A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications
By John T. Jost. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2018
408 citations recorded by the source corpus.
A theory of system justification was proposed 25 years ago by Jost and Banaji (1994, Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 33, 1) in the British Journal of Social Psychology to explain ‘the participation by disadvantaged individuals and groups in negative stereotypes of themselves’ and the phenomenon of outgroup favouritism. The scope of the theory was subsequently expanded to account for amuchwider range of outcomes, including appraisals of fairness, justice, legitimacy, deservingness, and entitlement; spontaneous and deliberate social judgements about individuals, groups, and events; and full-fledged political and religious ideologies. According to system justification theory, people are motivated (to varying degrees, depending upon situational and dispositional factors) to defend, bolster, and justify aspects of existing social, economic, and political systems. Engaging in system justification serves the palliative function of increasing satisfaction with the status quo and addresses underlying epistemic, existential, and relational needs to reduce uncertainty, threat, and social discord. This article summarizes themajor tenets of system justification theory, reviews some of the empirical evidence supporting it, answers new (and old) questions and criticisms, andhighlights areas of societal relevance anddirections for future research.
Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fc22ae0032235e93ba648fc7b740ac2327b26939
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Cognitive Neuroscience
In Social Psychology
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: theory, evidence, and future directions (2020, background): “[18 ]; for meta-analyses see: [3,4,19,2 ,20]), with large and significant effect sizes [5 ].”