perceived the opening of the Texas economy as more legitimate. We also find that multiple psychological mechanisms might be at work—resistance to market interventions, perceived legitimacy of opening the economy, perceived seriousness of the health crisis, and violation of human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a previous article, we observed that system justification was positively associated with the appreciation of humor targeting low-status groups (Baltiansky, Craig, & Jost, 2021). We are pleased to learn that other researchers took interest in our study, reanalyzing the data set we made publicly available and writing a commentary. We are also pleased that, using Bayesian statistical analyses, Purser and Harper (2023) reached the same conclusion we did based on frequentist analyses, namely that low system-justifiers found jokes targeting low-status groups to be less funny than high system-justifiers did. However, we object to the commentators' use of value-laden language in characterizing the pattern of results and to several unsubstantiated insinuations and allegations of an ideological nature that they make about our motives and opinions about "cancel culture" and the deplatforming of professional comedians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perceiving low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) groups as less human than high-SES groups contributes to justifying socioeconomic inequality. Despite this issue's relevance, previous research has not acknowledged the possible causes of this perceived humanity gap (differences in humanity between SES groups). In this project, we focus on analysing the possible influence of hierarchy-enhancing ideological variables on this gap. To do so, in a first correlational study (N = 765), we analyse the extent to which certain ideological variables predict the perceived humanity gap between low- and high-SES groups. Our results indicate that group dominance, system justification, and hostile classism are highly predictive of the humanity gap. In a second correlational study (N = 521) we found that the perceived humanity gap, the tendency to blame low-SES groups and praise high-SES groups for their economic standings, sequentially mediated the relationship among social dominance, system justification, and hostile classism with the support of social change policies. Finally, we manipulated each ideological variable in three equivalent studies (N = 631) to test its influence on the previous pattern of mediational results. The results confirmed the ideological variables' antecedent roles in the mediation analysis. Finally, we discuss the role of the ideological hierarchy variables in the maintenance of socioeconomic differences through (de)humanisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stereotyped beliefs concerning rape, called rape myths, are a global problem. The aim of the studies was to assess the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale which is used to assess rape myth acceptance. The tool has a high internal consistency (α =.92) and an overly good test-retest reliability (the It Wasn't Really Rape subscale being one exception), The five-factor model fits the data better than the four-factor one. Both in the case of the four-factor and the five-factor models the brief version fits the data better than the full one. The study also demonstrated positive correlations of rape myth acceptance with right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, system justification, cultural conservatism, hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, beliefs in biological origins of the differences between men and women and unjust world beliefs. The correlation between rape myth acceptance and beliefs in cultural origins of the differences between men and women was negative. The analyses suggest that the Polish Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale is a reliable and valid tool and can be useful for further studies of rape myth acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine the predicted replicability of experimental research on system justification theory (SJT) by conducting a z‐curve analysis. Z‐curve is a meta‐analytic technique similar to p‐curve, but which performs better under conditions of heterogeneity. It estimates the predicted replication rate, average power, false discovery risk, and file drawer ratio (FDR) of a sample of studies. The z‐curve based on 116 papers and 232 unique samples suggests that the experimental SJT literature is likely to show low rates of replicability, as indicated by an overall average statistical power of 16%. Moderator analyses suggest that this may be driven in part by publication pressures, that the replicability of research in this area has improved since 2015, and that studies using system threat manipulations show particularly low estimated replication rates (ERR). Implications for the replicability and validity of the experimental SJT literature are discussed, and recommendations to increase the rigor of research are put forth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study's purpose is four-fold: (1) To test the nomological validity of the X-Scale; (2) To assess the bi-dimensionality of the consumer xenocentrism construct in a new geographical setting; (3) To determine the predictive validity of consumer xenocentrism on the willingness to buy foreign-made products and preferences for foreign brands; and (4) To analyze the relationship between consumer xenocentrism and demographics variables. The conceptualization of this research is based on System Justification Theory and Social Dominance Theory. The study was carried out across Russia employing an online survey. Results support the bi-dimensionality of the X-Scale, and indicate that consumer xenocentrism is negatively related to the consumer disposition of ethnocentrism and positively with cosmopolitanism. The X-scale explains significantly more variance on foreign brand preferences than its related consumer dispositions. In addition, consumer xenocentrism is manifested toward preferences for products and brands coming from developed countries instead of developing or transitional ones. Russian consumers are xenocentric, and the ones significantly scoring higher in this construct are males and those speaking more than one language. These results lead to a discussion of the nature of Russian consumer xenocentrism and its potential managerial implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research in political psychology indicates that liberals are less motivated than conservatives by epistemic, existential, and relational needs to reduce uncertainty, threat, and social discord, and are therefore more prone to challenge the status quo. In a compelling extension of this work into the field of consumer behavior, Jung, Garbarino, Briley, and Wynhausen (this issue) demonstrate that people residing in more liberal (vs. conservative) areas register more complaints with the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and dispute more resolutions offered in response to their complaints. Furthermore, liberals were found to object more strongly to the hypothetical imposition of an unanticipated banking fee, and this effect was mediated by system justification. Inspired by Jung and colleagues, we investigated the hypothesis that liberals would also be more likely to buy and boycott consumer products for political reasons. We analyzed data from the American National Election Studies and European Social Surveys and discovered that, even after we adjusted for demographic factors, liberals in the United States and leftists in all 15 European countries were more likely than conservatives and rightists to report having bought a product--or refrained from buying a product--for political reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing research on executives' belief in the business case for corporate social responsibility (CSR) is built on two premises. The first is that, in order to believe in the business case, executives need factual evidence that this business case indeed exists. The second premise is that those executives who do believe in the business case will readily invest in CSR-related activities. The results from our four studies tell a different story. We show that managers, rather than focusing on factual evidence, believe in the business case because they espouse a fair market ideology--the tendency to justify and idealize the market economy system. At the same time, even though managers espousing a fair market ideology believe in the business case for CSR, they are not more inclined to engage in CSR than managers who do not hold such an ideology, because they also experience weaker moral emotions when confronted with ethical problems. By drawing on system justification theory, we simultaneously explore antecedents and consequences of executives' belief in the business case for CSR and of their moral emotions. In doing so, we help advance knowledge about the micro-foundations of CSR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite widespread support for the principles of democracy, democratic norms have been eroding globally for over a decade. We ask whether and how political ideology factors into people's reactions to democratic decline. We offer hypotheses derived from two theoretical lenses, one considering ideologically relevant dispositions and another considering ideologically relevant situations. Preregistered laboratory experiments combined with analyses of World Values Survey (WVS) data indicate that there is a dispositional trend: Overall, liberals are more distressed than conservatives by low democracy. At the same time, situational factors also matter: This pattern emerges most strongly when the ruling party is conservative and disappears (though it does not flip into its mirror image) when the ruling party is liberal. Our results contribute to ongoing debates over ideological symmetry and asymmetry; they also suggest that, if democracy is worth protecting, not everyone, everywhere will feel the urgency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do people give and help others in face of their own mortality salience? The existential struggle with the awareness of death impacts the gamut of human cognition, emotion, and behavior. This multi‐method research (∑N = 1,219) explains the psychosocial impact of COVID‐19‐related mortality salience on altruism. Drawing from terror management theory, two studies tested death‐thought accessibility, mortality salience, and anxiety buffer hypotheses. Study 1 (cross‐sectional survey), using structural equation modeling, confirms death anxiety and fear are predictors of powerlessness and materialism which, in turn, predict charitable donations. Study 2 (between‐subjects experiment) confirms the causal effects of COVID‐19‐induced mortality salience on altruism. Controlling income and socioeconomic status, people in the mortality salience treatment condition indicate greater monetary donations ($), ratio of prosocial (altruistic) to proself (egocentric) spending (%), donation of time (hour), monetary valuation of time (hourly rate = $/hour), and economic value of donated time (hourly rate*hour) than the controls. These effects are mediated by powerlessness. Moderating effects of relevant individual difference factors are significant: the greedier, more selfish, narcissistic, materialistic, and system‐justifying the donor is, the higher monetary donations, volunteer time, and perceived value of donated time are, only when the COVID‐19‐induced mortality is made salient but not in the controls. Environmental and dispositional factors jointly influence vulnerability to mortality salience. The paradox of egocentrism and altruism, as an evolutionarily adaptive protective buffer against existential insecurity for social and cultural animals, can help revitalize resilience, thus shedding some lights on the sociopsychological mechanism of consumers' subjective well‐being. Implications for consumer affairs, social marketers, and policymakers are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study responds to the alarmingly frequent occurrence of sexual harassment (SH) in Chinese colleges by investigating female college students' experience, tolerance of SH and evaluation of the #metoo social media campaign. Guided by the system justification theory, this study has confirmed the association between their tolerance of SH, the traditional gender role value and hostile sexism they hold. In total, 31% of variance of tolerance of SH can be explained by the variables of cultural values and sex information access. Hostile sexism is significantly predictive of tolerance of SH, but not of the evaluation of the #metoo campaign. As the first of its kind, this study has demonstrated the positive relationships between family sex communication, school sex education and the tolerance of SH in current China. Moreover, the respondents' evaluation on the #metoo social media campaign is reversely related to their family sex communication. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Existing research has examined why consumers are drawn to things from their past (personal nostalgia). However, little empirical work has examined why consumers prefer products that were never a part of their personal history (communal nostalgia). For example, a consumer may purchase vinyl records even though she grew up listening to mp3 files. Here, we find that one reason why consumers may be drawn to communal nostalgia is that it can provide a sense of social stability. Drawing on System Justification Theory (Jost & Banaji, British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1994 and 1–27), we demonstrate that perceived threats to the social system increase consumer demand for communal nostalgia and enhance the pleasure consumers get from certain retro products. We further show that a retro product's ability to provide a sense of stability to consumers mediates the effect of system justification on communal nostalgia. Together, these findings suggest that communal nostalgia may be driven by its own unique motivational antecedents that are distinct from personal nostalgia, as individuals seek to connect to aspects of society that are perceived as stable and unchanging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Starting from the System Justification Theory, the aim of this paper is to explore levels of general system legitimation, inequality perception and meritocracy perception among Croatian citizens, as well as to determine whether there is a difference between social groups of lower and higher social standing in this regard. Survey research on a sample of the Croatian general population (N = 353) revealed that on balance the respondents do not perceive the Croatian social system as legitimate, equal and meritocratic. Regression analyses showed that retired persons express a substantially higher level of system legitimation and meritocracy perception when compared to employed persons, while higher religiosity was also a significant predictor in this regard. When it comes to the inequality perception, only female gender was a significant predictor. The results are discussed within the framework of the contemporary theories of meritocracy and system legitimation, as well as with reference to specific social and economic characteristics of the Croatian society, such as the Croatian War of Independence, transition to capitalism, welfare state development and labour market situation. Overall, the study results provide only a partial confirmation of the System Justification Theory.

Foreign and domestic product purchase behavior largely depends on consumer predispositions. The dominant construct in international marketing literature explaining such behavior has been consumer ethnocentrism, which is conceptually anchored in social identity theory. However, such a perspective overlooks evidence that certain consumers are consistently attracted by the "foreignness" of a product. Drawing from system justification theory, the present investigation conceptualizes and provides an empirical test of the consumer xenocentrism construct that is intended to explain consumer attraction toward foreign products. Using survey data from five complementary studies, the authors develop and validate a new scale (the C-XENSCALE) to measure consumers' xenocentric tendencies and offer extensive evidence on its ability to explain consumer preferences for foreign products. The authors discuss implications of the findings for theory and managerial practice and identify future research directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research on group attitudes in members of disadvantaged groups has provided evidence that group evaluations closely align with societal stigma, reflecting outgroup favoritism in members of those groups that are most strongly stigmatized. While outgroup favoritism is clearly evident among some groups, there is still debate about the psychological mechanisms underlying outgroup favoritism. The current research focuses on a less intensively examined aspect of outgroup favoritism, namely the use of status-legitimizing group stereotypes. We present data from members of four disadvantaged groups (i.e., persons who self-categorize as gay or lesbian, n = 205; Black or African American, n = 209; overweight n = 200, or are aged 60–75 years n = 205), who reported the perceived status of their ingroup and a comparison majority outgroup and provided explanations for their status perceptions. Contrary to assumptions from System Justification Theory, participants rarely explained perceived group status differences with group stereotypes, whereas they frequently explained ingroup disadvantage with perceived stigmatization and/or systemic reasons. Further exploratory analyses indicated that participants' status explanations were related to measures of intergroup attitudes, ideological beliefs, stigma consciousness, and experienced discrimination. Our results highlight the need to develop a better understanding whether, under what circumstances, and with which consequences members of disadvantaged groups use group stereotypes as attributions of ingroup status and status differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Findings on the effect of social status on corruption perception are mixed. To make sense of the mixed results, three studies were conducted to examine whether meritocracy moderates this effect. In Study 1, we measured all variables using a questionnaire‐based correlational design. In the preregistered Study 2, we adopted an experimental design in which we manipulated social status using a false feedback paradigm and measured corruption perception and meritocracy. In Study 3, we manipulated meritocracy using a scrambled sentence task and measured its effect on the relationship between social status and corruption perception. The results consistently demonstrated that meritocracy could moderate the influence of social status on corruption perception. Specifically, social status was negatively associated with corruption perception when meritocracy was weak, whereas the association was not significant when meritocracy was strong. Our results suggest that meritocracy critically affects acknowledgment of the pervasiveness of social injustice and even deters the disadvantaged from fighting against corruption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted a content analysis of the first two and last two seasons of the popular crime drama Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), to determine the extent to which depictions of the intersection of substance use and violence were consistent with research. Using the lens of system justification theory, we find that CSI focuses on aspects of crime that preserve the status quo, specifically it overemphasizes the negative impact of illicit substances as opposed to legal substances (such as alcohol), and it emphasizes the psychopharmacological role of drugs in violent crime compared to systemic violence related to the illegality of drug markets, even though research demonstrates that systemic violence makes up a large proportion of substance-related homicides. Despite significant changes in drug policy that occurred during the time that CSI was on the air, we find these portrayals are largely unchanged between episodes that were broadcast between 2000–2002 versus those that aired 2014–2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research on group attitudes in members of disadvantaged groups has provided evidence that group evaluations closely align with societal stigma, reflecting outgroup favoritism in members of those groups that are most strongly stigmatized. While outgroup favoritism is clearly evident among some groups, there is still debate about the psychological mechanisms underlying outgroup favoritism. The current research focuses on a less intensively examined aspect of outgroup favoritism, namely the use of status-legitimizing group stereotypes. We present data from members of four disadvantaged groups (i.e., persons who self-categorize as gay or lesbian, n = 205; Black or African American, n = 209; overweight n = 200, or are aged 60–75 years n = 205), who reported the perceived status of their ingroup and a comparison majority outgroup and provided explanations for their status perceptions. Contrary to assumptions from System Justification Theory, participants rarely explained perceived group status differences with group stereotypes, whereas they frequently explained ingroup disadvantage with perceived stigmatization and/or systemic reasons. Further exploratory analyses indicated that participants’ status explanations were related to measures of intergroup attitudes, ideological beliefs, stigma consciousness, and experienced discrimination. Our results highlight the need to develop a better understanding whether, under what circumstances, and with which consequences members of disadvantaged groups use group stereotypes as attributions of ingroup status and status differences.

Estimates suggest that around 20% of women may have experienced rape. Various misconceptions about rape (i.e., rape myths) are closely related to victim blaming. In our studies we tested the link between system justification, beliefs in biological origins of gender differences, ambivalent sexism and beliefs concerning sexual violence. Study 1 was conducted among 433 Polish students. The sequential mediation analysis suggests that system justification predicts the level of rape myth acceptance through beliefs in biological origins of gender differences and then hostile (but not benevolent) sexism. In Study 2, conducted among 197 Polish students, we tested the relationship between beliefs in biological origins of gender differences and beliefs concerning sexual violence using experimental design. Contrary to our expectations, students who read the text about social origins of gender differences perceived the survivor of a hypothetical acquaintance rape as less credible, and proposed a lower sentence for a stranger rape perpetrator, compared to participants who read about biological origins of gender differences. We suspect that this is due to experiencing reactance when confronted with social explanations of gender differences. We discuss implications for research and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Service Industries Journal is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Many popular comedians tell complicated jokes that involve multiple levels of interpretation. The same joke may be perceived as criticizing or reinforcing the societal status quo, depending on perceivers' assumptions about the target of the punchline (e.g., whether the joke is at the expense of high- or low-status groups). We focused on how such jokes are experienced by listeners who are psychologically prone to justifying (vs. challenging) the status quo. In a sample of Mechanical Turk workers (N = 179), we explored whether individual differences in system justification would be associated with the appreciation of group-based (stereotypical) humor, depending on the perceived target of the joke. As hypothesized, high system-justifiers found jokes targeting low-status groups (e.g., women, poor people, racial/ethnic minorities) to be funnier than low system-justifiers did. In some cases, low system-justifiers found jokes targeting high-status groups (rich people, European Americans) to be funnier than high system-justifiers did. These results expand upon previous demonstrations that humor appreciation is linked to relatively stable ideological dispositions and suggest that different individuals may perceive complex group-based humor in divergent ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Seeing the sociopolitical system as fair and legitimate is important for people's participation in civic duties, political action, and the functioning of society in general. However, little is known about when migrants, without life-long socialization in a certain system, justify the sociopolitical system of their host country and how system justification influences their political participation. We examined antecedents of system justification using a survey among Iranian migrants in eight European countries (N = 935). Subsequently, we examined the relationship between system justification and political participation intentions. We found that system justification beliefs are generally high in our sample, mainly stemming from an assessment of opportunity to achieve changes in intergroup relations. Stronger social identity threat, feeling disadvantaged, a longer residence in Europe, and perceived intergroup stability all relate to less system justification. Conversely, stronger efficacy beliefs bolster system justification. Furthermore, we found some support for a curvilinear relationship between system justification and political participation intentions, but the size of this effect is small. The results show that the high levels of system justification of Iranian migrants are at risk when discrimination and disadvantage are perceived to be stable facets of society. Surprisingly, political participation to better Iranian migrants' societal position is barely affected by system justification. We discuss implications and further research that can increase understanding of system justification among migrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzed the effect of social threat, produced through a manipulation of socioeconomic status, on Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). A sample of middle/middle-high class students attending a private university in Lima, Peru (n = 58) was randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: increased versus reduced socioeconomic status. The experimental manipulation consisted in exposing the participants to a pyramid which describes the structure of society in terms of socioeconomic status and privilege, and then asking them to complete a short semantic task about what their life would be like if their life circumstances placed them at the top or the bottom of the social pyramid (according to the randomly assigned experimental condition). Subsequently, they were asked to complete the SDO scale. The ANOVA results show an increase in SDO levels in the reduced/lower status condition, with this measure remaining unaffected in the increased/higher status condition. These results are consistent with the idea that SDO is susceptible to modification by manipulating people's socioeconomic status. Likewise, the increase in SDO in the low-status condition supports the idea that, in hierarchical and unequal societies such as Peru, the mere representation of a threat (a decrease in status in this case) can trigger a defensive response, anchored in the adherence to ideologies that reinforce differences in status between individuals and groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]