Some critics claim that the self-help industry legitimizes inequality by enhancing individualism and meritocratic beliefs. The present research aims to provide experimental support to these assumptions by exploring the effect of motivational messages on meritocratic beliefs and the perceived effectiveness of individual and collective action to promote social change toward equality and on collective action intentions. Across three experiments, 663 participants were exposed to motivational messages either by copying short quotes or watching a short video containing those same quotes. As compared with a control condition, exposure to motivational messages strengthened meritocratic beliefs and, in turn, increased the perceived effectiveness of individual action in promoting social change and undermined the perceived effectiveness of collective action and subsequently collective action intentions. These findings fuel the debate on the individualistic bias and meritocratic orientation of the self-help industry and highlight the need to analyze its impact on social and economic justice.
AdamsG.Estrada-VillaltaS.SullivanD.MarkusH. R. (2019). The psychology of neoliberalism and the neoliberalism of psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12305
2.
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(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586
3.
AgostiniM.van ZomerenM. (2021). Toward a comprehensive and potentially cross-cultural model of why people engage in collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of four motivations and structural constraints. Psychological Bulletin, 147(7), 667–700. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000256
4.
AllenA. M.LeachC. W. (2018). The psychology of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “creative maladjustment” at societal injustice and oppression. Journal of Social Issues, 74(2), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12271
Bay-ChengL. Y.FitzC. C.AlizagaN. M.ZuckerA. N. (2015). Tracking homo oeconomicus: Development of the neoliberal beliefs inventory. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.366
7.
BeckerD.MarecekJ. (2008). Dreaming the American dream: Individualism and positive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1767–1780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00139.x
8.
BettacheK.ChiuC. Y.BeattieP. (2020). The merciless mind in a dog-eat-dog society: Neoliberalism and the indifference to social inequality. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.06.002
9.
BinkleyS. (2011). Happiness, positive psychology and the program of neoliberal governmentality. Subjectivity, 4, 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2011.16
10.
BinkleyS. (2014). Happiness as enterprise: An essay on neoliberal life. Suny Press.
CabanasE.IllouzE. (2019). Manufacturing happy citizens: How the science and industry of happiness control our lives. Wiley.
13.
ChaterN.LoewensteinG. (2023). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, E147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002023
14.
da Silva FrostA.LedgerwoodA. (2020). Calibrate your confidence in research findings: A tutorial on improving research methods and practices. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 14, Article E14. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2020.7
15.
DaviesW. (2015). The happiness industry: How the government and big business sold us well-being. Verso Books.
16.
De BottonA. (2004). Status anxiety. Hamish Hamilton.
17.
De LemusS.StroebeK. (2015). Achieving social change: A matter of all for one?Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12122
18.
DerksB.EllemersN.Van LaarC.de GrootK. (2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the queen bee?British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X525280
19.
DerksB.Van LaarC.EllemersN.RaghoeG. (2015). Extending the Queen Bee effect: How Hindustani workers cope with disadvantage by distancing the self from the group. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12124
20.
DruryJ. (2020). Recent developments in the psychology of crowds and collective behaviour. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.005
21.
ErdfelderE.FaulF.BuchnerA. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630
22.
FanikoK.EllemersN.DerksB. (2021). The Queen Bee phenomenon in Academia 15 years after: Does it still exist, and if so, why?British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12408
23.
García-SánchezE.OsborneD.WillisG. B.Rodríguez-BailónR. (2020). Attitudes towards redistribution and the interplay between perceptions and beliefs about inequality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12326
24.
GirerdL.BonnotV. (2020). Neoliberalism: An ideological barrier to feminist identification and collective action. Social Justice Research, 33(1), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-020-00347-8
HoytC. L.BurnetteJ. L.ForsythR. B.ParryM.DeShieldsB. H. (2021). Believing in the American dream sustains negative attitudes toward those in poverty. Social Psychology Quarterly, 84(3), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725211022319
27.
KoppelL.RobertsonC. E.DoellK. C.JaveedA. M.RasmussenJ.RathjeS.VlasceanuM.Van BavelJ. J. (2023). Individual-level solutions may support system-level change—if they are internalized as part of one’s social identity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, Article e165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X2300105X
28.
LedgerwoodA.MandisodzaA. N.JostJ. T.PohlM. J. (2011). Working for the system: Motivated defense of meritocratic beliefs. Social Cognition, 29(3), 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.322
MarteauT. M.ChaterN.GarnettE. E. (2021). Changing behaviour for net zero 2050. BMJ, 375, Article n2293. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2293
31.
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
32.
NapierJ. L.BettinsoliM. L.SuppesA. (2020). The palliative function of system-justifying ideologies. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.002
33.
RadM. S.MartinganoA. J.GingesJ. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(45), 11401–11405. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115
34.
RichinsM. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1086/383436
35.
RimkeH. (2020). Self-help, therapeutic industries, and neoliberalism. In NehringD.MadsenO. J.CabanasE.MillsC.KerriganD. (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of global therapeutic cultures (pp. 37–50). Routledge.
36.
SiyJ. O.GermanoA. L.ViannaL.AzpeitiaJ.YanS.MontoyaA. K.CheryanS. (2023). Does the follow-your-passions ideology cause greater academic and occupational gender disparities than other cultural ideologies?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(3), 548–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000421
37.
SolakN.TamirM.SümerN.JostJ. T.HalperinE. (2021). Expressive suppression as an obstacle to social change: Linking system justification, emotion regulation, and collective action. Motivation and Emotion, 45, 661–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-021-09883-5
38.
StroebeK.WangK.WrightS. C. (2015). Broadening perspectives on achieving social change. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 633–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12132
39.
StuartA.ThomasE. F.DonaghueN. (2018). “I don’t really want to be associated with the self-righteous left extreme”: Disincentives to participation in collective action. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 6(1), 242–270. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v6i1.567
40.
SugarmanJ. (2015). Neoliberalism and psychological ethics. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038960
41.
ThalmayerA. G.ToscanelliC.ArnettJ. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American?American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622
42.
TrumpK. S. (2018). Income inequality influences perceptions of legitimate income differences. British Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 929–952. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000326
43.
Van LangeP. A.BallietD. P.ParksC. D.Van VugtM. (2014). Social dilemmas: Understanding human cooperation. Oxford University Press.
44.
VázquezA.López-RodríguezL.GómezÁ.DovidioJ. F. (2021). Ambivalent effects of positive contact between women and men on collective actions for women’s rights. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(9), 1358–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220974162
WrightS. C. (2010). Collective action and social change. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 577–596). Sage.
47.
YakushkoO.BlodgettE. (2021). Negative reflections about positive psychology: On constraining the field to a focus on happiness and personal achievement. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(1), 104–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167818794551
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.
