Although system-justifying beliefs often mitigate perceptions of discrimination, status-based asymmetries in the ideological motivators of perceived discrimination are unknown. Because the content and societal implications of discrimination claims are status-dependant, social dominance orientation (SDO) should motivate perceptions of (reverse) discrimination among members of high-status groups, whereas system justification should motivate the minimization of perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. We tested these hypotheses using multilevel regressions among a nationwide random sample of New Zealand Europeans (n = 29,169) and ethnic minorities (n = 5,118). As hypothesized, group-based dominance correlated positively with perceived (reverse) discrimination among ethnic-majority group members, whereas system justification correlated negatively with perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. Furthermore, the proportion of minorities within the region strengthened the victimizing effects of SDO-Dominance, but not SDO-Egalitarianism, among the advantaged. Together, these results reveal status-based asymmetries in the motives underlying perceptions of discrimination and identify a key contextual moderator of this association.
BahamondesJ.GómezF.BarrientosJ.CárdenasM.GuzmánM. (2020). Numbing the perception of stigma: System justification decreases psychological distress by reducing perceived stigma among Gay men and Lesbians. Revista de Psicología Social, 35(2), 282–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2020.1721052
2.
BahamondesJ.SibleyC. G.OsborneD. (2019). ‘We look (and feel) better through system justifying lenses’: Evidence of the palliative function of ideology among the disadvantaged. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(9), 1391–1408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219829178
3.
BahamondesJ.SibleyC. G.OsborneD. (2021). System justification and perceptions of group-based discrimination: Investigating the temporal order of the ideologically motivated minimization (or exaggeration) of discrimination across low- and high-status groups. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(4), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620929452
4.
Bahamondes-CorreaJ. (2016). System justification’s opposite effects on psychological well-being: Testing a moderated mediation model in a gay men and Lesbian sample in Chile. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(11), 1537–1555. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1223351
5.
BerbrierM. (2000). The victim ideology of White supremacists and White separatists in the United States. Sociological Focus, 33(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2000.10571164
6.
BilligM. (1991). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. SAGE.
7.
BlanzM.MummendeyA.MielkeR.KlinkA. (1998). Responding to negative social identity: A taxonomy of identity management strategies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 697–729.
8.
Bonilla-SilvaE.GoarC.EmbrickD. G. (2006). When Whites flock together: The social psychology of White habitus. Critical Sociology, 32(2–3), 229–253.
9.
BrandtM. J.ReynaC. (2017). Individual differences in the resistance to social change and acceptance of inequality predict system legitimacy differently depending on the social structure. European Journal of Personality, 31(3), 266–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2100
10.
CraigM. A.RichesonJ. A. (2018). Majority no more? The influence of neighborhood racial diversity and salient national Population changes on Whites’ perceptions of racial discrimination. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(5), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2018.4.5.07
11.
CrosbyF. J. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. The American Behavioral Scientist, 27(3), 371–386.
12.
DiAngeloR. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for White people to talk about racism. Beacon Press.
13.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–52). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36001-6
14.
DuckittJ. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284282
15.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2017). The dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 188–221). Cambridge University Press.
16.
DuckittJ.WagnerC.du PlessisI.BirumI. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.75
17.
EidelmanS.CrandallC. S. (2009). A psychological advantage for the Status Quo. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 85–106). Oxford University Press.
18.
EndersC. K.BandalosD. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), 430–457. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
19.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
HässlerT.UllrichJ.BernardinoM.ShnabelN.LaarC. V.ValdenegroD.SebbenS.TroppL. R.VisintinE. P.GonzálezR.DitlmannR. K.AbramsD.SelvanathanH. P.BrankovićM.WrightS.von ZimmermannJ.PasekM.AydinA. L.ŽeželjI.. . . UgarteL. M. (2020). A large-scale test of the link between intergroup contact and support for social change. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(4), 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0815-z
22.
HeckR. H.ThomasS. L. (2020). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques: MLM and SEM approaches (4th ed.). Routledge.
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(6), 669–688. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669
24.
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 SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
25.
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(5), 583–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211432765
26.
Janoff-BulmanR. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. The Free Press.
27.
JostJ. T. (2020). A theory of system justification. Harvard University Press.
28.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
29.
JostJ. T.BurgessD. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265003
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498
32.
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. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1403
33.
KaiserC. R. (2006). Dominant ideology threat and the interpersonal consequences of attributions to discrimination. In LevinS.van LaarC. (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 45–64). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
KaiserC. R.DyrenforthP. S.HagiwaraN. (2006). Why are attributions to discrimination interpersonally costly? A test of system- and group-justifying motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(11), 1523–1536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206291475
35.
KaiserC. R.MillerC. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272010
36.
LeachC. W.IyerA.PedersenA. (2007). Angry opposition to government redress: When the structurally advantaged perceive themselves as relatively deprived. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(1), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X99360
37.
LeeC. H.DuckI. M.SibleyC. G. (2017). Ethnic inequality in diagnosis with depression and anxiety disorders. New Zealand Medical Journal, 130(1454), 10–20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28449012
LoweryB. S.UnzuetaM. M.KnowlesE. D.GoffP. A. (2006). Concern for the in-group and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 961–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.6.961
40.
MajorB.GramzowR. H.McCoyS. K.LevinS.SchmaderT.SidaniusJ. (2002). Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.269
41.
MajorB.QuintonW. J.McCoyS. K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 251–330). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80007-7
42.
MajorB.SawyerP. J. (2009). Attributions to discrimination: Antecedents and consequences. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 89–110). Psychology Press.
43.
MatthewsM.LevinS.SidaniusJ. (2009). A longitudinal test of the model of political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Political Psychology, 30(6), 921–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00733.x
44.
McCoyS. K.MajorB. (2007). Priming meritocracy and the psychological justification of inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.04.009
45.
MeyerI. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual Issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
46.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).
47.
NapierJ. L.SuppesA.BettinsoliM. L. (2020). Denial of gender discrimination is associated with better subjective well-being among women: A system justification account. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1191–1209. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2702
48.
NoorM.ShnabelN.HalabiS.NadlerA. (2012). When suffering begets suffering: The psychology of competitive victimhood between adversarial groups in violent conflicts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(4), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312440048
49.
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(2), 340–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12302
50.
PascoeE. A.RichmanL. S. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016059.supp
51.
PettigrewT. F.MeertensR. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
52.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
53.
PhillipsL. T.LoweryB. S. (2015). The hard-knock life? Whites claim hardships in response to racial inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.008
54.
QuillianL. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60(4), 586–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096296
55.
RidgewayC. L. (2001). The emergence of status beliefs: From structural inequality to legitimizing ideology. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 257–277). Cambridge University Press.
56.
SchmidK.Al RamiahA.HewstoneM. (2014). Neighborhood ethnic diversity and trust: The role of intergroup contact and perceived threat. Psychological Science, 25(3), 665–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613508956
57.
SchmidK.HewstoneM.KüpperB.ZickA.WagnerU. (2012). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: A cross-national comparison in Europe. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(1), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511430235
58.
SchmittM. T.BranscombeN. R. (2002). The meaning and consequences of perceived discrimination in disadvantaged and privileged social groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 168–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000058
59.
SchmittM. T.BranscombeN. R.KobrynowiczD.OwenS. (2002). Perceiving discrimination against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202282006
60.
SenguptaN. K.OsborneD.SibleyC. G. (2019). On the psychological function of nationalistic “Whitelash.”Political Psychology, 40(4), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12563
61.
SenguptaN. K.SibleyC. G. (2013). Perpetuating one’s own disadvantage: Intergroup contact enables the ideological legitimation of inequality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(11), 1391–1403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497593
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
64.
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
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2017). Intergroup threats. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 131–148). Cambridge University Press.
68.
StrongeS.SenguptaN. K.BarlowF. K.OsborneD.HoukamauC. A.SibleyC. G. (2016). Perceived discrimination predicts increased support for political rights and life satisfaction mediated by ethnic identity: A longitudinal analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(3), 359–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000074
69.
SuppesA.NapierJ. L.Van der ToornJ. (2019). The palliative effects of system justification on the health and happiness of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(3), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218785156
70.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
71.
TaylorD. M.WrightS. C.MoghaddamF. M.LalondeR. N. (1990). The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167290162006
72.
TaylorM. C. (1998). How white attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations: Numbers count. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 512–535. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657265
73.
ThomsenL.GreenE. G. T.HoA. K.LevinS.van LaarC.SinclairS.SidaniusJ. (2010). Wolves in sheep’s clothing: SDO asymmetrically predicts perceived ethnic victimization among White and Latino students across three years. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(2), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209348617
UnzuetaM. M.EverlyB. A.GutiérrezA. S. (2014). Social dominance orientation moderates reactions to Black and White discrimination claimants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.005
76.
VezzaliL.GiovanniniD. (2011). Cross-group friendships, social dominance orientation and secondary transfer effect. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18, 181–194.
77.
WagnerU.ChristO.PettigrewT. F.StellmacherJ.WolfC. (2006). Prejudice and minority proportion: Contact instead of threat effects. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(4), 380–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900406
78.
WellmanJ. D.LiuX.WilkinsC. L. (2016). Priming status-legitimizing beliefs: Examining the impact on perceived anti-White bias, zero-sum beliefs, and support for Affirmative Action among White people. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12133
79.
WetherellM.PotterJ. (1992). Mapping the language of racism. Columbia University Press.
80.
WilkinsC. L.KaiserC. R. (2014). Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy: Implications for perceptions of anti-White bias. Psychological Science, 25(2), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613508412
81.
WilliamsD. R.Williams-MorrisR. (2000). Racism and mental health: The African American experience. Ethnicity and Health, 5(3/4), 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557800200009356
82.
YoungI. F.SullivanD. (2016). Competitive victimhood: A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.004
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.
