Motivation and emotion/Book/2023/System justification theory

Overview


Imagine a bustling city where the divide between the wealthy elite and the struggling working class is stark and palpable.

There's a theory in psychology called System Justification theory (SJT), and it's like a hidden force that keeps this status quo intact. Let's bring this theory to life and explore the practical problem it raises. SJT is like the psychological glue that holds societies together, even when they're deeply unequal or unfair (see Figure 1). It's the reason why some people in our city, despite being disadvantaged, may end up supporting or even defending a system that perpetuates their disadvantages. One of the most persistent but seldom answered questions in the history of social and behavioural sciences is why people tend to embrace the status quo, even when it is evidently flawed or frequently not aligned with their best interests (Hochschild, 1981).

Focus questions:
 * What is SJT and how does it shape our beliefs and actions in society?
 * How does SJT relate to social inequalities, and what can we do to address these issues effectively?
 * What practical steps can be taken to reduce the impact of system justification bias in our daily lives and promote fairness and justice?

Case study 1


Scenario 1:
Meet Tina, a hard working single mother in a city who struggles to make ends meet. She lives in a neighbourhood with crumbling infrastructure, underfunded schools, and only a few job opportunities. Despite these hardships, Tina believes that the city's existing systems are fair and just. Why does Tina feel this way? It's because of SJT, Tina; like many others is motivated to see the world as orderly and stable, even if it means rationalising the inequality and injustice she faces. She may end up supporting policies and politicians who perpetuate these issues because it aligns with her need to believe in the system.

What can be done about it?
Understanding SJT is the first step towards addressing this problem. We can use psychological science to develop strategies that challenge these cognitive and emotional mechanisms. For Tina and others like her, this might involve creating educational programs to raise awareness about the true impact of existing policies, connection her with support networks, and empowering her to advocate for change.

Scenario 2:
Let's also meet Krish, a successful entrepreneur living in the same city. Despite benefiting from the status quo, Krish genuinely believes in the fairness of the existing system. Krish illustrates how SJT can lead even the privileged to resist change. In order to address this, we can employ communication strategies that appeal to Krish's motivations and emotions to encourage a more critical evaluation of the system.

In a divided city, SJT is a practical problem because it perpetuates inequality and stifles social progress. But through understanding the theory and using psychological insights, we can work towards a fairer, more just, and more equitable society, where both Tina and Krish can thrive without sacrificing their ideals.

Key Definitions needed to understand SJT:


 * Social systems: Social systems encompass the various structures and institutions within a society, including government, economic systems, cultural norms, and societal hierarchies. These systems can influence and shape individuals' beliefs and behaviours.
 * In-group: An in-group is a social group with which an individual identifies and to which they feel a sense of belonging. In the context of SJT, individuals often align with their in-group and support societal systems that are consistent with their group identity.
 * Outgroup: An outgroup refers to social groups to which an individual does not belong or with which they do not identify. SJT often explores how individuals may exhibit bias against outgroups as they seek to maintain and justify the status of their in-group.

Origins


System justification theory (SJT) was first made concrete by John T. Jost and Mahzarin R. Banaji (seen in fig 2) in 1994, who sought to explain various social psychological phenomena, including the participation of disadvantaged individuals and groups in negative stereotypes of themselves and the phenomenon of outgroup favouritism. This theory was first published in the British Journal of Social Psychology and has since become a cornerstone in the study of how people perceive and rationalize social systems. Before System Justification theory was introduced more commonly, social psychology theories before that aimed to interpret intergroup behaviour that mostly focused on the tendencies for individuals to portray a positive attitude regarding themselves.

System justification theory
System Justification Theory (SJT) is a social psychological framework that seeks to understand why people often rationalize and defend existing social, economic, and political systems, even when these systems may not be in their best interests (Essien et al, 2021). This theory explores how individuals justify and maintain the status quo, whether it be hierarchies, inequalities, or prevailing power structures. Understanding and improving our motivational and emotional lives using psychological science can relate to SJT in several ways.

Since 1994, the theory of system justification processes has thrived, growing into a powerful framework that guides research in social psychology and related fields and proves valuable in explaining contemporary events. An example, Pfeffer (2010) has suggested that SJT helps explaining the bewildering degree of acquiescence that has made its way into the global financial crisis during 2008: "“System justification theory helps us understand why there is less anger and pressure to change regulatory oversight than might be expected by the economic disaster visited on millions of Americans by events not of their own doing. To feel good about America and its system, people make sense of what happened in ways that do not undermine the legitimacy of the existing status order, including the huge salaries earned by people working in finance”"

Review question
{What is the outgroup? - A social group with which an individual identifies and to which they feel a sense of belonging. - The outgroup refers to a secret organization with hidden agendas. + Social groups to which an individual does not belong or with which they do not identify. - The outgroup denotes a psychological experiment involving unrelated research subjects.
 * type=""}

Theoretical influences
System Justification theory draws on several key concepts and social psychology theories to explain the psychological mechanisms involved in justifying and defending existing social systems and hierarchies. Some of the prominent theories and concepts that influence to SJT include:

Social identity theory


How does Social identity theory (SIT) shape our beliefs and behaviours within societal contexts?

Jost and colleagues interpret Social Identity Theory as when individuals face intergroup conflicts that pose a threat to their group identities, they tend to rationalize behaviours like stereotyping and discrimination against outgroups to safeguard their favourable group image (Jost & Hunyady, 2002). Those with a preference for outgroups tend to hold more positive perceptions of other groups, often those with higher social status, compared to their own ingroups. Consequently, the argument suggests that System Justification theory extends the principles of Social Identity Theory to explain the outgroup favouritism observed among many disadvantaged group members, which Social Identity Theory alone does not fully account for (Jost & Hunyady, 2002), (Jost, 2001).

In response to such findings, Owuamalam et al (2017) have proposed a range of alternative explanations, notably those that incorporate a Social Identity Model of System Attitudes (SIMSA). SIMSA serves as a comprehensive model that amalgamates various social identity-based explanations to shed light on why individuals from marginalized groups may, at times, passively or actively endorse social hierarchies and societal systems that appear detrimental to their own social identities (Owuamalam et al, 2017).

As depicted in Figure 3, SIMSA offers more concise explanations for system justification compared to SJT. It accomplishes this by not introducing a distinct system-justification motive and, instead, builds upon earlier insights from Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Social dominance theory
Social dominance theory is often compared to System Justification theory, as both are concerned with justifying societal systems. Social dominance theory centres on the motivation to maintain a positive group image by supporting hierarchical inequality at the group level (Jost & Hunyady, 2002). Those with a high social dominance orientation (SDO) tend to embrace myths that enhance hierarchy, justifying their in-group's position (Rubin & Hewstone, 2004). Therefore, both theories share common elements of group-based opposition to equality and the justification of intergroup inequalities through systemic norms. This can lead individuals to support policies, candidates, or ideologies that benefit their own group, even if it means perpetuating inequalities or marginalizing other groups. In the political context, this in-group favouritism can contribute to polarization as different groups support divergent policies and candidates (Jim et al, 2004).

False consciousness
To explain the aspect of outgroup favouritism, a crucial element of system justification, theorists have drawn inspiration from Marxist-feminist ideologies concerning the use of prevailing beliefs to uphold the existing system (Osborne et al, 2019). Specifically, the concept of "false consciousness," where the dominant societal group perceives their dominance as inevitable, can shed light on why some members of disadvantaged groups exhibit outgroup favouritism (Newman et al, 2015). Moreover, system justification underscores that individuals without control over material resources (those with lower status) are influenced by the ideas, including cultural values, laws, and societal teachings, promoted by the dominant controlling group (Newman et al, 2015), (Jost & Hunyady, 2002).

Critical perspectives to systems justification theory:

 * Legitimizing Myths: Several studies, including one by Jost and Banaji in "The Role of Stereotyping in System-Justification and the Production of False Consciousness" (1994), have criticized SJT for not sufficiently addressing how individuals may embrace system-justifying myths that are harmful to their own groups. The study highlights the concept of "false consciousness," where individuals may uphold the existing system, even when it works against their interests. This raises questions about the theory's ability to explain the complexities of individuals' behaviour


 * One sidedness: Some scholars, like Jost and Hunyady in "The Psychology of System Justification and the Palliative Function of Ideology" (2003), have pointed out that SJT tends to emphasize the palliative or soothing function of ideology while overlooking the system-challenging aspects. They argue that SJT does not adequately address the role of ideology in motivating social change or dissent, suggesting that the theory may offer a somewhat one-sided view of how individuals interact with societal systems.

Review questions
{What theory is often compared to system justification theory because both are concerned with justifying societal systems ? - False Consciousness + Social Dominance theory - Social Identity theory - Attachment theory
 * type=""}

{What does "False consciousness" refer to in the context of system justification ? - The pursuit of personal gain at any cost - A heightened awareness of social inequalities + A perception of one's dominance as inevitable - A state of perfect self-awareness
 * type=""}

Civil Rights Act of 1964


The United States Civil Rights Movement was a pivotal social and political movement in the mid-20th century that aimed to end racial segregation and discrimination against African Americans (Andrews & Gaby, 2015). In the US, the problem was the deeply entrenched racial discrimination, segregation, and systemic racism that was upheld by societal norms and hierarchies. The racial hierarchy in the US was a system that many people, especially those in the dominant racial group, felt compelled to justify and maintain to preserve a positive self-concept and social stability.

Attempt at change
The Civil Rights Movement sought to challenge this problem by directly confronting the cognitive processes and societal norms associated with system justification:


 * Collective Action: Leaders and activists in the Civil Rights Movement organized nonviolent protests and marches, such as the March on Washington (seen in fig 4) for jobs and freedom. This collective action aimed to disrupt the prevailing system and draw attention to the injustices it perpetuated.
 * Challenging In-Group Norms: System Justification theory suggests that individuals often favour their in-group (Jim et al, 2004). In the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans and their allies challenged prevailing in-group norms of racial superiority and superiority-based justification, encouraging members of society to revaluate their in-group biases (Andrews & Gaby, 2015).
 * Discrediting System Justifying Myths: The movement aimed to discredit and challenge the myths that perpetuated racial hierarchy (Rubin & Hewstone, 2004). Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized the moral imperative of equality and justice, undermining justifications for racial discrimination (Johnson et al, 2008).
 * Legal and Legislative Changes: The Civil Rights Movement led to significant legislative changes, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These changes aimed to dismantle legal segregation and discrimination.

Outcomes
These are a few outcomes of the Civil Rights Movement that can be understood in terms of challenging system justification:


 * Desegregation: The movement led to the legal desegregation of public spaces and schools, disrupting the existing racial hierarchy.
 * Social Change: Public attitudes began to shift, with more individuals questioning and rejecting the prevailing system-justifying narratives of racial hierarchy.
 * Legacy: The Civil Rights Movement's legacy continues to inspire subsequent social justice movements, as it demonstrated that challenging systemic racism and inequality is possible.

Osborne and colleagues (2019)

 * Osborne and colleagues (2019) present a perspective on how system justification theory challenges dominant paradigms in social psychology. They underline the theory's versatility, highlighting that social systems are justified at multiple levels of analysis.
 * Their insights suggest that the theory can be applied to understand non-Western societies, emphasizing the universality of research on system justification. One key aspect of their work is the exploration of the impact of the legitimation of inequality on the motivation for system-challenging collective action. This is a critical issue, particularly in contexts where inequality is prevalent.
 * This research underscores the need to identify variables that moderate the relationship between system justification and collective inaction, offering a promising avenue for future research. Additionally, the mention of research conducted outside North America, particularly by the team at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, underscores the cross-cultural applicability of System Justification theory. This broadens the scope of the theory and highlights its relevance in diverse cultural contexts.
 * Osborne et al. (2019) strengthens the foundation of System Justification theory, showcasing its utility in understanding a wide range of societal dynamics. Their findings provide valuable directions for future research and emphasize the need to consider situational factors, cross-cultural applicability, and the impact of inequality on collective action when exploring system justification.

Owuamalam and colleagues (2018)

 * Owuamalam and colleagues (2018) take issue with the central premise that system justification motivation cannot be reduced to self- and group-justification processes, a position adeptly defended by Osborne et al. (2019). Their argument is that social identity theory already offers a comprehensive account of why members of disadvantaged groups defend and justify systems of inequality in which they suffer.
 * This presents a fundamental challenge to System Justification theory's uniqueness and suggests an alternative explanation grounded in social identity theory. This critique calls into question the need for a distinct System Justification theory and highlights the importance of exploring the overlap and distinctions between various psychological theories, such as social identity theory, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of system justification.
 * Owuamalam et al. (2018) delve into the phenomenon of working-class conservatism, arguing that poor Americans may support political parties that are against increased subsidization of national healthcare because of their strong identification with America and their belief in free-market capitalism as a defining national ingroup value.
 * They question why disadvantaged individuals don't support policies that would directly benefit them and challenge the legitimacy of capitalism, which seems to perpetuate their hardships. Underscoring the need for a deeper exploration of the specific contents of ideologies and identities that drive system justification.
 * It highlights the limitations of general explanations and the importance of understanding the intricacies of individual beliefs and behaviours in the context of system justification.

{Osborne and colleagues (2019) emphasize the versatility of System Justification theory and highlight that it can be applied to understand non-Western societies: + True - False
 * type=""}

{Owuamalam et al.'s critique calls into question the need for a distinct System Justification theory: + True - False
 * type=""}

What can be done about it: system justification
"That's just the way it is" is a saying a few of us have probably used before, expressing resignation or acceptance of an established fact or reality. Within the context of system justification, the theory suggests that people have a tendency to defend, rationalize, and accept the existing social, economic, and political systems, even if those systems may be unfair or unequal. But why?

" Acknowledging that your workplace needs to change can lead to anxiety and stress. Defending the status quo, even when actively harming you, may provide temporary relief, especially if change feels particularly hard."

- NoblAcademy

Barriers to change in the realm of system justification are common
Proudfoot & Kay (2014) Fortunately there are ways to move towards action, further in the study done by Proudfoot & Kay (2014), they establish ways to take action towards system justification.
 * System threat: When outsiders target the system itself, individuals inside the system often feel compelled to protect it. Consider the scenario of a company facing public scrutiny due to questionable business practices in the media.
 * Inescapable system: When individuals perceive their ability to exit a system as limited, their resistance to criticism tends to intensify. This phenomenon is frequently rooted in the perception that the system is unalterable or in the absence of feasible alternatives.
 * Building on the current system: People tend to embrace change more readily when it maintains the current system. To alleviate the fear of the unknown, concentrate on gradual improvements and incremental adjustments, rather than insisting on a complete and unnecessary overhaul.
 * Viable alternatives to the status quo: In order for individuals to believe in the possibility of change, they should be introduced to alternative systems, realizing that their present circumstances aren't the sole option. To broaden their perspective, expose them to different organizational models through methods like showcasing case studies from diverse organizations, organizing informational events, or bringing in guest speakers to share their innovative experiences. Strive to make these examples tangible, offering practical insights rather than limiting the discussion to mere theory or wishful thinking.

Conclusion
The exploration of the intricate world of System Justification theory has revealed a multitude of insights. At the heart of this analysis lies the fundamental understanding that individuals often find themselves justifying societal systems, even when these systems may not necessarily serve their best interests. This insight challenges us to question the complexities of human behaviour in the face of inequalities and systemic norms. System Justification theory, when critically examined alongside alternative perspectives, brings forth a call for nuanced thinking. The rich dialogue between theories like social identity theory and the critical challenges posed by researchers like Owuamalam et al. prompt us to reconsider our understanding of why individuals embrace, support, or challenge societal systems. The implications for personal growth and development are profound. Recognizing the inherent cognitive dissonance individuals may experience when confronted with the need to challenge the status quo can serve as a catalyst for personal growth. It encourages us to critically evaluate our own beliefs, motivations, and group identities. By doing so, we can strive to make informed choices that align more closely with our personal values and the values of our broader society. Ultimately, our journey through System Justification theory invites us to be active, critical thinkers, and to take responsibility for our roles in perpetuating or challenging systemic norms. By understanding the dynamics of System Justification, we empower ourselves to make conscious decisions that contribute to personal growth, social change, and the pursuit of more just and equitable societies.