The central claim
Theories of self-interest and group loyalty struggle to explain why members of low-status groups sometimes endorse the systems that disadvantage them. System justification theory adds a third motive alongside defending the self and defending the group: defending the status quo. The motive is thought to serve needs for certainty, security, and shared reality with others.
- Stereotypes can rationalize inequality, as with the poor-but-happy idea
- Threats to a system may increase defense of it
- Believing the system is fair may reduce distress in the short term
A contested hypothesis
One strong prediction is that the disadvantaged may at times justify the system more than the advantaged. A large test by Mark Brandt, using international survey data, did not support this status-legitimacy pattern in general. Jost and colleagues have responded by emphasizing the conditions under which the effect would be expected.
Debates over the motive
Critics, including proponents of social identity approaches, argue that much of the evidence can be explained without a separate motive, for example by people's hope that their group's position will improve. The difficulty of observing a motive directly makes competing accounts hard to separate. Few researchers doubt that people often legitimize existing arrangements, but why they do so, and how much it depends on context, remains under debate.
Further reading
- Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1).
- Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory. Political Psychology, 25(6).
- Brandt, M. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status-legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5).