The status-legitimacy hypothesis proposes that people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to justify the social system than those with higher SES. However, empirical studies found inconsistent findings. In the present research, we argue that at least part of the confusion stems from the possibility that objective and subjective SES are differently related to system justification. On one hand, subjective SES is more related to status maintenance motivation and may increase system justification. On the other hand, objective SES is more related to access to information about the social reality, which may increase criticism about the system and lead to lower system justification. These hypotheses were supported by evidence from five studies (total N = 26,134) involving both adult and adolescent samples in China. We recommend that future research on status-related issues needs to distinguish the potential divergent roles of objective and subjective SES.
AdlerN. E.EpelE. S.CastellazzoG.IckovicsJ. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586
2.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley.
3.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031751
4.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LundbergK. B.KayA. C.PayneB. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614553947
5.
CaricatiL. (2017). Testing the status-legitimacy hypothesis: A multilevel modeling approach to the perception of legitimacy in income distribution in 36 nations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157, 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1242472
6.
CaricatiL. (2019). Evidence of decreased system justification among extreme conservatives in non-American samples. The Journal of Social Psychology, 159, 725–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1567455
7.
CarvachoH.ZickA.HayeA.GonzálezR.ManziJ.KocikC.BertlM. (2013). On the relation between social class and prejudice: The roles of education, income, and ideological attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1961
8.
ChenE.MartinA. D.MatthewsK. A. (2006). Socioeconomic status and health: Do gradients differ within childhood and adolescence?Social Science & Medicine, 62, 2161–2170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.054
9.
CohenD.ShinF.LiuX.OndishP.KrausM. W. (2017). Defining social class across time and between groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1530–1545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217721174
10.
DavidaiS. (2018). Why do Americans believe in economic mobility? Economic inequality, external attributions of wealth and poverty, and the belief in economic mobility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.012
11.
DayM. V.FiskeS. T. (2017). Movin’on up? How perceptions of social mobility affect our willingness to defend the system. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616678454
12.
DuboisD.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2015). Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108, 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000008
13.
EsherickJ.PickowiczP.WalderA. G. (Eds.). (2006). The Chinese cultural revolution as history. Stanford University Press.
14.
EvansM. D.KelleyJ. (2004). Subjective social location: Data from 21 nations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/16.1.3
15.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
16.
FeldmanS.JohnstonC. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35, 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12055
17.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson.
18.
FeyginaI.JostJ. T.GoldsmithR. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351435
19.
FlanaganC. A.KimT.PykettA.FinlayA.GallayE. E.PancerM. (2014). Adolescents’ theories about economic inequality: Why are some people poor while others are rich?Developmental Psychology, 50, 2512–2525. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037934
20.
FlanaganC. A.KornbluhM. (2019). How unequal is the United States? Adolescents’ images of social stratification. Child Development, 90, 957–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12954
21.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
22.
HeineS. J.Dar-NimrodI.CheungB. Y.ProulxT. (2016). Essentially biased: Why people are fatalistic about genes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 137–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.10.003
23.
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. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669
24.
HenryP. J.SaulA. (2006). The development of system justification in the developing world. Social Justice Research, 19, 365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0012-x
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
27.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
28.
JostJ. T.BurgessD.MossoC. (2001). Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and system: The integrative potential of system justification theory. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 363–388). Cambridge University Press.
29.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
30.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
31.
JostJ. T.LangerM.BadaanV.AzevedoF.EtchezaharE.UngarettiJ.HennesE. P. (2017). Ideology and the limits of self-interest: System justification motivation and conservative advantages in mass politics. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3, e1–e26. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000127
32.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.SheldonO.Ni SullivanB. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.127
33.
KayA. C.JostJ. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823
34.
KellerJ. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686
35.
KrausM. W. (2015). Americans still overestimate social class mobility: A pre-registered self-replication. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01709
36.
KrausM. W.KeltnerD. (2013). Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032895
37.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.KeltnerD. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 992–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016357
38.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.KeltnerD. (2011). Social class as culture: The convergence of resources and rank in the social realm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414654
39.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.Mendoza-DentonR.RheinschmidtM. L.KeltnerD. (2012). Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychological Review, 119, 546–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028756
40.
KrausM. W.TanJ. J. (2015). Americans overestimate social class mobility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.01.005
41.
LittleT. D.CunninghamW. A.ShaharG.WidamanK. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1
42.
LiuY. (2016). Higher education, meritocracy and inequality in China. Springer.
43.
MulvadA. M. (2018). China’s ideological spectrum: A two-dimensional model of elite intellectuals’ visions. Theory and Society, 47, 635–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-018-9326-6
44.
NathanA. J.ShiT. (1996). Left and right with Chinese characteristics: Issues and alignments in Deng Xiaoping’s China. World Politics, 48, 522–550. https://doi.org/10.1353/wp.1996.0013
45.
NortonM. I.ArielyD. (2011). Building a better America—One wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393524
46.
OsborneD.SenguptaN. K.SibleyC. G. (2019). System justification theory at 25: Evaluating a paradigm shift in psychology and looking towards the future. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 340–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12302
47.
OwuamalamC. K.SpearsR. (2019). Do humans possess an autonomous system justification motivation? A pupillometric test of the strong system justification thesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, Article 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103897
RaiD.LewisG.LundbergM.ArayaR.SvenssonA.DalmanC.. . . MagnussonC. (2012). Parental socioeconomic status and risk of offspring autism spectrum disorders in a Swedish population-based study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 51, 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.02.012
50.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12080
51.
Singh-ManouxA.MarmotM. G.AdlerN. E. (2005). Does subjective social status predict health and change in health status better than objective status?Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 855–861. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000188434.52941.a0
52.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
53.
SnibbeA. C.MarkusH. R. (2005). You can’t always get what you want: Educational attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.703
54.
Van der ToornJ.TylerT. R.JostJ. T. (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.003
55.
Vargas-SalfateS. (2017). The palliative function of hostile sexism among high and low-status Chilean students. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1733. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01733
56.
Vargas-SalfateS.PaezD.LiuJ. H.PrattoF.& GildeZúñigaH. (2018). A comparison of social dominance theory and system justification: The role of social status in 19 nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1060–1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218757455
57.
WhyteM. K. (2009). Views of Chinese citizens on current inequalities. Sociological Studies, 1, 96–120.
58.
XieY.ZhouX. (2014). Income inequality in today’s China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 6928–6933. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403158111
59.
YangS.GuoY.HuX.ShuS.LiJ. (2016). Do lower class individuals possess higher levels of system justification? An examination from the social cognitive perspectives. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48, 1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01467
60.
ZimmermanJ. L.ReynaC. (2013). The meaning and role of ideology in system justification and resistance for high-and low-status people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032967
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.
