制度正当化理论述评

制度正当化是指个体将现存社会安排合法化的心理过程。制度正当化的理论基础包括谬误意识、公正世界信念理论和认知失调理论。制度正当化理论能够解释人们为什么以及怎样在认知和意识形态上维护和支持现状, 以及由此产生的一些积极和消极后果。制度正当化受到个体因素和情境因素的影响。未来研究应进一步明确制度正当化中“制度”的涵义, 加强制度正当化理论的应用性研究, 以便更好地解释社会转变如何产生。     

Imagining better societies: A social psychological framework for the study of utopian thinking and collective action

We present an integrative theoretical model that specifies social psychological mechanisms by which utopian thinking, which activates the social imagination, may enhance collective action intentions oriented toward social change and human progress. The model synthesizes complementary insights from interdisciplinary research programs on utopianism, hope, construal level, and system justification to identify mechanisms by which imagining better societies: (a) increases social hope, (b) yields an abstract mindset that bridges the psychological distance between the status quo (“here and now”) and a better possible future, (c) decreases system justification motivation, and (d) promotes social justice‐oriented forms of collective action.     

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。     

Explaining individuals' justification of layoffs

This research addresses why organizational downsizing, given its adverse impact on both organizations and individuals, continues to be a popular management practice. Drawing on system justification theory, we argue that individuals justify downsizing to preserve the legitimacy of the prevailing social‐political system. Across two studies, we surveyed a total of 527 employees and examined whether the perceived likelihood of downsizing, past experiences of layoffs, and the anticipation of future layoffs enhance individuals' justification of downsizing. We also took into account cognitive and motivational biases for justifying the status quo. Our results indicate that individuals' motivation to defend and justify downsizing may strengthen its stability within society, even though implications are largely negative for those involved.     

Antecedents and Consequences of System-Justifying Ideologies

Abstract— 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.     

Cultural values,system justification,meritocratic beliefs,and evaluations of governments' performance in handling the COVID-19 crisis

System justification and meritocratic beliefs legitimize the status quo of economic, social, and political arrangements, and may correlate with favourable evaluations of governments' performance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study furthers research on this topic by examining (1) the cultural value antecedents of system justification and meritocratic beliefs, and (2) the differential effects of these on attitudes toward ingroups and outgroups from an intergroup perspective. The results show that collectivist values positively predict system justification and meritocratic beliefs, whereas a similar effect was not observed for individualist values. As hypothesized, system justification motivation was positively associated with favourable evaluation of the Chinese government (an ingroup). By contrast, system justification and meritocratic beliefs were negatively associated with evaluation of the American government (an outgroup). We discussed the implications for understandings of the cultural value bases of system justification and meritocratic beliefs, and the relevance of the lens of intergroup relations in studying those beliefs.     

Gender stereotype–consistent memories: How system justification motivation distorts the recollection of information related to the self

Research based on system justification theory has shown that women’s self-perceptions may be altered by the motivation to justify the system and its inequalities. Self-perceptions being built on past experiences, the present study aimed to explore how system justification motivation induced through a system dependency manipulation may alter both women’s recall of autobiographical memories and their behavior. Women who were led to feel highly dependent on the social system perceived themselves as more competent and recalled memories of higher competence in the verbal domain compared with the negatively stereotyped scientific domain. Women’s behavioral choices (between doing a verbal or a math exercise) also revealed a higher preference for the gender stereotype–consistent verbal exercise in the high–system dependency condition, as compared with the low–system dependency condition. These results suggest that gender stereotypes may not only satisfy self- or group-serving motivation but also the need to perceive the system in a positive light.     

Activist Theatre: The Effects of Community Performance on System Justification and Willingness to Engage in Activism

System justification is a motivation to legitimize the status quo that disables individuals from changing oppressive social systems. Community performance has long been used as a tool to illuminate and challenge such systems of power. The goal of the present study was to provide an empirical test of the effectiveness of community performance in the context of gender‐based oppression. Specifically, the present study tested whether a community performance could decrease audience members' system justification and increase intentions to engage in collective and virtual action to correct these oppressive systems. The performance consisted of 18 community‐created pieces performed by 11 actresses before an audience of 165 members of the college and local communities across three days. A total of 153 audience members participated in the study. Results indicated that a 50‐min performance reduced system justification while increasing willingness to take collective and virtual‐based action. Limitations and implications are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Expressive suppression as an obstacle to social change: Linking system justification,emotion regulation,and collective action

Motivation and Emotion - Research on system justification theory suggests that justifying the societal status quo decreases negative emotions, leading to less collective action. In this...     

Status Quo Effects in Decision-Making about Training and Career Development

Within the context of the Theory of Work Adjustment and Image Theory, two studies examined status quo effects in “mini” decisions about training and career development. In Study 1 (N= 78), 32% of the employees demonstrated a status quo effect in that they were not considering any training or skill development options. As predicted by consistency theory, positive information was considered more important than negative information among the non status quo group, particularly for the non status quo alternative. In Study 2 (N= 114) training was given a low priority, although a “major change” frame of reference did increase the priority accorded to training to improve future job prospects. Results are discussed in relation to theoretical issues and the wider implications of encouraging investment in skill development where outcomes are delayed.     

Cultural group norms for harmony explain the puzzling negative association between objective status and system justification in Asia

Why do poorer and less educated Asians trust their institutions of governance more than their richer and well educated counterparts, despite their disadvantaged position within society? System justification theory (SJT) assumes that this trust is driven by a system-level motivation that operates independently from social identity needs. In two nationally representative surveys spanning several years (N_total = 221,297), we compared SJT's explanation with a newer social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): that system justification amongst disadvantaged Asians is driven by a group norm for harmony, especially amongst those who are strongly invested in their national ingroup. The results supported SIMSA more than SJT. Specifically, a strong sense of national identification boosted trust in systems of governance amongst poorer and less-educated Asians, both when societal norms for harmony (Study 1), and personal endorsement of this norm (Study 2) were strong. Hence, social identity needs help to explain stronger system justification among objectively disadvantaged Asians.     

Relative deprivation versus system justification: Polemical social representations and identity positioning in a post‐Soviet society

Societal changes involving power reversal may pose challenges to system justification by a subordinate minority group that had previously held a more privileged position. Derived from originally exploratory qualitative investigation, this paper presents an account of endorsement of justifying the status quo versus the voicing relative deprivation in the context of post‐Soviet Estonia. Experiences of alternative societal arrangements in history were actively deployed by (minority ethnic) Estonian Russians to generate temporal comparisons with the past as a cognitive alternative to the present status quo and give voice to experiences of relative deprivation. A struggle for positive social identity was interpreted to motivate Estonian Russians to mobilize the past as a cognitive alternative to delegitimize the status quo. By contrast, Russians were portrayed as invaders, and the Soviet past was represented as unjust by (the majority ethnic) Estonians, whereas the present system was depicted as fair and equitable. Mutually, polemical representations of history and narratives of identity provide the lenses through which the legitimacy of new societal arrangements following the major social change is interpreted. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Left–right ideological differences in system justification following exposure to complementary versus noncomplementary stereotype exemplars

The capacity for victim‐derogating stereotypes and attributions to justify social inequality and maintain the status quo is well known among social scientists and other observers. Research conducted from the perspective of system justification theory suggests that an alternative to derogation is to justify inequality through the use of complementary stereotypes that ascribe compensating benefits and burdens to disadvantaged and advantaged groups, respectively. In two experimental studies conducted in Poland we investigated the hypothesis that preferences for these two routes to system justification would depend upon one's political orientation. That is, we predicted that the system‐justifying potential of complementary versus noncomplementary stereotype exemplars would be moderated by individual differences in left–right ideology, such that left‐wingers would exhibit stronger support for the societal status quo following exposure to complementary (e.g., “poor but happy,” “rich but miserable”) representations, whereas right‐wingers would exhibit stronger support for the status quo following exposure to noncomplementary (e.g., “poor and dishonest,” “rich and honest”) representations. Results were supportive of these predictions. Implications for theory and practice concerning stereotyping, ideology, and system justification are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Individual differences in motives for regulating affect intensity: positive trait affect and the value of trait-consistent affect

We examined individual differences in the motivation to regulate affect intensity. In three samples (total n?=?1082) we used structural equation modeling and found support for a serial mediation model in which positive trait affect predicted the motivation to increase the intensity of positive affect and decrease the intensity of negative affect, indirectly, through the commonality and value of positive affect. These findings indicate that trait affect drives regulation motives for multiple parameters of affect: people most value, and are motivated to feel, moods and emotions that match their typical experiences on intensity as well as valence.

     

How eudaimonic and hedonic motives relate to the well-being of close others

Past research has examined the link of eudaimonic and hedonic motives with personal well-being, but less is known about their link with the well-being of close others. Also, empirical data on the link with the well-being of close others would address an ongoing debate regarding whether eudaimonia is egoistic and possibly detrimental to others. Participants completed self-report measures of their typical degrees of eudaimonic and hedonic motivation. We then asked their friends and relatives to tell us how the participant affected their well-being. When entering eudaimonia and hedonia simultaneously as predictors of close other well-being in multiple regressions, only eudaimonia related positively to the well-being of close others. Thus, eudaimonia had a positive, not negative, impact on other people. Furthermore, while past research shows that both eudaimonic and hedonic motives benefit personal well-being, this study suggests that eudaimonic motivation has more positive influences on close others.     

On the perpetuation of ignorance: system dependence, system justification, and the motivated avoidance of sociopolitical information

How do people cope when they feel uninformed or unable to understand important social issues, such as the environment, energy concerns, or the economy? Do they seek out information, or do they simply ignore the threatening issue at hand? One would intuitively expect that a lack of knowledge would motivate an increased, unbiased search for information, thereby facilitating participation and engagement in these issues-especially when they are consequential, pressing, and self-relevant. However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the importance/self-relevance of social issues and people's willingness to engage with and learn about them. Leveraging the literature on system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), the authors hypothesized that, rather than motivating an increased search for information, a lack of knowledge about a specific sociopolitical issue will (a) foster feelings of dependence on the government, which will (b) increase system justification and government trust, which will (c) increase desires to avoid learning about the relevant issue when information is negative or when information valence is unknown. In other words, the authors suggest that ignorance-as a function of the system justifying tendencies it may activate-may, ironically, breed more ignorance. In the contexts of energy, environmental, and economic issues, the authors present 5 studies that (a) provide evidence for this specific psychological chain (i.e., ignorance about an issue → dependence → government trust → avoidance of information about that issue); (b) shed light on the role of threat and motivation in driving the second and third links in this chain; and (c) illustrate the unfortunate consequences of this process for individual action in those contexts that may need it most.     

The influences of harmony motives and implicit beliefs on conflict styles of the collectivist

The collectivist preference for nonconfrontational conflict styles is usually attributed to the influences of the Confucian value of harmony, which promotes tolerance of interpersonal transgression. Harmony has two distinct motives in collectivistic Asian societies (Leung, 1997 ): harmony enhancement is affective in nature and represents a genuine concern for relationship harmony, while disintegration avoidance is instrumental in nature and sees harmony maintenance as a means to other ends. Hence, as predicted, harmony enhancement is positively related to the use of integrating and compromising, while disintegration avoidance is positively related to the use of avoiding and obliging and is negatively related to the use of integrating during a conflict with a peer in a collectivistic society, Singapore. Besides examining this from a motivational perspective, the study also examines the role of implicit beliefs of personality on one's choice of conflict styles. The two implicit theories of personality refer to the two different assumptions the lay person has about the mutability of personal attributes; an entity theorist believes that personal attributes are fixed and nonmalleable qualities, while an incremental theorist sees personal attributes as qualities that can be developed and changed. Results reveal that incrementalist implicit beliefs also significantly predicted the use of integrating. Harmony enhancement represents a genuine concern for relationship harmony and involves feelings of closeness, unity, and trust. The finding that integrating is predicted by a harmony enhancement motivation suggests the importance of fostering collectivist values of interdependence and feelings of unity and trust so as to encourage the use of integrating to discuss the opposing views openly and constructively. The present study also underscores the benefit of learning an incremental theory to be open to the positive changes in others and work toward improving the relationship and the situation during a conflict.     

Preference for negative emotions

This research demonstrates that preference for emotions sometimes cannot be equated with a positive-negative valence dimension. Participants were asked to make choices between pairs of affect-inducing options opposite in valence but equal in activation. The results showed that in absence of contextual cues or situational constraints, choices followed a pleasure-maximizing principle. However, when information was provided about a context cueing appropriateness of certain emotions over others, a preference reversal was observed so that negative emotions were preferred over positive emotions. These results are discussed in relation to current theories of pleasure-maximizing choice and behavior.     

Reference dependence in cumulative prospect theory

A central feature of (cumulative) prospect theory is reference dependence, i.e. the value function depends on gains and losses relative to a status quo and not on final wealth positions as in expected utility theory. Until now, all theoretical work on prospect theory only considered a fixed status quo. In this case, however, reference dependence and the dependence of the value function on final wealth positions are equivalent concepts, at least if the status quo is known. In order to identify the differences between both concepts, an axiomatization of cumulative prospect theory is developed which allows for a variable status quo. In this framework a preference condition can be formulated which discriminates between reference dependence and the dependence on final wealth positions. Furthermore, this framework allows one to analyze in which way the shape of the value and weighting functions change with increasing status quo. With respect to this question several hypotheses are defined and characterized in terms of preference conditions.