Objective and Subjective Socioeconomic Status as Sources of Status-Legitimacy Effect and Legitimation of Income Inequality

System justification theory proposes that people are motivated to perceive the existing social system as fair, legitimate, and desirable. However, status-legitimacy effect, understood as the most disadvantaged living in the most unequal contexts experiencing this need most strongly, has only found mixed support in empirical works. This article presents a comprehensive test of the original reading of status-legitimacy hypothesis which implied that those with lower objective status are the most motivated to system justify and of the respecified version that posits subjective powerlessness to be the driver of undue system legitimization. Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression analysis of International Social Survey Programme modules on social inequality, covering almost 50,000 respondents from 28 countries, shows that the mean effects of both subjective and objective status are in line with predictions of economic rationality. To model contextual inequality, we distinguish between an objective measure, Gini, and perceived amounts of income differences as reported by respondents. The analysis testing contextual moderation lends support for the original reading of status-legitimacy hypothesis—the objectively, rather than subjectively, disadvantaged experience greater motivation to defend the system.     

Testing the status-legitimacy hypothesis: Predicting system justification using objective and subjective socioeconomic status in China and the United States

The status-legitimacy hypothesis proposes that those who are most disadvantaged by unequal social systems are even more likely than members of more advantaged groups to provide ideological support for the very social system that is responsible for their disadvantages. Li, Yang, Wu, and Kou (2020, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin) sought to expand the generalizability of this hypothesis by testing it in China, addressing inconsistencies surrounding the empirical support for this hypothesis by postulating that the construct of status should be separated into an objective and subjective status marker. They reported that objective socioeconomic status (SES; income and education) negatively predicted system justification, while subjective SES positively predicted system justification. In the present study we attempt to replicate and extend the work of Li et al. in a cross-cultural comparison of demographic stratified quota online samples in China and the United States. We test the status-legitimacy hypothesis using objective and subjective SES to predict system justification using cross-sectional and cross-lagged regression analyses. We received partial support for Li et al.'s findings. Specifically, subjective SES positively predicted system justification for both societies during cross-sectional and cross-lagged longitudinal analyses. However, we failed to replicate Li et al.'s findings surrounding objective SES in China during cross-sectional and cross-lagged analyses.     

Beyond contact: intergroup contact in the context of power relations

This work investigated how group-based power affects the motivations and preferences that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring to situations of contact. To measure the preferred content of interactions, desires to address particular topics in intergroup contact were assessed for both experimental groups (Study 1) and real groups (Study 2). As predicted, across both studies, the desire to talk about power was greater among members of disadvantaged than of advantaged groups. This difference was mediated by motivation for change in group-based power. Study 2 further demonstrated that more highly identified members of disadvantaged groups wanted to talk about power more. Members of advantaged groups generally preferred to talk about commonalities between the groups more than about group-based power, and this desire was greater with higher levels of identification. However, perceiving that their group's advantage was illegitimate increased the desire of advantaged group members to address power in intergroup interactions.     

Affluence and Subjective Well-Being: Does Income Inequality Moderate their Associations?

Using the Gallup World Poll data, we examined whether national income inequality moderated the effects of affluence on individual subjective well-being (SWB). Multilevel analyses found that people reported higher life evaluation in years when their nation had higher GDP. Between-nation effects showed that people in wealthier nations reported greater SWB (but also more negative feelings) than those in poorer nations. Furthermore, people in unequal nations (i.e., greater income inequality) reported higher life evaluation and positive feelings than those in more equal nations. National income inequality also moderated the effects of individual-level income on SWB— income showed stronger associations with SWB in more equal nations than in nations with higher income inequality. People who earned higher incomes had higher life evaluation and positive feelings, and lower negative feelings than those who earned lower incomes, but the effects were stronger in more equal nations. These findings suggest that money matters less to the SWB of people in unequal nations than those in equal nations.

     

Social comparisons of income in one's community: evidence from national surveys of income and happiness

Two studies provide evidence for social comparison effects of income on subjective well-being (SWB). The 1st study of 7,023 persons from nationally representative samples in the United States shows that the range and skew of the income distribution in a community affects a person's happiness, as predicted by range-frequency theory. The 2nd study of 8 nations over a period of 25 years shows that decreasing the skew (inequality) of the income distribution in a country increases average national SWB. Both studies strongly support social comparison effects of income within a community, and both results are predicted by range-frequency theory. These studies are the first to successfully extend earlier results of R. H. Smith, E. Diener, and D. H. Wedell (1989) from the laboratory into naturalistic situations. The magnitude of the social comparison effects is smaller than the main effect of income, which implies that nations can avoid creating a "hedonic treadmill."     

Understanding advantaged groups' opposition to diversity,equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat

To combat social inequality, organizations develop and implement initiatives that seek to improve the status of disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, racial/ethnic minority groups). Such diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies are controversial, because people disagree about whether they are necessary and what their (positive and negative) consequences may be. Opposition can be particularly fierce from people who belong to advantaged groups that benefit from the status quo (e.g., men, racial/ethnic majority groups). Given the power wielded by advantaged groups, their opposition can undermine the successful implementation of DEI policies, thus resulting in continued inequality, wasted resources, and potential for tension in the organization. In this paper, I draw on theory and research to consider three types of threat that can explain advantaged groups' opposition to DEI policies: (1) resource threat, or concern about losing access to outcomes and opportunities; (2) symbolic threat, or concern about the introduction of new values, culture, and expectations; and (3) ingroup morality threat, or concern about their group's role in perpetuating inequality. I review strategies identified by the literature to mitigate these threats, and discuss their potential negative consequences. The final section takes stock of the literature and considers directions for future research.     

Comparative differences in the self-perceptions of disadvantaged and advantaged students

Previous research had indicated positive and significantly higher self-perceptions for disadvantaged children in comparison to advantaged children in grades four through eight. The intention of this research was to determine whether disadvantaged children maintain their more positive self-images when they enter the more integrated environment with advantaged children. It was discovered that both disadvantaged and advantaged high school students had significantly lower self-perception scores than did the elementary school pupils. The importance of the study is in the continued non-support of the hypothesis that disadvantaged children of all ages have negative self concepts—whether in segregated or integrated situations. However, the study further shows that high school students' self-images are not as high as those of younger children—whether they are disadvantaged or advantaged.     

Which Societies Provide a Strong Religious Socialization Context? Explanations Beyond the Effects of National Religiosity

Religious socialization occurs within the immediate family as well as in the broader social context. Previous research has shown that parents’ religiosity matters less for the transmission of religious beliefs in devout than in secular nations, implying smaller costs of religious socialization. In this article we test which other societal factors affect the transmission of religious beliefs: anti‐religious policies in formerly socialist countries, economic development, and income inequality. Our results indicate that societies with high levels of income inequality seem to provide the most favorable context for religious socialization. Individuals develop strong religious beliefs even if they only received little religious socialization within the family. Formerly socialist nations increased socialization costs through the overall suppression of religious practice. Economic development has no impact on socialization effects, suggesting that inequality is a more important driver of religious change than previously thought.     

Contact,Political Solidarity and Collective Action: An Indian Case Study of Relations between Historically Disadvantaged Communities

Research on the contact hypothesis has highlighted the role of contact in improving intergroup relations. Most of this research has addressed the problem of transforming the prejudices of historically advantaged communities, thereby eroding wider patterns of discrimination and inequality. In the present research, drawing on evidence from a cross‐sectional survey conducted in New Delhi, we explored an alternative process through which contact may promote social change, namely by fostering political solidarity and empowerment amongst the disadvantaged. The results indicated that Muslim students' experiences of contact with other disadvantaged communities were associated with their willingness to participate in joint collective action to reduce shared inequalities. This relationship was mediated by perceptions of collective efficacy and shared historical grievances and moderated by positive experiences of contact with the Hindu majority. Implications for recent debates about the relationship between contact and social change are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effect of intergroup contact on solidarity‐based collective action is mediated by reductions in SDO

This paper explores the impact of positive and negative intergroup contact on advantaged group members’ willingness to engage in collective action on behalf of disadvantaged outgroups, and the mediational role of social dominance orientation (SDO) in this process. SDO captures an individual’s ideological support for inequality. If contact is going to promote collective action to reduce inequality among the advantaged group, it must be expected to influence their ideological beliefs about hierarchy. In Study 1, only positive, and not negative contact was found to be associated with Whites’ support for the Black Lives Matter movement, mediated by reductions in SDO. In Study 2, both positive and negative contact were associated, respectively, with more or less support for collective action to protect the rights of European immigrants during Brexit negotiations. While positive contact was associated with reduced SDO and more support for collective action among British nationals, negative contact was associated with increased SDO and lower support for collective action.     

Moral outrage and pragmatism: Explanations for collective action

Two explanations for collective behavior were contrasted. The first, exemplified by relative deprivation theory, stresses the importance of feelings of moral outrage and perceived economic injustice. The second focuses on more pragmatic considerations, such as the availability of resources for mobilization. The present study examines these explanations for collective behavior in a laboratory setting. Subjects were members of a disadvantaged group. In a 3 × 2 factorial design two independent variables were manipulated. The magnitude of pay inequality between the disadvantaged group and a more advantaged group was manipulated to be large, moderate, or small. Mobilization resources available to the disadvantaged group were manipulated to be either present or absent. In accord with predictions based on relative deprivation theory, as the magnitude of the inequality increased, stronger feelings of deprivation were expressed. However, contrary to relative deprivation theory, larger magnitudes of inequality and stronger feelings of deprivation were not associated with greater willingness to engage in legitimate or illegitimate forms of collective behavior. Instead, as predicted by some critics of relative deprivation theory, willinginess to engage in illegitimate forms of collective behavior was affected only by a gragmatic consideration: the presence or absence of mobilization resources.     

Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged

According to system justification theory, people are motivated to preserve the belief that existing social arrangements are fair, legitimate, justifiable, and necessary. The strongest form of this hypothesis, which draws on the logic of cognitive dissonance theory, holds that people who are most disadvantaged by the status quo would have the greatest psychological need to reduce ideological dissonance and would therefore be most likely to support, defend, and justify existing social systems, authorities, and outcomes. Variations on this hypothesis were tested in five US national survey studies. We found that (a) low‐income respondents and African Americans were more likely than others to support limitations on the rights of citizens and media representatives to criticize the government; (b) low‐income Latinos were more likely to trust in US government officials and to believe that ‘the government is run for the benefit of all’ than were high‐income Latinos; (c) low‐income respondents were more likely than high‐income respondents to believe that large differences in pay are necessary to foster motivation and effort; (d) Southerners in the USA were more likely to endorse meritocratic belief systems than were Northerners and poor and Southern African Americans were more likely to subscribe to meritocratic ideologies than were African Americans who were more affluent and from the North; (e) low‐income respondents and African Americans were more likely than others to believe that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary; and (f) stronger endorsement of meritocratic ideology was associated with greater satisfaction with one's own economic situation. Taken together, these findings are consistent with the dissonance‐based argument that people who suffer the most from a given state of affairs are paradoxically the least likely to question, challenge, reject, or change it. Implications for theories of system justification, cognitive dissonance, and social change are also discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

What Affects Happiness Inequality? Evidence from Japan

This paper examines the determinants of happiness inequality in Japan using unique data from the “Preference Parameters Study” of Osaka University, a nationally representative survey conducted in Japan. By estimating Recentered Influence Function regressions, we find that household income has a negative and significant effect on happiness inequality, as found for other advanced economies, though people’s perception of their relative standing in the income spectrum also matters for the dispersion of happiness. Moreover, the regression results show that the insecurity faced by people about their jobs and life after retirement is also significantly associated with the widening of happiness inequality. Such findings are cause for grave concern given that the share of irregular jobs, which tend to be low paid and insecure, in total employment significantly increased in Japan during the Lost Two Decades and that this increasing trend has not yet been reversed.     

An integrative framework on the impact of allies: How identity-based needs influence intergroup solidarity and social movements

What impact do advantaged group allies have within social movements? Although solidarity between advantaged and disadvantaged group members is often encouraged to achieve long-term social change, allies run the risk of being ineffective or counterproductive, therefore making it important to shift our focus towards understanding the impact of allies. We propose an integrative theoretical framework describing the positive and negative impact of allies based on their distinct identity-based needs: advantaged group members’ need for moral acceptance and disadvantaged group members’ need for empowerment and respect. By consolidating extant literature and identifying gaps in prior research, we propose a set of hypotheses concerning (a) tensions that arise within intergroup solidarity efforts for social change between advantaged group allies and disadvantaged group members, and (b) the role of allies in influencing broader public opinion to advance the psychology of social change.     

Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action

Three studies examined non-Aboriginal Australians' guilt and anger about their ingroup's advantage over structurally disadvantaged Aborigines. Study 1 showed that participants who perceived their ingroup as relatively advantaged perceived this inequality as unfair and felt guilt and anger about it. Anger, and to a lesser degree guilt, predicted the willingness to engage in political action regarding ingroup advantage. Study 2 showed both guilt and anger to be relatively self-focused because both were associated with appraising the ingroup's (rather than the government's) discrimination as responsible for ingroup advantage. Study 3 examined on participants especially willing to engage in political action to bring about systemic compensation to Aborigines. Anger about ingroup advantage was a potent predictor. Although guilt was associated with the abstract goal of systemic compensation, guilt did not explain willingness for political action. Results underline the importance of examining specific group-based emotions in intergroup relations.     

The Effect of Perceived Advantage and Disadvantage on Performance: The Role of External Efficacy

This experiment examined how perceptions of advantage and disadvantage determine performance in a competitive context. We distinguished between internal and external efficacy, and manipulated external efficacy by inducing perceptions of advantaged or disadvantaged starting positions in a competition, keeping the actual positions equal. The treatment increased the performance of the advantaged party and decreased the performance of the disadvantaged party. In addition, measured external and internal efficacy had qualitatively different effects on performance. The results are explained by the idea that losses loom larger than gains.     

The Irony of Harmony: Intergroup Contact Can Produce False Expectations for Equality

ABSTRACT— Positive intergroup contact has been a guiding framework for research on reducing intergroup tension and for interventions aimed at that goal. We propose that beyond improving attitudes toward the out-group, positive contact affects disadvantaged-group members' perceptions of intergroup inequality in ways that can undermine their support for social change toward equality. In Study 1, participants were assigned to either high- or low-power experimental groups and then brought together to discuss either commonalities between the groups or intergroup differences. Commonality-focused contact, relative to difference-focused contact, produced heightened expectations for fair (i.e.,  egalitarian) out-group behavior among members of disadvantaged groups. These expectations, however, proved unrealistic when compared against the actions of members of the advantaged groups. Participants in Study 2 were Israeli Arabs (a disadvantaged minority) who reported the amount of positive contact they experienced with Jews. More positive intergroup contact was associated with increased perceptions of Jews as fair, which in turn predicted decreased support for social change. Implications for social change are considered.     

The response to injustice: Effects of varying levels of social support and position of advantage or disadvantage

This study investigated the effects of varying levels of social support as well as position of advantage or disadvantage on subjects' response to injustice. Conditions of advantage and disadvantage were established by randomly assigning one member of each experimental dyad to a method of working which prevented him/her from earning points for prizes. Three levels of social support (“none,” “peer,” “authoritative”) were created. Advantaged and disadvantaged subjects receiving authoritative support for the possibility of change and disadvantaged subjects receiving peer support in the form of divided opinion statements rated the system as less fair than either group in the absence of support or the advantaged receiving only peer support. Disadvantaged subjects evidenced a tendency to assume personal responsibility for their lower outcomes. Social support reduced this tendency but did not eliminate it.     

Positional Goods and the Social Rank Hypothesis: Income Inequality Affects Online Chatter about High‐ and Low‐Status Brands on Twitter

According to a social rank hypothesis, consumers who live in regions with higher income inequality will show greater interest in, and attention toward, positional goods and high‐status brands that serve a social signaling role. We analyze millions of posts on the microblogging platform Twitter for mentions of high‐ and low‐status brands. We find that luxury brands such as “Louis Vuitton” and “Rolex” are more frequently mentioned in tweets originating from US states, counties, and major metropolitan areas with higher levels of income inequality. In contrast, mentions of everyday brands such as “Walmart” or “Kmart” are more frequent in regions with a more equal distribution of income. Using sentiment analysis, we find higher valence (positivity) and arousal (excitement) for tweets that both mention high‐status brands and originate from regions with high levels of income inequality. These results corroborate the social rank hypothesis, showing that more psychological resources are allocated to positional consumption when the income gap between the rich and the poor is larger.