This study tests specific competing hypotheses from social dominance theory/realistic conflict theory (RCT) versus system justification theory about the role of social status. In particular, it examines whether system justification belief and effects are stronger among people with low socioeconomic status, and in less socially developed and unequal nations than among better-off people and countries. A cross-national survey was carried out in 19 nations from the Americas, Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, and Oceania using representative online samples (N = 14,936, 50.15% women, Mage = 41.61 years). At the individual level, system justification beliefs, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, national identification, sociopolitical conservatism, sex, age, and social status were measured. At the national level, the human development index and the Gini index were used. Multilevel analyses performed indicated that results fit better with the social dominance/RCT approach, as system justification was higher in high-status and developed nations; further, associations between legitimizing ideologies and system justification were stronger among high-status people.
AronsonE. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 303-311. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0304_1
4.
BoniwellI.ZimbardoP. G. (2004). Balancing one’s time perspective in pursuit of optimal functioning. In LinleyP. A.JosephS. (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 223-236). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
5.
BrandtM. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status-legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 765-785. doi:10.1037/a0031751
6.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2012). Social dominance or system justification? The acceptance of inequality and resistance to social change as unique system-relevant motivations. Social Science Research Network. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2165690
7.
BriefA. P.UmphressE. E.DietzJ.BurrowsJ. W.ButzR. M.ScholtenL. (2005). Community matters: Realistic group conflict theory and the impact of diversity. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 830-844. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.18803925
8.
BrownR. (2010). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Princeton, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
9.
CaricatiL. (2017). Testing the status-legitimizing hypothesis: A multilevel modeling approach to the perception of legitimacy in income distribution in 36 nations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157, 532-540. doi:1080/00224545.2016.1242472
10.
CaricatiL.Lorenzi-CioldiF. (2012). Does status matter? Testing hypotheses from strong form of system justification theory. Revue Internationale De Psychologie Sociale, 25, 67-95.
11.
CarneyD. R.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807-840. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x
12.
CarterT. J.FergusonM. J.HassinR. R. (2011). Implicit nationalism as system justification: The case of the United States of America. Social Cognition, 29, 341-359. doi:10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.341
13.
CastilloJ. C.MirandaD.Madero CabibI. (2013). Todos somos de clase media: Sobre el estatus social subjetivo en Chile [All of us are middle class: About subjective social status in Chile]. Latin American Research Review, 48, 155-173. doi:10.1353/lar.2013.0006
14.
Chernyak-HaiL.HalabiS.NadlerA. (2014). “Justified dependency”: Effects of perceived stability of social hierarchy and level of system justification on help-seeking behavior of low-status group members. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 420-435. doi:10.1177/1368430213507320
15.
CheungG. W.LauR. S. (2007). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296-325. doi:10.1177/1094428107300343
16.
CooperJ.FazioR. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 229-266. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60121-5
17.
Dirilen-GumusO. (2011). Differences in system justification with respect to gender, political conservatism, socio-economic status and religious fundamentalism. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2607-2611. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.510
18.
DoesS.MentovichA. (2016). Rooting for the top dog: How social dominance motives shape group preference in intergroup competition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 24-29. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.002
19.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2009). A dual process motivational model of ideological attitudes and system justification. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 292-313). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivation model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861-1893. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
21.
Echebarria-EchabeA.Fernández GuedeE. (2003). Extending the theory of realistic conflict to competition in institutional settings: Intergroup status and outcome. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 763-782. doi:10.1080/00224540309600429
22.
EvansM. D. R.KelleyJ. (2004). Subjective social location: Data from 21 nations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16(1), 3-38. doi:10.1093/ijpor/16.1.3
23.
FeldmanS.JohnstonC. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35, 337-358. doi:10.1111/pops.12055
FischerR.HankeK.SibleyC. G. (2012). Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology, 33, 437-467. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00884.x
26.
FriesenJ. P.KayA. C.EibachR. P.GalinskyA. D. (2014). Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 590-609. doi:10.1037/a0035620
27.
GelmanA.HillJ. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Gil de ZúñigaH.LiuJ. H. (2017). Second screening politics in the social media sphere: Advancing research on dual screen use in political communication with evidence from 20 countries. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61, 193-219. doi:10.1080/08838151.2017.1309420
29.
Harmon-JonesE.JudsonM. (1999). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In Harmon-JonesE.JudsonM. (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology: Science conference series (pp. 3-21). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
30.
HennesE. P.NamH. H.SternC.JostJ. T. (2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epistemic, existential, and relational needs predict system-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition, 30, 669-688. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669
31.
HenryP. J.SaulA. (2006). The development of system justification in the developing world. Social Justice Research, 19, 365-378. doi:10.1007/s11211-006-0012-x
32.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.PrattoF.LevinS.ThomsenL.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 583-606. doi:10.1177/0146167211432765
33.
HofstedeG. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks CA: SAGE.
34.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
35.
HuddyL. (2003). Group identity and political cohesion. In SearsD. O.HuddyL.JervisR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 511-558). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
HuddyL.KhatibN. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 63-77. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00237.x
37.
InskoC. A.SchoplerJ.KennedyJ. F.DahlK. R.GraetzK. A.DrigotasS. M. (1992). Individual-group discontinuity from the differing perspectives of Campbell’s realistic group conflict theory and Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 272-291.
38.
JaskoK.KossowskaM. (2013). The impact of superordinate identification on the justification of intergroup inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 255-262. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1946
39.
JostJ. T. (1997). An experimental replication of the depressed-entitlement effect among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 387-393. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00120.x
40.
JostJ. T.AmodioD. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55-64. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7
41.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
42.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (2004). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. In JostJ. T.SidaniusJ. (Eds.), Political psychology (pp. 391-419). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
43.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
44.
JostJ. T.BlountS.PfefferJ.HunyadyG. (2003). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53-91. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25002-4
45.
JostJ. T.GaucherD.SternC. (2015). “The world isn’t fair”: A system justification perspective on social stratification and inequality. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.DovidioJ. F.SimpsonJ. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 2: Group processes (pp. 317-340). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
46.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
47.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2003). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111-153. doi:10.1080/10463280240000046
48.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
49.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.SheldonO.SullivanB. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13-36. doi:10.1002/ejsp.127
50.
JostJ. T.SternC.RuleN. O.SterlingJ. (2017). The politics of fear: Is there an ideological asymmetry in existential motivation?Social Cognition, 35, 324-353. doi:10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.324
51.
JouleR. V.BeauvoisJ. L. (1997). Cognitive dissonance theory: A radical view. European Review of Social Psychology, 8, 1-32. doi:10.1080/14792779643000065
52.
JylhäK. M.AkramiN. (2015). Social dominance orientation and climate change denial: The role of dominance and system justification. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 108-111. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.041
53.
KayA. C.CzaplinskiS.JostJ. T. (2009). Left-right ideological differences in system justification following exposure to complementary versus noncomplementary stereotype exemplars. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 290-298. doi:10.1002/ejsp.500
54.
KayA. C.FriesenJ. (2011). On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 360-364. doi:10.1177/0963721411422059
55.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823-837. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823
56.
KayA. C.LaurinK.FitzsimonsG. M.LandauM. J. (2014). A functional basis for structure-seeking: Exposure to structure promotes willingness to engage in motivated action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 486-491. doi:10.1037/a0034462
57.
KingE. B.KnightJ. L.HeblM. R. (2010). The influence of economic conditions on aspects of stigmatization. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 446-460. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01655.x
58.
KnightC. G.TobinS. J.HornseyM. J. (2014). From fighting the system to embracing it: Control loss promotes system justification among those high in psychological reactance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 139-146. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.012
59.
KunstJ. R.FischerR.SidaniusJ.ThomsenL. (2017). Preferences for group dominance track and mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and violence across societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 5407-5412. doi:10.1073/pnas.1616572114
60.
LeeI. C.PrattoF.JohnsonB. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 1029-1064. doi:10.1037/a0025410
61.
LernerM. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Springer.
62.
LevinS.SidaniusJ.RabinowitzJ. L.FedericoC. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies, and social status: A matter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19, 373-404. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00109
63.
MoghaddamF. M. (2008). Multiculturalism ad intergroup relations: Psychological implications for democracy in global context. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
64.
NamH. H.JostJ. T.Van BavelJ. J. (2013). “Not for all the tea in China!” Political ideology and the avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations. PLoS ONE, 8(4), Article e59837. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059837
65.
NapierJ. L.JostJ. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals?Psychological Science, 19, 565-572. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x
66.
OnraetE.van HielA.CornelisI. (2013). Threat and right-wing attitudes: A cross-national approach. Political Psychology, 34, 791-803. doi:10.1111/pops.12014
OsborneD.SibleyC. G. (2014). Endorsement of system-justifying beliefs strengthens the relationship between church attendance and right-wing authoritarianism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 542-551. doi:10.1177/1368430213507322
69.
OsborneD.YogeeswaranK.SibleyC. (2017). Culture-specific ideologies undermine collective action support: Examining the legitimizing effects of postcolonial belief systems. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 333-349. doi:10.1177/1368430216682352
70.
OwuamalamC. K.RubinM.IssmerC. (2016). Reactions to group devaluation and social inequality: A comparison of social identity and system justification predictions. Cogent Psychology, 3(1), 1188442. doi:10.1080/23311908.2016.1188442
71.
OwuamalamC. K.RubinM.SpearsR. (2016). The system justification conundrum: Re-examining the cognitive dissonance basis for system justification. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1889. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01889
72.
OwuamalamC. K.RubinM.SpearsR.WeerabangsaM. M. (2017). Why do people from low-status groups support class systems that disadvantage them? A test of two mainstream explanations in Malaysia and Australia. Journal of Social Issues, 73, 80-98. doi:10.1111/josi.12205
73.
PaezD.BobowikM.LiuJ. H.BasabeN.HankeK. (2016). Social representations of history, cultural values, and willingness to fight in a national war: A collective level analysis in 40 nations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 347-361. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12153
74.
PrattoF.ÇidamA.StewartA. L.Bou ZeineddineF.ArandaM.AielloA.. . . HenkelK. E. (2013). Social dominance in context and in individuals: Contextual moderation of robust effects of social dominance orientation in 15 languages and 20 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 587-599. doi:10.1177/1948550612473663
75.
PrattoF.LiuJ. H.LevinS.SidaniusJ.ShihM.BachrachH.HegartyP. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 369-409. doi:10.1177/0022022100031003005
76.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
77.
PrattoF.StallworthL. M.Conway-LanzS. (1998). Social dominance orientation and the ideological legitimization of social policy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1853-1875. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01349.x
78.
PrattoF.StallworthL. M.SidaniusJ. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49-68. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01118.x
79.
PrattoF.StewartA. L. (2012). Group dominance and the half-blindness of privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 28-45. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01734.x
80.
ProestakisA.Brañas-GarzaP. (2016). Self-identified obese people request less money: A field experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01454
81.
RabinowitzJ. L. (1999). Go with the flow or fight the power? The interactive effects of social dominance orientation and perceived injustice on support for the status quo. Political Psychology, 20, 1-14. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00135
82.
RubinM.BadeaC.JettenJ. (2014). Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 563-576. doi:10.1177/1368430213514122
83.
SenguptaN. K.OsborneD.SibleyC. G. (2015). The status-legitimacy hypothesis revisited: Ethnic-group differences in general and dimension-specific legitimacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 324-340. doi:10.1111/bjso.12080
84.
SenguptaN. K.SibleyC. G. (2013). Perpetuating one’s own disadvantage: Intergroup contact enables the ideological legitimation of inequality. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 39, 1391-1403. doi:10.1177/0146167213497593
85.
SherifM.HarveyO. J.WhiteB. J.HoodW. R.SherifC. W. (1988). The Robbers Cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
86.
SibleyC. G.DuckittJ. (2010). The ideological legitimation of the status quo: Longitudinal tests of a social dominance model. Political Psychology, 31, 109-137. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00747.x
87.
SidaniusJ.FeshbachS.LevinS.PrattoF. (1997). The interface between ethnic and national attachment: Ethnic pluralism or ethnic dominance?The Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 102-133.
88.
SidaniusJ.LevinS.FedericoC. M.PrattoF. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 307-331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
89.
SidaniusJ.LiuJ. H.ShawJ. S.PrattoF. (1994). Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 338-366. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00586.x
90.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
91.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (2004). Social dominance theory: A new synthesis. In JostJ. T.SidaniusJ. (Eds.), Political psychology (pp. 420-442). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
92.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson.
93.
TajfelH. (1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 183-190. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00324.x
94.
TajfelH. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1-39. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
95.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
96.
ThorisdottirH.JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2009). On the social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 3-23). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
97.
TrumpK. S.WhiteA. (2014). Does inequality activate the system justification motivation? (Working paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
98.
TulletA. M.KayA. C.InzlichtM. (2015). Randomness increases self-reported anxiety and neurophysiological correlates of performance monitoring. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10, 628-635. doi:10.1093/scan/nsu097
99.
TurnerJ. C.BrownR. J.TajfelH. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187-204. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420090207
van der ToornJ.JostJ. T. (2014). Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on “ideology and system justification processes.”Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 413-419. doi:10.1177/1368430214531509
103.
van DijkT. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London, England: SAGE.
104.
WilsonS. M.LiuJ. H. (2003). Social dominance orientation and gender: The moderating role of gender identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 187-198. doi:10.1348/014466603322127175
105.
WilsonS. M.SibleyC. G. (2012). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 34, 277-284. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00929.x
106.
YitzhakiS. (1979). Relative deprivation and the Gini coefficient. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 93, 321-324.
107.
ZhuL.KayA. C.EibachR. P. (2013). A test of the flexible ideology hypothesis: System justification motives interact with ideological cueing to predict political judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 755-758. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.007
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
