IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1754.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Psychology of System Justification and the Palliative Function of Ideology

Author

Listed:
  • Jost, John T.

    (Stanford U)

  • Hunyady, Orsolya

    (U of Debrecen and U of California, Berkeley)

Abstract

In this chapter, we trace the historical and intellectual origins of system justification theory, summarize the basic assumptions of the theory, and derive 18 specific hypotheses from a system justification perspective. We review and integrate empirical evidence addressing these hypotheses concerning the rationalization of the status quo, the internalization of inequality (outgroup favoritism and depressed entitlement), relations among ego, group, and system justification motives (including consequences for attitudinal ambivalence, self-esteem, and psychological well-being), and the reduction of ideological dissonance. Turning to the question of why people would engage in system justification--especially when it conflicts with other interests and motives--we propose that system justifying ideologies serve a palliative function in that they reduce anxiety, guilt, dissonance, discomfort, and uncertainty for those who are advantaged and disadvantaged.

Suggested Citation

  • Jost, John T. & Hunyady, Orsolya, 2002. "The Psychology of System Justification and the Palliative Function of Ideology," Research Papers 1754, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1754
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP1754.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jost, John T. & Haines, Elizabeth L., 2000. "Placating the Powerless: Effects of Legitimate and Illegitimate Explanation on Affect, Memory and Stereotyping," Research Papers 1606, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin, Ashley E., 2023. "The divergent effects of diversity ideologies for race and gender relations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Filippo Rutto & Silvia Russo & Cristina Mosso, 2014. "Development and Validation of a Democratic System Justification Scale," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 645-655, September.
    3. Kevin Durrheim & Michael Quayle & Colin G Tredoux & Kim Titlestad & Larry Tooke, 2016. "Investigating the Evolution of Ingroup Favoritism Using a Minimal Group Interaction Paradigm: The Effects of Inter- and Intragroup Interdependence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-26, November.
    4. Proudfoot, Devon & Kay, Aaron C. & Mann, Heather, 2015. "Motivated employee blindness: The impact of labor market instability on judgment of organizational inefficiencies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 108-122.
    5. Jessica Harding & Chris Sibley, 2013. "The Palliative Function of System Justification: Concurrent Benefits Versus Longer-Term Costs to Wellbeing," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 113(1), pages 401-418, August.
    6. Vainio, Annukka & Paloniemi, Riikka, 2014. "The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 18-27.
    7. Hsee, Christopher K. & Shen, Luxi & Zhang, Shirley & Chen, Jingqiu & Zhang, Li, 2012. "Fate or fight: Exploring the hedonic costs of competition," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 177-186.
    8. Jost, John T. & Blount, Sally & Pfeffer, Jeffrey & Hunyady, Gyorgy, 2003. "Fair Market Ideology: Its Cognitive-Motivational Underpinnings," Research Papers 1816, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    9. Srikanth, Peruvemba B. & Thakur, Munish, 2022. "The influence of karma duty orientation and attention regulation in the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinate performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 278-288.
    10. Chris K Deak & Matthew D Hammond & Chris G Sibley & Joseph Bulbulia, 2021. "Individuals’ number of children is associated with benevolent sexism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, May.
    11. Agnieszka Bojanowska & Łukasz D. Kaczmarek, 2022. "How Healthy and Unhealthy Values Predict Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-Being: Dissecting Value-Related Beliefs and Behaviours," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 211-231, January.
    12. Teresa María García Muñoz & Juliette Milgram Baleix & Omar Odeh Odeh, 2022. "System Justification Beliefs and Life Satisfaction. The role of inequality aversion and support for redistribution," ThE Papers 22/15, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    13. Katarzyna Samson, 2018. "Trust as a mechanism of system justification," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jost, John T. & Pelham, Brett W. & Sullivan, Bilian Ni & Sheldon, Oliver, 2001. "Social Inequality and the Reduction of Ideological Dissonance on Behalf of the System: Evidence of Enhanced System Justification among the Disadvantaged," Research Papers 1671, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    2. Jost, John T. & Blount, Sally & Pfeffer, Jeffrey & Hunyady, Gyorgy, 2003. "Fair Market Ideology: Its Cognitive-Motivational Underpinnings," Research Papers 1816, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    3. Jon Wisman, 2013. "Government Is Whose Problem?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(4), pages 911-938.
    4. Mats Alvesson & Dan Kärreman, 2007. "Unraveling HRM: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 711-723, August.
    5. Jon D. Wisman & Michael Cauvel, 2021. "Why Has Labor Not Demanded Guaranteed Employment?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(3), pages 677-696, July.
    6. Lewis, Amy C. & Sherman, Steven J., 2003. "Hiring you makes me look bad: Social-identity based reversals of the ingroup favoritism effect," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 262-276, March.
    7. Paul Dunn & Jonathan Farrar & Cass Hausserman, 2018. "The Influence of Guilt Cognitions on Taxpayers’ Voluntary Disclosures," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 689-701, March.
    8. Jost, John T., 2001. "System Justification Theory as Compliment, Complement, and Corrective to Theories of Social Identification and Social Dominance," Research Papers 1672, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    9. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Derek W. Dalton & Lori L. Holder-Webb & Jeffrey J. McMillan, 2020. "An Analysis of Glass Ceiling Perceptions in the Accounting Profession," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 17-38, June.
    10. Daron Acemoglu, 2022. "Obedience in the Labour Market and Social Mobility: A Socioeconomic Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(S1), pages 2-37, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1754. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.