John T. Jost

Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = .50); system instability (.47); dogmatism-intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (-.32); uncertainty tolerance (-.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (-.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (-.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

Exposure to Benevolent Sexism and Complementary Gender Stereotypes: Consequences for Specific and Diffuse Forms of System Justification

Many have suggested that complementary gender stereotypes of men as agentic (but not communal) and women as communal (but not agentic) serve to increase system justification, but direct experimental support has been lacking. The authors exposed people to specific types of gender-related beliefs and subsequently asked them to complete measures of gender-specific or diffuse system justification. In Studies 1 and 2, activating (a) communal or complementary (communal + agentic) gender stereotypes or (b) benevolent or complementary (benevolent + hostile) sexist items increased support for the status quo among women. In Study 3, activating stereotypes of men as agentic also increased system justification among men and women, but only when womens characteristics were associated with higher status. Results suggest that complementary stereotypes psychologically offset the one-sided advantage of any single group and contribute to an image of society in which everyone benefits through a balanced dispersion of benefits.

Antecedents and Consequences of System-Justifying Ideologies

According to system justification theory, there is a psychological motive to defend and justify the status quo. There are both dispositional antecedents (e.g., need for closure, openness to experience) and situational antecedents (e.g., system threat, mortality salience) of the tendency to embrace system-justifying ideologies. Consequences of system justification sometimes differ for members of advantaged versus disadvantaged groups, with the former experiencing increased and the latter decreased self-esteem, well-being, and in-group favoritism. In accordance with the palliative function of system justification, endorsement of such ideologies is associated with reduced negative affect for everyone, as well as weakened support for social change and redistribution of resources.

The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology

In this chapter, we trace the historical and intellectual origins of system justification theory, summarise 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 rationalisation of the status quo, the internalisation of inequality (outgroup favouritism 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.

The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations

Part I: Introduction: 1. Emerging perspectives on the psychology of legitimacy John T. Jost and Brenda Major Part II. Historical Perspectives on Sociological and Psychological Theories of Legitimacy: 2. Theories of legitimacy Morris Zelditch, Jr 3. Reflections on social and psychological processes of legitimization and delegitimization Herbert C. Kelman Part III. Cognitive and Perceptual Processes in the Appraisal of Legitimacy: 4. A perceptual theory of legitimacy: policies, prejudice, social institutions, and moral value Chris Crandall and Ryan Beasley 5. Blame it on the group: entitativity, subjective essentialism, and social attribution Vincent Yzerbyt and Anouk Rogier 6. Status vs. quo: naive realism and the search for social change and perceived legitimacy Robert J. Robinson and Laura Kray Part IV. The Tolerance of Injustice: Implications for Self and Society: 7. Tolerance and personal deprivation James M. Olson and Carolyn Hafer 8. Legitimacy and the construal of social advantage Brenda Major and Toni Schmader 9. Individual upward mobility and the perceived legitimacy of intergroup relations Naomi Ellemers 10. Restricted intergroup boundaries: tokenism, ambiguity and the tolerance of injustice Stephen C. Wright Part V. Sterotyping, Ideology and the Legitimation of Inequality: 11. The emergence of status beliefs: from structural inequality to legitimizing ideology Cecilia L. Ridgeway 12. Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies: differentiating paternalistic and envious prejudice Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske 13. Legitimizing ideologies: the social dominance approach Jim Sidanius, Shana Levin, Christopher M. Federico, and Felicia Pratto 14. The (il)legitimacy of intergroup bias: from social reality to social resistance Russell Spears, Jolanda Jetten and Bertjan Doosje 15. Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and system: the integrative potential of system justification theory John T. Jost, Diana Burgess and Cristina Mosso Part VI. Institutional and Organizational Processes of Legitimation: 16. The architecture of legitimacy: constructing accounts of organizational controversies Kimberly D. Elsbach 17. A psychological perspective on the legitimacy of institutions and authorities Tom R. Tyler 18. License to kill: violence and legitimacy in expropriative social relations Mary R. Jackman.

Ideology: Its Resurgence in Social, Personality, and Political Psychology

We trace the rise, fall, and resurgence of political ideology as a topic of research in social, personality, and political psychology. For over 200 years, political belief systems have been classified usefully according to a single left—right (or liberal-conservative) dimension that, we believe, possesses two core aspects: (a) advocating versus resisting social change and (b) rejecting versus accepting inequality. There have been many skeptics of the notion that most people are ideologically inclined, but recent psychological evidence suggests that left-right differences are pronounced in many life domains. Implicit as well as explicit preferences for tradition, conformity, order, stability, traditional values, and hierarchy—versus those for progress, rebelliousness, chaos, flexibility, feminism, and equality—are associated with conservatism and liberalism, respectively. Conservatives score consistently higher than liberals on measures of system justification. Furthermore, there are personality and lifestyle differences between liberals and conservatives as well as situational variables that induce either liberal or conservative shifts in political opinions. Our thesis is that ideological belief systems may be structured according to a left-right dimension for largely psychological reasons linked to variability in the needs to reduce uncertainty and threat.

Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism

Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.

Are Needs to Manage Uncertainty and Threat Associated With Political Conservatism or Ideological Extremity

Three studies are conducted to assess the uncertainty— threat model of political conservatism, which posits that psychological needs to manage uncertainty and threat are associated with political orientation. Results from structural equation models provide consistent support for the hypothesis that uncertainty avoidance (e.g., need for order, intolerance of ambiguity, and lack of openness to experience) and threat management (e.g., death anxiety, system threat, and perceptions of a dangerous world) each contributes independently to conservatism (vs. liberalism). No support is obtained for alternative models, which predict that uncertainty and threat management are associated with ideological extremism or extreme forms of conservatism only. Study 3 also reveals that resistance to change fully mediates the association between uncertainty avoidance and conservatism, whereas opposition to equality partially mediates the association between threat and conservatism. Implications for understanding the epistemic and existential bases of political orientation are discussed.

Attitudinal Ambivalence and the Conflict between Group and System Justification Motives in Low Status Groups

It is argued that members of low status groups are faced with a psychological conflict between group justification tendencies to evaluate members of one’s own group favorably and system justification tendencies to endorse the superiority of higher status out-groups. In Study 1, members of low status groups exhibited less ingroup favoritism and more ingroup ambivalence than did members of high status groups. Perceptions that the status differences were legitimate increased outgroup favoritism and ambivalence among low status groups, and they increased ingroup favoritism and decreased ambivalence among high status groups. In Study 2, the belief in a just world and social dominance orientation increased ambivalence on the part of women toward female victims of gender discrimination, but they decreased ambivalence on the part of men. Evidence here indicates that system-justifying variables increase ingroup ambivalence among low status group members and decrease ambivalence among high status group members.

System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of “System-Sanctioned Change”

Despite extensive evidence of climate change and environmental destruction, polls continue to reveal widespread denial and resistance to helping the environment. It is posited here that these responses are linked to the motivational tendency to defend and justify the societal status quo in the face of the threat posed by environmental problems. The present research finds that system justification tendencies are associated with greater denial of environmental realities and less commitment to pro-environmental action. Moreover, the effects of political conservatism, national identification, and gender on denial of environmental problems are explained by variability in system justification tendencies. However, this research finds that it is possible to eliminate the negative effect of system justification on environmentalism by encouraging people to regard pro-environmental change as patriotic and consistent with protecting the status quo (i.e., as a case of “system-sanctioned change”). Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.