Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 765-785 |
| Journal | Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |
| Volume | 104 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status–legitimacy hypothesis. / Brandt, M.J.
In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 104, No. 5, 2013, p. 765-785.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status–legitimacy hypothesis
AU - Brandt, M.J.
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - System justification theory (SJT) posits that members of low-status groups are more likely to see their social systems as legitimate than members of high-status groups because members of low-status groups experience a sense of dissonance between system motivations and self/group motivations (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003). The author examined the status–legitimacy hypothesis using data from 3 representative sets of data from the United States (American National Election Studies and General Social Surveys) and throughout the world (World Values Survey; total N across studies = 151,794). Multilevel models revealed that the average effect across years in the United States and countries throughout the world was most often directly contrary to the status–legitimacy hypothesis or was practically zero. In short, the status–legitimacy effect is not a robust phenomenon. Two theoretically relevant moderator variables (inequality and civil liberties) were also tested, revealing weak evidence, null evidence, or contrary evidence to the dissonance-inspired status–legitimacy hypothesis. In sum, the status–legitimacy effect is not robust and is unlikely to be the result of dissonance. These results are used to discuss future directions for research, the current state of SJT, and the interpretation of theoretically relevant but contrary and null results.
AB - System justification theory (SJT) posits that members of low-status groups are more likely to see their social systems as legitimate than members of high-status groups because members of low-status groups experience a sense of dissonance between system motivations and self/group motivations (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003). The author examined the status–legitimacy hypothesis using data from 3 representative sets of data from the United States (American National Election Studies and General Social Surveys) and throughout the world (World Values Survey; total N across studies = 151,794). Multilevel models revealed that the average effect across years in the United States and countries throughout the world was most often directly contrary to the status–legitimacy hypothesis or was practically zero. In short, the status–legitimacy effect is not a robust phenomenon. Two theoretically relevant moderator variables (inequality and civil liberties) were also tested, revealing weak evidence, null evidence, or contrary evidence to the dissonance-inspired status–legitimacy hypothesis. In sum, the status–legitimacy effect is not robust and is unlikely to be the result of dissonance. These results are used to discuss future directions for research, the current state of SJT, and the interpretation of theoretically relevant but contrary and null results.
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10411/20057
U2 - 10.1037/a0031751
DO - 10.1037/a0031751
M3 - Article
VL - 104
SP - 765
EP - 785
JO - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
JF - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
SN - 0022-3514
IS - 5
ER -