社会不平等如何影响低地位者的系统合理信念

系统合理信念反映了人们的系统支持态度,即对社会系统公正性、合理性、正当性的感知,以及相应的支持和维护社会系统的态度。以往关于社会不平等与低地位者系统合理信念的关系形成了两种对立的理论观点。一方面,社会认同理论等自利取向的理论认为,严重的不平等不利于低地位者维护自我及内群体利益,因此会损害其系统合理信念;另一方面,系统合理化理论却提出,在不平等更极端（而非平等）的社会中,人们（甚至是低地位者）反而更可能合理化不平等,表现出更高的系统合理信念。实证研究中,两种观点分别得到了一些研究的支持,但同时也面临很多质疑。 面对上述分歧,本文提出了一个整合性的解释框架,即“社会不平等影响低地位者系统合理信念的双路径模型”。该模型认为,自利取向理论与系统合理化理论其实并不矛盾,而是共同解释了不平等与低地位者系统合理信念关系的“全貌”。因此,理论争议的焦点不在于不平等究竟增强还是减弱低地位者的系统合理信念,而在于分析不平等增强或减弱低地位者系统合理信念的不同条件（即认知基础）及其内在机制（即动机基础）。 第一,在认知基础方面,不同于以往研究仅关注不平等“量”的程度及其与系统合理信念的线性关系,该模型认为还应关注不平等“质”的差异及其不同效应,即关注低地位者对不平等的认知过程。一方面,严重的不平等损害低地位者个人或群体的现实利益,构成一种现实威胁;另一方面,严重不平等的社会现状与人们关于社会系统公正性、合理性的信念相冲突,构成一种象征威胁。 第二,在动机基础方面,低地位者的自利动机与系统合理化动机分别使其反对或维护不平等现状,且两种动机彼此冲突;不同于以往研究采用对立视角考察两种动机,或是过于强调二者之一的作用;该模型认为,两种动机是并存的,相互之间并非全或无的关系。因此有必要厘清二者发挥作用的条件,即什么影响二者孰强孰弱,又是什么决定了何者发挥主导作用。 第三,区分不平等“质”的差异是厘清自利动机与系统合理化动机如何发挥作用的关键。换言之,不同动机为低地位者反对或维护不平等现状提供了动力,而何种动机发挥主导作用则取决于低地位者如何对不平等进行认知。具体而言,当凸显不平等在个体或群体水平的现实威胁时,更可能激活低地位者的自利动机（进而抑制其系统合理化动机）,继而损害其系统合理信念;而当凸显不平等在系统水平的象征威胁时,更可能激活其系统合理化动机（进而抑制其自利动机）,继而增强其系统合理信念。 “双路径模型”通过分析不平等影响低地位者系统合理信念的不同认知基础,进而厘清不同动机的作用,将以往研究中看似矛盾的结论整合于一,为理解不平等对低地位者系统合理信念的影响、解释两种理论的“分歧”提供了一种整合框架,需要未来研究进一步检验和发展。     

Do higher-class individuals feel more entitled? The role of system-justifying belief

ABSTRACT

Sense of entitlement can be defined as a pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others. Two studies examined the relationship between social class and sense of entitlement and how this relationship is moderated by system-justifying belief (SJB) in China. In Study 1, we conducted a survey among adults (N = 669) with results showing that social class was positively correlated with sense of entitlement for those endorsing SJB, but negatively correlated with sense of entitlement for those opposing SJB. In Study 2, we conducted an experiment among undergraduates (N = 128) with both social class and SJB being primed and the results replicated the pattern: the positive effect of primed higher social class on pay entitlement existed only for those primed with high SJB, and was dampened for those primed with low SJB. Therefore, higher-class individuals do not necessarily feel more entitled, and SJB may play an important role in shaping their sense of entitlement.     

A Sense of Powerlessness Fosters System Justification: Implications for the Legitimation of Authority,Hierarchy, and Government

In an attempt to explain the stability of hierarchy, we focus on the perspective of the powerless and how a subjective sense of dependence leads them to imbue the system and its authorities with legitimacy. In Study 1, we found in a nationally representative sample of U.S. employees that financial dependence on one's job was positively associated with the perceived legitimacy of one's supervisor. In Study 2, we observed that a general sense of powerlessness was positively correlated with the perceived legitimacy of the economic system. In Studies 3 and 4, priming experimental participants with feelings of powerlessness increased their justification of the social system, even when they were presented with system‐challenging explanations for race, class, and gender disparities. In Study 5, we demonstrated that the experience of powerlessness increased legitimation of governmental authorities (relative to baseline conditions). The processes we identify are likely to perpetuate inequality insofar as the powerless justify rather than strive to change the hierarchical structures that disadvantage them.     

Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method

The theory has been misconstrued in four primary ways, which are often expressed as the claims of psychological reductionism, conceptual redundancy, biological reductionism, and hierarchy justification. This paper addresses these claims and suggests how social dominance theory builds on and moves beyond social identity theory and system justification theory.     

Ideology and Gender: Observers’ System Justification and Targets’ Gender as Interactive Predictors of Citizenship Expectations

We integrate system justification and social role theory to explain how observers’ system justification and target employees’ gender interact to predict observers’ expectations of targets’ sportsmanship citizenship behaviors. In contrast with social role theory predictions, observers did not expect greater levels of sportsmanship from women compared to men. Yet observers expected more sportsmanship from women (a) when observers were ideologically motivated by gender-specific beliefs (gender-specific system justification; Study 1) and (b) when system justification was cued experimentally (Study 2). A heretofore-unexamined aspect, observers’ ideology, modifies their expectations of sportsmanship citizenship across target genders. This has implications for system justification, social role, and organizational citizenship theoretical perspectives.     

Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action

Social identity, shared grievances, and group efficacy beliefs are well-known antecedents to collective action, but existing research overlooks the fact that collective action often involves a confrontation between those who are motivated to defend the status quo and those who seek to challenge it. Using nationally representative data from New Zealand (Study 1; N = 16,147) and a large online sample from the United States (Study 2; N = 1,513), we address this oversight and demonstrate that system justification is negatively associated with system-challenging collective action, but positively associated with system-supporting collective action, for members of both low-status and high-status groups. Group identification, group-based injustice, group-based anger, and system-based dissatisfaction/anger mediated these relationships. These findings constitute the first empirical integration of system justification theory into a model of collective action that explains when people will act collectively to challenge—and, just as importantly, defend—the status quo.     

系统合理化何以形成——三种不同的解释视角

系统合理化理论认为, 人们会自然地将其所在的社会系统感知为公平合理的, 这一倾向即系统合理化。而系统合理化形成之原因, 一直是该领域理论和研究关注的重点。为此, 研究者先后提出了三种解释思路。认知失调视角认为, 系统合理化之所以产生是因为个体想要缓解因系统无法满足他们的需求而产生的焦虑。补偿性控制视角认为, 系统合理化源于个体自身控制感的缺乏。社会认知视角则认为人们固有的认知倾向特别是对于社会经济差异的内归因倾向是造成系统合理化的根源。未来可以考虑在同一个研究中包含来自于不同理论视角的解释变量, 借鉴相近领域的发现探索其他可能存在的系统合理化的形成机制, 探究中国文化特有的系统合理化的来源, 同时对积极的合理化与消极的合理化作出区分, 并在此基础上针对社会现实问题加强应用研究的开展。     

Who should be on the $10 and $20 bills? Preferences based on gender,sexism, race,racism, political affiliation,and political ideology

In June 2015, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced that a woman would replace Hamilton on the $10 bill. In April 2016, it announced that Harriet Tubman would replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill, instead. After each announcement, we surveyed nationally representative samples of American adults and asked them what they thought of these proposed changes for the $10 bill (Study 1, N = 209) and the $20 bill (Study 2, N = 208). Predictors of currency preferences were gender, race, political affiliation and their respective prejudices and biases—sexism, racism, and political ideology. On the basis of social identity, system justification, and social dominance theories we predicted that privileged groups (i.e., males, Whites) and groups who desire to maintain the status quo (i.e., Republicans, conservatives, sexist and racist individuals) would prefer to leave Hamilton on the $10 bill and Jackson on the $20 bill. Results were consistent with these predictions: Overall, we found that under‐represented groups and more liberal individuals support the proposals from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. These findings suggest a bill of money is not just a piece of paper. The person depicted on U.S. currency can be perceived as an in‐group or out‐group member and this can affect judgements in line with relevant social psychological theories.     

Sex differences in social representations of aggression: Men justify,women excuse?

Women tend to hold an expressive social representation of aggression (as a loss of self‐control) while men tend to hold an instrumental representation (as a means of imposing control over others). Because expressive beliefs correspond to excuses and instrumental beliefs to justifications, it may be a sex difference in moral acceptability of aggression that informs social representation. Participants completed the Expagg questionnaire with reference to an episode of same‐sex or cross‐sex physical aggression and rated the moral acceptability of their behaviour. Women scored higher on Expagg (specifically lower than men on the instrumental scale) but there was no effect of target sex or participant‐by‐target interaction. Contrary to expectation, women rated their own aggression as more acceptable than did men and hence this could not explain their lower levels of instrumentality relative to men. Aggr. Behav. 29:128–133, 2003. © 2003 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

低地位群体的外群体偏好

内群体偏好是群际关系中较为普遍现象。但是, 近来研究发现, 在低地位群体中存在着外群体偏好现象。社会认同理论、社会优势理论和系统公正理论从不同角度对这一现象进行了解释。社会认同理论关注情境因素的作用, 它描述了在何种情境下, 外群体偏好可能会出现。社会优势理论认为, 低地位群体成员的社会优势取向水平会决定其究竟是反抗现状还是接受现状。系统公正理论提出, 系统公正动机会使低地位群体成员支持与其内群体利益相违背的现存等级系统。每个理论各有优劣之处, 将各理论进行整合是值得考虑的研究方向。本文提出, 在解释低地位群体的外群体偏好现象时, 社会认同与社会优势取向之间可能会存在交互作用。     

Social Identity, System Justification, and Social Dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et al., and Sidanius et al.

The articles by Reicher (2004 ), Jost, Banaji, and Nosek (2004 ), and Sidanius, Pratto, van Laar, and Levin (2004 ) discuss the strengths and weaknesses of social identity theory ( Tajfel & Turner, 1979 ), system justification theory ( Jost & Banaji, 1994 ), and social dominance theory ( Sidanius, 1993 ). The latter two theories grew out of a critique of social identity theory, but this critique relates more to deficiencies in social identity research than to deficiencies in the theory itself. More balanced and comprehensive social identity research is required in order to allow a fair assessment of the theory's limitations. In addition, Reicher (2004 ) and Huddy (2004 ) are correct that only social identity theory offers the potential for explaining social change and social stability.     

生存优势效应的理论解释

生存优势效应指对学习材料进行“生存加工”,其提取正确率最高。研究者试图用主题加工、一致性效应、情绪加工和自然选择等理论对生存优势效应进行解释。研究发现主题加工、一致性效应和情绪加工不足以说明生存优势现象,自然选择理论似乎可以更好地对此加以解释,但目前自然选择理论尚缺乏直接的实验证据支持。文章结合已有研究具体分析了最近的未来研究应该关注的焦点问题,例如,自然选择理论的直接证明,并对直接证明的方案等进行了尝试性的讨论。     

收入不平等对精神障碍的影响研究进展

收入不平等与精神障碍已成为重要的公共卫生问题,但国内相关研究尚少,且缺乏系统性的总结。通过研究内容（精神障碍类别）、研究方法（关联性研究与因果推断研究）、机制假说以及国内外研究比较四方面综述收入不平等对精神障碍的影响研究,以期能够从多角度提出对于我国进一步开展相关研究的改进与发展方向。通过机制假说的梳理,可以提示研究者机制路径的寻找,获得截断因果路径的方法,为我国未来的公众健康的相关政策制定提供一定的理论指导依据。