Individual differences in system justification predict power and morality-related needs in advantaged and disadvantaged groups in response to group disparity
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2019
Individual differences in system justification predict power and morality-related needs in advantaged and disadvantaged groups in response to group disparity
Guided by the needs-based model, we explored how individual differences in system justification predict group members’ needs in response to information about group-based disparities. Across two studies (N = 819), we found that among disadvantaged-group members (LGBTIQ* individuals/women) system justification was negatively related to need for power. Among advantaged-group members ([cis-]heterosexuals/men), system justification was negatively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral essence (i.e., moral shame and wish that the ingroup would act more morally) but positively related to motivation to restore their ingroup’s moral image (i.e., need for positive moral image and expectation that the outgroup should acknowledge the ingroup’s morality). These results theoretically extend the needs-based model by offering a more nuanced picture of morality-related needs. Further, they underline the importance of considering individual differences in system justification for understanding advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members’ responses to social inequality.
AllpressJ. A.BrownR.Giner-SorollaR.DeonnaJ. A.TeroniF. (2014). Two faces of group-based shame. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1270–1284. doi:10.1177/0146167214540724
Bahamondes-CorreaJ. (2016). System justification’s opposite effects on psychological wellbeing: Testing a moderated mediation model in a gay men and lesbian sample in Chile. Journal of Homosexuality, 63, 1537–1555. doi:10.1080/00918369.2016.1223351
4.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62–77. doi:10.1037/a0022615
5.
BergR. C.LemkeR.RossM. W. (2017). Sociopolitical and cultural correlates of internalized homonegativity in gay and bisexual men: Findings from a global study. International Journal of Sexual Health, 29, 97–111. doi:10.1080/19317611.2016.1247125
6.
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
7.
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. doi:10.1037/a0034701
CameronJ. E.LalondeR. N. (2001). Social identification and gender-related ideology in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 59–77. doi:10.1348/014466601164696
10.
ChapleauK. M.OswaldD. L. (2014). A system justification view of sexual violence: Legitimizing gender inequality and reduced moral outrage are connected to greater rape myth acceptance. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 15, 204–218. doi:10.1080/15299732.2014.867573
11.
DitlmannR. K.Purdie-VaughnsV.DovidioJ. F.NaftM. J. (2017). The implicit power motive in intergroup dialogues about the history of slavery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 116–135. doi:10.1037/pspp0000118
12.
EssesV. M.JacksonL. M.DovidioJ. F.HodsonG. (2015). Instrumental relations among groups: Group competition, conflict, and prejudice. In DovidioJ. F.GlickP.RudmanL. A. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 227–243). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037/0003–066x.56.2.109
19.
GórskaP.BilewiczM.WiniewskiM. (2017). Invisible to the state. Institutional sexual stigma and collective action of LGB individuals in five East European countries. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 367–381. doi:10.1177/1368430216684646
20.
GuttentagM.SecordP. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
21.
HagaiE. B.CrosbyF. J. (2016). Between relative deprivation and entitlement: An historical analysis of the battle for same-sex marriage in the United States. In SabbaghC.SchmittM. (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 477–489). New York, NY: Springer.
22.
HerekG. M.McLemoreK. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 309–333. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011–143826
23.
HerzM.JohanssonT. (2015). The normativity of the concept of heteronormativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 1009–1020. doi:10.1080/00918369.2015.1021631
24.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
25.
IyerA.SchmaderT.LickelB. (2007). Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 572–587. doi:10.1177/0146167206297402
26.
JackmanM. R. (1994). The velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class and race relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
JayaratneT. E.YbarraO.SheldonJ. P.BrownT. N.FeldbaumM.PfefferC. A.PettyE. M. (2006). White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual orientation: Their relationship with prejudice toward Blacks, and gay men and lesbians. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 77–94. doi:10.1177/1368430206059863
28.
JettenJ.IyerA.BranscombeN. R.ZhangA. (2013). How the disadvantaged appraise group-based exclusion: The path from legitimacy to illegitimacy. European Review of Social Psychology, 24, 194–224. doi:10.1080/10463283.2013.840977
29.
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
30.
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
31.
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. Volume 2: Group processes (pp. 317–340). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
32.
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
33.
JostJ. T.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
34.
JostJ. T.van der ToornJ. (2012). System justification theory. In van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 313–343). London, UK: SAGE.
35.
KillianL. M. (1985). The stigma of race: Who now bears the mark of Cain?Symbolic Interaction, 8, 1–14. doi:10.1525/si.1985.8.1.1
36.
LeachC. W.SniderN.IyerA. (2002). “Poisoning the consciences of the fortunate”: The experience of relative advantage and support for social equality. In WalkerI. (Ed.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 136–163). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
MajorB. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 293–355. doi:10.1016/s0065–2601(08)60156–2
39.
MartinK. A. (2009). Normalizing heterosexuality: Mothers’ assumptions, talk, and strategies with young children. American Sociological Review, 74, 190–207. doi:10.1177/000312240907400202
40.
MironA. M.BranscombeN. R.BiernatM. (2010). Motivated shifting of justice standards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 768–779. doi:10.1177/0146167210370031
41.
MoscoviciS.PérezJ. A. (2009). A new representation of minorities as victims. In ButeraF.LevineJ. M. (Ed.), Coping with minority status: Responses to exclusion and inclusion (pp. 82–103). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
NadalK. L.MendozaR. J. (2014). Internalized oppression and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. In DavidE. J. R. (Ed.), Internalized oppression: The psychology of marginalized groups (pp. 227–252). New York, NY: Springer.
43.
NadlerA.ShnabelN. (2015). Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 93–125. doi:10.1080/10463283.2015.1106712
44.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
45.
OwuamalamC. K.RubinM.SpearsR. (2018). Addressing evidential and theoretical inconsistencies in system-justification theory with a social identity model of system attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 91–96. doi:10.1177/0963721417737136
46.
PacilliM. G.TaurinoA.JostJ. T.van der ToornJ. (2011). System justification, right-wing conservatism, and internalized homophobia: Gay and lesbian attitudes toward same-sex parenting in Italy. Sex Roles, 65, 580–595. doi:10.1007/s11199–011–9969–5
47.
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
48.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
49.
RevelleW. (2016). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
50.
RoccasS.KlarY.LiviatanI. (2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698–711. doi:doi:10.1037/0022–3514.91.4.698
51.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
52.
SaguyT.Chernyak-HaiL.AndrighettoL.BrysonJ. (2013). When the powerful feels wronged: The legitimization effects of advantaged group members’ sense of being accused for harboring racial or ethnic biases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 292–298. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1948
53.
SelvanathanH. P.TechakesariP.TroppL. R.BarlowF. K. (2017). Whites for racial justice: How contact with Black Americans predicts support for collective action among White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1368430217690908
54.
ShnabelN.NadlerA. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 116–132. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.94.1.116
55.
ShnabelN.NadlerA.UllrichJ.DovidioJ. F.CarmiD. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021–1030. doi:10.1177/0146167209336610
56.
ShnabelN.UllrichJ. (2013). Increasing intergroup cooperation toward social change by restoring advantaged and disadvantaged groups’ positive identities. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1, 216–238. doi:10.5964/jspp.v1i1.187
57.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
58.
SiemB.von OettingenM.MummendeyA.NadlerA. (2013). When status differences are illegitimate, groups’ needs diverge: Testing the needs-based model of reconciliation in contexts of status inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 137–148. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1929
59.
SimanTov-NachlieliI.ShnabelN. (2014). Feeling both victim and perpetrator: Investigating duality within the needs-based model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 301–314. doi:10.1177/0146167213510746
60.
SimanTov-NachlieliI.ShnabelN.AydinA. L.UllrichJ. (2017). Agents of prosociality: Agency affirmation promotes mutual prosocial tendencies and behavior among conflicting groups. Political Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/pops.12418
61.
SimanTov-NachlieliI.ShnabelN.HalabiS. (2016). The power to be moral: Affirming Israelis’ and Palestinians’ agency promotes prosocial tendencies across group boundaries. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 566–583. doi:10.1111/josi.12182
62.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity. A social psychological analysis. The American Psychologist, 56, 319–331. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.56.4.319
63.
SubašićE.ReynoldsK. J.TurnerJ. C. (2008). The political solidarity model of social change: Dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 330–352. doi:10.1177/1088868308323223
64.
SullivanD.LandauM. J.BranscombeN. R.RothschildZ. K. (2012). Competitive victimhood as a response to accusations of ingroup harm doing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 778–795. doi:10.1037/a0026573
65.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
66.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
67.
TurnerJ. C.BrownR. (1978). Social status, cognitive alternatives, and intergroup relations. In SnowD.SouleS. A.KriesiH. (Eds.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 201–234). London, UK: Academic Press.
UN Human Rights Council. (2015). Discrimination and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Retrieved from http://www.refworld.org/docid/5571577c4.html
70.
Van ZomerenM. (2013). Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 378–388. doi:10.1111/spc3.12031
71.
WakslakC. J.JostJ. T.TylerT. R.ChenE. S. (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
72.
WhittierN. (2004). The consequences of social movements for each other. In SnowD.SouleS. A.KriesiH. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 531–551). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
