Although psychological science has documented individual and situational factors that affect the process of system justification, the temporal dimension of system justification has not been systematically examined. This study used the 2016 U.S. presidential election as a naturalistic setting in which to test for the existence of a temporal dimension. We propose that the potential for a Clinton victory represented a system threat for individuals who supported traditional gender roles, and the approaching election provided a mechanism for measuring the effect of the temporal proximity of the system-threatening event. The results show that gender role ideology played a substantial role in decision-making during the 2016 election, and they support the existence of a temporal dimension of system justification. Participants who began the study with a stronger gender-system justification motive exhibited greater changes in their psychological responses to Clinton over time and greater sensitivity to the temporal proximity of the election.
AzevedoF.JostJ. T.RothmundT. (2017). “Making America great again”: System justification in the U.S. presidential election of 2016. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3, 231-240. doi:10.1037/tps0000122
2.
BrescollV.UhlmannE.NewmanG. (2013). The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 891-908. doi:10.1037/a0034701
CorrellS.BenardS.PaikI. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297-1338. doi:10.1086/511799
5.
CrosbyF.WilliamsJ.BiernatM. (2004). The maternal wall. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 675-682. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00379.x
6.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
7.
FuegenK.BiernatM.HainesE.DeauxK. (2004). Mothers and fathers in the workplace: How gender and parental status influence judgments of job-related competence. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 737-754. doi:10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00383.x
GlickP.FiskeS. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
10.
HuntC.KimA.BorgidaE.ChaikenS. (2010). Revisiting the self-interest versus values debate: The role of temporal perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1155-1158. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.004
11.
JordanA.ZitekE. (2012). Marital status bias in perceptions of employees. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 474-481. doi:10.1080/01973533.2012.711687
12.
JostJ.BanajiM. (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
13.
JostJ.Chaikalis-PetritsisV.AbramsD.SidaniusJ.van der ToornJ.BrattC. (2012). Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 197-208. doi:10.1177/0146167211422544
14.
JostJ.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
15.
JostJ.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
16.
JostJ.KayA. (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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498
17.
JostJ.LiviatanI.van der ToornJ.LedgerwoodA.MandisodzaA.NosekB. (2011). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated?. In BobocelD.KayA.ZannaM.OlsonJ. (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173-203). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
KaiserC.EcclestonC.HagiwaraN. (2008). Post-hurricane Katrina racialized explanations as a system threat: Implications for Whites’ and Blacks’ racial attitudes. Social Justice Research, 21, 192-203. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0065-0
19.
KayA.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
20.
KayA.GaucherD.NapierJ.CallanM.LaurinK. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18-35. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18
21.
KayA.GaucherD.PeachJ.LaurinK.FriesenJ.ZannaM.SpencerS. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421-434. doi:10.1037/a0015997
22.
KayA.JimenezM.JostJ. (2002). Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1300-1312. doi:10.1177/01461672022812014
23.
KayA.JostJ.YoungS. (2005). Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternate routes to system justification. Psychological Science, 16, 240-246. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00810.x
24.
KayA.ShepherdS.BlatzC.ChuaS.GalinskyA. (2010). For God (or) country: The hydraulic relation between government instability and belief in religious sources of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 725-739. doi:10.1037/a0021140
25.
KayA.WhitsonJ.GaucherD.GalinskyA. (2010). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 264-268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x
26.
KayA.ZannaM. (2009). A contextual analysis of the system justification motive and its societal consequences. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 158-185). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
LaurinK.ShepherdS.KayA. (2010). Restricted emigration, system inescapability, and defense of the status quo: System-justifying consequences of restricted exit opportunities. Psychological Science, 21, 1075-1082. doi:10.1177/0956797610375448
28.
LedgerwoodA.MandisodzaA.JostJ.PohlM. (2011). Working for the system: Motivated defense of meritocratic beliefs. Social Cognition, 29, 322-340. doi:10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.322
29.
LedgerwoodA.TropeY.ChaikenS. (2010). Flexibility now, consistency later: Psychological distance and construal shape evaluative responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 32-51. doi:10.1037/a0019843
30.
LedgerwoodA.WakslakC.WangM. (2010). Differential information use for near and distant decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 638-642. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.001
31.
LewinK. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (DorwinCartwright, Ed.). Oxford, UK: Harper & Row.
32.
LibermanN.TropeY.StephanE. (2007). Psychological distance. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. 2, pp. 353-383). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
MillerA. (2018). Expertise fails to attenuate gendered biases in judicial decision-making. Social Psychological & Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1948550617741181
34.
MillerA.BorgidaE. (2016). The separate spheres model of gendered inequality. PLoS ONE, 11(1), e0147315. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147315
35.
MillerN. (1944). Experimental studies of conflict. In McV. HuntJ. (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (pp. 431-465). New York, NY: Ronald Press.
36.
RatliffK. A.RedfordL.ConwayJ.SmithC. T. (2017). Engendering support: Hostile sexism predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1368430217741203
37.
SchaffnerB. F.MacwilliamsM.NtetaT. (2018). Understanding white polarization in the 2016 vote for President: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Political Science Quarterly, 133, 9-34. doi:10.1002/polq.12737
38.
ShepherdS.KayA. C.LandauM. J.KeeferL. A. (2011). Evidence for the specificity of control motivations in worldview defense: Distinguishing compensatory control from uncertainty management and terror management processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 949-958. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.026
39.
SternC.BalcetisE.ColeS.WestT. V.CarusoE. M. (2016). Government instability shifts skin tone representations of and intentions to vote for political candidates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 76-95. doi:10.1037/pspi0000040
UllrichJ.CohrsJ. (2007). Terrorism salience increases system justification: Experimental evidence. Social Justice Research, 20, 117-139. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0035-y
42.
van der ToornJ.TylerT.JostJ. (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 471, 127-138. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.003
43.
WakslakC.JostJ.BauerP. (2011). Spreading rationalization: Increased support for large-scale and small-scale social systems following system threat. Social Cognition, 29, 288-302. doi:10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.288
44.
WakslakC.JostJ.TylerT.ChenE. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267-274. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01887.x
45.
YeungA.KayA.PeachJ. (2013). Anti-feminist backlash: The role of system justification in the rejection of feminism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 174, 474-484. doi:10.1177/1368430213514121
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.
