Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears (2016).pdf (260.32 kB)
Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears (2016).pdf
journal contribution
posted on 2016-11-30, 04:33 authored by Chuma kevin OwuamalamChuma kevin Owuamalam, Mark RubinMark Rubin, Rusell SpearsIn a landmark 1994 publication in the British Journal of
Social Psychology, Jost and Banaji proposed the existence of a novel,
fundamental system justification motive that drives social behaviors. More
specifically, they proposed (a) that people have an epistemic need to support
social hierarchies and societal systems, (b) that this system justification
motive is inversely related to personal and group interests among members of
low status groups, and (c) that it is stronger and more effective for people
who are disadvantaged by societal systems than for those who are advantaged by
them, especially when personal and group interests are weak. This system
justification theory (SJT) has faced theoretical opposition from social
identity researchers (e.g., Spears et al., 2001; Reicher, 2004; Rubin and
Hewstone, 2004). In addition, evidence against the theory has recently
accumulated from large scale cross-national studies (e.g., Brandt, 2013;
Kelemen et al., 2014) and experimental studies (Trump and White, 2015;
Owuamalam et al., 2016). In the present article, we re-examine the key
cognitive dissonance assumptions for SJT's central proposition that support for
unequal systems should be higher among members of disadvantaged groups than
among members of advantaged groups when personal and group interests are weak.