Three studies supported a model whereby associations between ideologies that share roots in biological determinism and outcomes that reinforce inequality (based on gender, race, or class) were mediated by system justification beliefs (SJB). Outcomes included support for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton as president (Study 1), justifying police brutality (Study 2), and support for a White House budget that slashed the social safety net to endow the wealthy with tax cuts (Study 3). These findings provoke a vital question: How do people deem unequal systems worthy of defense? Each study compared social Darwinism, social dominance orientation (SDO), and biological essentialism. We expected social Darwinism to account for the most variance in SJB because it provides both the rationale for social hierarchies (natural selection) and defends them as required for human welfare. This prediction was supported in each study. Implications for the psychology of legitimacy are discussed.
AlexanderM. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
2.
BageacD.FurrerO.ReynaudE. (2011). Management students’ attitudes toward business ethics: A comparison between France and Romania. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 391–406.
BrescollV. L.UhlmannE. L.NewmanG. E. (2013). The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 891–908.
BuhrmesterM. D.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.
11.
CasasA.Webb WilliamsN. (2018). Images that matter: Online protests and the mobilizing role of pictures. Political Research Quarterly, 72(2), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918786805
CliffordS.JewellR. M.WaggonerP. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics, 4, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072
CraigM. A.RichesonJ. A. (2014). More diverse yet less tolerant? How the increasingly diverse racial landscape affects White Americans’ racial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(6), 750–761.
19.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA. (2005). The justification-suppression model of prejudice: An approach to the history of prejudice research. In CrandallC. S.SchallerM. (Eds.), Social psychology of prejudice: Historical and contemporary issues (pp. 237–267). Lewinian Press.
20.
DeglerC. N. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. Oxford University Press.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2014). “A giant leap for mankind” but what about women? The role of system-justifying ideologies in predicting attitudes toward sexist language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(6), 667–680.
23.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Academic Press.
FreyR. A.PowellL. A. (2005). Beyond left-right ideology in the study of justice perception: Interdependent and independent distributive worldviews in Jamaica and New Zealand. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 36(1), 117–146.
26.
GladwellM. (2005). Seven seconds in the Bronx: The delicate art of mind reading. In GladwellM. (Ed.), Blink: The power of thinking without thinking (pp. 189-213). Little, Brown.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. http://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753
29.
GoodwinD. K. (2013). The bully pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the golden age of journalism. Simon & Schuster.
30.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford.
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. http://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.FoelsR.StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO-7 Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
36.
HoogheM.DassonnevilleR. (2018). Explaining the Trump vote: The effect of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518000367
37.
JahodaG. (1999). Images of savages: Ancient roots of modern prejudice in western culture. Routledge.
38.
JostJ. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 263–314.
39.
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), 1–27.
40.
JostJ. T.KayA. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509.
41.
JostJ. T.MajorB. (2001). The psychology of legitimacy. Cambridge University Books.
42.
JostJ. T.ThompsonE. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 209–232.
43.
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.
MeleadyR.VermueM. (2018). The effect of intergroup contact on solidarity-based collective action is mediated by reductions in SDO. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12586
54.
MiesingP.PrebleJ. F. (1985). A comparison of five business philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(6), 465–476.
MortonT. A.PostmesT.HaslamS. A.HornseyM. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653–664.
57.
MurphyK. R.DavidshoferC. O. (1991). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. Prentice Hall.
58.
NeckaE. A.CacioppoS.NormanG. J.CacioppoJ. T. (2016). Measuring the prevalence of problematic respondent behaviors among MTurk, campus, and community participants. PLOS ONE, 11(6), Article e0157732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157732
59.
NoS.HongY.LiaoH.LeeK.WoodD.Manchi ChaoM. (2008). Lay theory of race affects and moderates Asian Americans’ responses toward American culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 991–1004.
60.
NortonM. I.SommersS. R. (2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 215–218.
61.
OsborneD.JostJ. T.BeckerJ. C.BadaanV.SibleyC. G. (2019). Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 244–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2522
62.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
63.
PhelanJ. E.RudmanL. A. (2011). System justification, affirmative action, and resistance to equal opportunity organizations. Social Cognition, 29, 378–391.
64.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
65.
RothmundT.BeckerJ.JostJ. T. (2016). The psychology of social justice in political thought and action. In SchmittM.SabbaghC. (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 275–293). Springer.
66.
RudmanL. A.McLeanM. C. (2016). The role of appearance stigma in implicit racial ingroup bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 374–393.
67.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice toward female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179.
68.
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(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12737
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630
74.
SmithD. N.HanleyE. (2018). The anger games: Who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, and why?Critical Sociology, 44(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920517740615
SpencerH. (1867/1899). Synthetic philosophy (Vols. 1–2). D. Appleton & Company.
77.
ValentinoN.WayneC.OcenoM. (2018). Mobilizing sexism: The interaction of emotion and gender attitudes in the 2016 US presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(1), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy003
WhitmanJ. Q. (2017). Hitler’s American model: The United States and the making of Nazi race law. Princeton University Press.
80.
WilliamsM. J.EberhardtJ. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033–1047.
81.
YeungA. W. Y.KayA. C.PeachJ. M. (2014). Anti-feminist backlash: The role of system justification in the rejection of feminism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 474–484.
82.
ZeldichM. (2001). Theories of legitimacy. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 33–53). Cambridge University Books.
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.
