Antecedents and consequences of system justification among the disadvantaged

Abstract

System Justification Theory proposes that unequal systems persist over time because even the people who are most disadvantaged by those systems are motivated to support them (Jost, Banaji & Nosek, 2004). However, large-scale analyses of system justification processes operating among members of low-status groups are extremely rare. Therefore, in the current thesis, I used data from a large, nationally representative survey in New Zealand to conduct five studies investigating the antecedents and consequences of system justification among members of ethnic minority groups. In Study 1, I helped clarify the conditions under which the disadvantaged express at least as much, if not more, support for unequal systems relative to members of the dominant group. Study 2 investigated the interpersonal antecedents of system justification, showing that friendships with members of the dominant group foster system-justifying responses among disadvantaged individuals, whereas friendships with fellow ingroup members foster system-challenging responses. Study 3 examined the psychological consequences of system justification, testing the conditions under which system-justifying beliefs would be palliative for members of low-status groups. This study showed that system-justifying beliefs are palliative specifically for those who are most disadvantaged by the system (i.e., members of low-status groups living in highly unequal conditions). Finally, Study 4 examined the political consequences of system justification, showing that system justification reduces political mobilization among the disadvantaged, but only up to a point – at high levels of system justification, political mobilization either levels off, or increases. Together these findings advance our understanding of why members of disadvantaged groups support the unequal systems under which they live, and how they come to resist those systems. Thus, they shed light on how democratic societies might become more equal over time—or why, indeed—they might not.