People’s motivation to rationalize and defend the status quo is a major barrier to societal change. Three studies tested whether perceived social mobility—beliefs about the likelihood to move up and down the socioeconomic ladder—can condition people’s tendency to engage in system justification. Compared to information suggesting moderate social mobility, exposure to low social mobility frames consistently reduced defense of the overarching societal system. Two studies examined how this effect occurs. Compared to moderate or baseline conditions, a low social mobility frame reduced people’s endorsement of (typically strong) meritocratic and just-world beliefs, which in turn explained lower system defense. These effects occurred for political liberals, moderates, and conservatives and could not be explained by other system-legitimizing ideologies or people’s beliefs about their own social mobility. Implications for societal change programs are discussed.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.LundbergK. B.KayA. C.PayneB. K. (2015). Subjective status shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26, 15–26.
3.
DavidaiS.GilovichT. (2015). Building a more mobile America—One income quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 60–71.
4.
ElgarF. J.CraigW.BoyceW.MorganA.Vella-ZarbR. (2009). Income inequality and school bullying: Multilevel study of adolescents in 37 countries. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 351–359.
5.
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.
6.
HoE. A.SanbonmatsuD. M.AkimotoS. A. (2002). The effects of comparative status on social stereotypes: How the perceived effect of some persons affects the stereotypes of others. Social Cognition, 20, 36–57.
7.
JohnsonI. R.FujitaK. (2012). Change we can believe in: Using perceptions of changeability to promote system-change motives over system-justification motives in information search. Psychological Science, 23, 133–140.
8.
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.
9.
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.
10.
JostJ. T.HunyadyO. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.
11.
KatzI.HassR. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905.
12.
KayA. C.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.
13.
KayA. C.GaucherD.PeachJ. M.LaurinK.FriesenJ.ZannaM. P.SpencerS. J. (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.
14.
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.
15.
KelleyJ.EvansM. D. R. (1993). The legitimation of inequality: Occupational earnings in nine countries. The American Journal of Sociology, 99, 75–125.
16.
KluegelJ. R.SmithE. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
17.
KrausM. W.TanJ. J. X. (2015). Americans overestimate social class mobility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 101–111.
18.
KuziemkoI.NortonM. I.SaezE.StantchevaS. (2014). How elastic are preferences for redistribution? Evidence from randomized survey experiments. American Economic Review, 105, 1478–1508.
19.
LaneR. E. (1959). The fear of equality. American Political Science Review, 53, 35–51.
20.
LaurinK.ShepherdS.KayA. C. (2010). Restricted emigration, system inescapability, and defense of the status quo: System-justifying consequences of restricted exit opportunities. Psychological Science, 21, 1075–1082.
21.
LedgerwoodA.MandisodzaA. N.JostJ. T.PohlM. (2011). Working for the system: Motivated defense of meritocratic beliefs. Social Cognition, 29, 322–340.
22.
LernerM. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
23.
LipkusI. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1171–1178.
24.
MandisodzaA. N.JostJ. T.UnzuetaM. M. (2006). “Tall poppies” and “American dreams” reactions to rich and poor in Australia and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 659–668.
25.
MichelL.BivensJ.GouldE.ShierholzH. (2012). The state of working America (12th ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
26.
NevilleL. (2012). Do economic equality and generalized trust inhibit academic dishonesty? Evidence from state-level search-engine queries. Psychological Science, 23, 339–345.
27.
NortonM. I.ArielyD. (2011). Building a better America—One wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 9–12.
28.
O’BrienL. T.CrandallC. S. (2005). Perceiving self-interest: Power, ideology, and maintenance of the status quo. Social Justice Research, 18, 1–24.
29.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188.
30.
PickettK. E.WilkinsonR. G. (2015). Income inequality and health: A causal review. Social Science & Medicine, 128, 316–326.
31.
PikettyT.SaezE. (2006). The evolution of top incomes: A historical and international perspective. American Economic Review, 96, 200–205.
32.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavioral Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
33.
QuinnD. M.CrockerJ. (1999). When ideology hurts: Effects of belief in the protestant ethic and feeling overweight on the psychological well-being of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 402–414.
34.
RubinZ.PeplauA. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s lot: A study of participants in the national lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 73–93.
35.
SawhillI.MortonJ. E. (2007). Economic mobility: Is the American Dream alive and well?Washington, DC: Pew Economic Mobility Project.
36.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
37.
TrumpK.WhiteA. (2014, 6). Does economic inequality activate the system justification motive?Paper presented at the 15th biennial meeting of the International Society of Justice Research, New York, NY.
38.
TylerT. (2011). Procedural justice shapes evaluations of income inequality: Commentary on Norton and Ariely (2011). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 15–16.
39.
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.
40.
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.
41.
WrightS. C. (2001). Restricted intergroup boundaries: Tokenism, ambiguity, and the tolerance of injustice. In JostJ. T.MajorB. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 223–254). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
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.
