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。     

Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups

According to system justification theory, people internalize and perpetuate systemic forms of inequality, even though it sometimes means harboring preferences for members of higher status outgroups. In Study 1, students from a high status (but not a low status) university exhibited significant ingroup favoritism on the IAT, an automatic evaluative measure. Furthermore, for students at the high status university, implicit ingroup bias was positively correlated with implicit self-esteem. For students at the low status university, implicit acceptance of consensual stereotypes concerning academic and extracurricular characteristics was associated with implicit outgroup favoritism. In Study 2, Latinos and Asian Americans exhibited significant outgroup favoritism on an unobtrusive behavioral measure by choosing White interaction partners over members of their own groups. In Study 3, parents named newborn children disproportionately after their fathers (compared with their mothers) and published birth announcements for boys slightly more often than for girls. Thus, we observed evidence of system justification on implicit or unobtrusive measures in three different socially disadvantaged groups.     

Contrasting Theoretical Approaches to Intergroup Relations

The current forum is designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of social identity, social dominance, and system justification as theoretical approaches to the study of intergroup relations. Each of these approaches tries to account for variation in the development of ingroup cohesion and outgroup antipathy among individual group members, across groups, and in different societies—three levels at which theorists have commonly sought explanations for variability in intergroup attitudes and behavior. Social dominance theory is the most ambitious of the theories but does not succeed in explaining intergroup relations equally well at all three levels. However, it has excelled in highlighting individual differences in the need and desire to dominate members of lower-status groups and in exploring the interaction between individuals and institutions. Social identity theory is primarily concerned with the attributes of groups that foster the development of ingroup bias and examines the conditions under which this occurs. It is more fully developed in this respect than the other approaches but ignores variation at the individual level and, to a lesser degree, the societal level. System justification theory considers a mix of individual- and societal-level factors, focusing on the role of support for the status quo in producing acceptance of status inequalities among members of low-status groups, even when it is against their own interest to do so. The theory highlights an important problem—the quiescence of low-status groups—but more work is needed to flesh out the theory and its central concepts.     

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.     

Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries

The present studies demonstrate that conceiving of racial group membership as biologically determined increases acceptance of racial inequities (Studies 1 and 2) and cools interest in interacting with racial outgroup members (Studies 3-5). These effects were generally independent of racial prejudice. It is argued that when race is cast as a biological marker of individuals, people perceive racial outgroup members as unrelated to the self and therefore unworthy of attention and affiliation. Biological conceptions of race therefore provide justification for a racially inequitable status quo and for the continued social marginalization of historically disadvantaged groups.     

想象积极群际接触对利他型集体行动意愿的影响:系统公正感和群际评价的中介作用

集体行动是维护和实现社会公平正义的有效途径之一。以往研究主要聚焦于弱势群体利己型集体行动,很少有研究考察利他型集体行动的影响因素。本研究采用双随机设计,通过三个实验探讨积极群际接触与利他型集体行动的中介效应因果模型。实验1采用想象性群际接触范式操纵积极群际接触,发现积极群际接触促进利他型集体行动,系统公正感和群际评价中的热情维度起中介作用。实验2与实验3分别操纵系统公正感和热情,检验中介变量与因变量间的因果关系,证实了积极群际接触-系统公正感、热情-利他型集体行动的因果关系链。     

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.     

Leftists’ and rightists’ IQ as a function of stereotype salience

This study examined the intellectual performance of leftists (or liberals) and rightists (or conservatives) when a stereotype about members of a disadvantaged outgroup (immigrants) is salient. Building on system-justification theory (SJT) and the motivated social cognition approach of political conservatism, it was predicted that when the stereotype about immigrant students’ underachievement is salient in academic settings, leftist students would perform worse, whereas rightist students would perform better than in a control condition. In two samples, Swiss native students were first reminded (or not) of the stereotype and then performed a difficult intellectual test. The results yielded support for the predictions. These findings illustrate how different ideological motives (system-challenging vs. system-justifying) might influence performance among leftist and rightist students.     

社会支配倾向研究的回顾与展望

社会支配倾向指个体对基于群体产生的等级制度及社会存在不平等现象的偏好程度。高社会支配倾向者认为高能力者应比低能力者获得更多的社会权利与社会资源;低社会支配倾向者认为社会应该按需分配,不存在等级差异。社会支配倾向会对社会阶层、偏见、政治态度、公平等现象的作用产生影响,是这些现象的重要影响因素。今后需要立足于社会支配倾向的本质与社会应用开展整合性研究。     

We'll never get past the glass ceiling! Meta‐stereotyping,world‐views and perceived relative group‐worth

This article examines the implications of perceived negativity from members of a dominant outgroup on the world views and perceived relative group worth of members of disadvantaged groups. We hypothesized that concerns about the negative opinions a dominant outgroup is perceived to hold of the ingroup (i.e., meta‐stereotypes) would undermine group members' views about societal fairness. We expected this trend to be mediated by recall of previous personal experiences of discrimination. We further hypothesized that members' views about societal fairness would predict their perception of the ingroup's worth relative to the outgroup – such that undermined views about societal fairness would be associated with lower perceived ingroup worth relative to the outgroup. Taken jointly, results from two studies using two real intergroup contexts support these hypotheses and are discussed in terms of their implications for the social mobility of members of disadvantaged groups.     

Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: an examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors

A meta-analysis examined the extent to which socio-structural and psycho-cultural characteristics of societies correspond with how much gender and ethnic/racial groups differ on their support of group-based hierarchy. Robustly, women opposed group-based hierarchy more than men did, and members of lower power ethnic/racial groups opposed group-based hierarchy more than members of higher power ethnic/racial groups did. As predicted by social dominance theory, gender differences were larger, more stable, and less variable from sample to sample than differences between ethnic/racial groups. Subordinate gender and ethnic/racial group members disagreed more with dominants in their views of group-based hierarchy in societies that can be considered more liberal and modern (e.g., emphasizing individualism and change from traditions), as well as in societies that enjoyed greater gender equality. The relations between gender and ethnic/racial groups are discussed, and implications are developed for social dominance theory, social role theory, biosocial theory, social identity theory, system justification theory, realistic group conflict theory, and relative deprivation theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved).     

The Social Causes and Political Consequences of Group Empathy

Recent scholarship has discovered significant racial/ethnic group variation in response to political threats such as immigration and terrorism. Surprisingly, minority groups often simultaneously perceive themselves to be at greater risk from such threats and yet still prefer more open immigration policies and civil liberties protections. We suggest a group‐level empathy process may explain this puzzle: Due to their higher levels of empathy for other disadvantaged groups, many minority group members support protections for others even when their own interests are threatened. Little is known, however, about the unique properties of group empathy or its role in policy opinion formation. In this study, we examine the reliability and validity of our new measure of group empathy, the Group Empathy Index (GEI), demonstrating that it is distinct from other social and political predispositions such as ethnocentrism, social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, ideology, and partisanship. We then propose a theory about the development of group empathy in reaction to life experiences based on one's race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education. Finally, we examine the power of group empathy to predict policy attitudes and political behavior.     

Rejection as a call to arms: inter-racial hostility and support for political action as outcomes of race-based rejection in majority and minority groups

Both majority and minority group members fear race-based rejection, and respond by disparaging the groups that they expect will reject them. It is not clear, however, how this process differs in minority and majority groups. Using large representative samples of White (N= 4,618) and Māori (N= 1,163) New Zealanders, we found that perceptions of race-based rejection predicted outgroup negativity in both groups, but in different ways and for different reasons. For White (but not Māori) New Zealanders, increased intergroup anxiety partially mediated the relationship between cognitions of rejection and outgroup negativity. Māori who expected to be rejected on the basis of their race reported increased ethnic identification and, in part through this, increased support for political action benefiting their own group. This finding supports collective-action models of social change in historically disadvantaged minority groups.     

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.     

Implicit Measures Reveal Evidence of Personal Discrimination

A well-known result, the person–group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD), shows that members of disadvantaged groups believe that other members of their social groups are discriminated against, but that they themselves are not. In this paper, we test whether this explicit self-protective strategy is also obtained on indirect measures of personal discrimination. Three experiments, using both explicit (self-report) and implicit (IAT) measures of discrimination showed that although members of disadvantaged groups do not explicitly report self-discrimination (replicating previous research), they do reveal self-discrimination on the implicit measure. That the PGDD effect is bound to explicit measurement should be recognized both when implementing research protocols and when understanding the effects of discrimination whether it is consciously recognized or not.     

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.     

A joke is just a joke (except when it isn't): cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives

Past research reveals preferences for disparaging humor directed toward disliked others. The group-dominance model of humor appreciation introduces the hypothesis that beyond initial outgroup attitudes, social dominance motives predict favorable reactions toward jokes targeting low-status outgroups through a subtle hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth: cavalier humor beliefs (CHB). CHB characterizes a lighthearted, less serious, uncritical, and nonchalant approach toward humor that dismisses potential harm to others. As expected, CHB incorporates both positive (affiliative) and negative (aggressive) humor functions that together mask biases, correlating positively with prejudices and prejudice-correlates (including social dominance orientation [SDO]; Study 1). Across 3 studies in Canada, SDO and CHB predicted favorable reactions toward jokes disparaging Mexicans (low-status outgroup). Neither individual difference predicted neutral (nonintergroup) joke reactions, despite the jokes being equally amusing and more inoffensive overall. In Study 2, joke content targeting Mexicans, Americans (high-status outgroup), and Canadians (high-status ingroup) was systematically controlled. Although Canadians preferred jokes labeled as anti-American overall, an underlying subtle pattern emerged at the individual-difference level: Only those higher in SDO appreciated those jokes labeled as anti-Mexican (reflecting social dominance motives). In all studies, SDO predicted favorable reactions toward low-status outgroup jokes almost entirely through heightened CHB, a subtle yet potent legitimatizing myth that "justifies" expressions of group dominance motives. In Study 3, a pretest-posttest design revealed the implications of this justification process: CHB contributes to trivializing outgroup jokes as inoffensive (harmless), subsequently contributing to postjoke prejudice. The implications for humor in intergroup contexts are considered.     

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。     

Women in power-themed tasks: Need for power predicts task enjoyment and power stress

The implicit power motive predicts individuals’ involvement in activities that allow them to have impact and influence on other people. Moreover, substantial evidence indicates that thwarting individuals’ implicit power motive relates to so-called power stress. The present series of studies addresses both topics among female participants. In study 1, findings indicate that the strength of the implicit power motive moderates the relationship between women’s self-reported dominance and their evaluations of a power-related task: A significant link between self-reported dominance and both motivation for task participation and task enjoyment could be verified only when the implicit power motive was well-pronounced. In the subsequent studies, actual and anticipated thwarting of the satisfaction of a strong implicit power motive was associated with different psychological and behavioral indicators of power stress. Participants with a high implicit power motive felt more negative affect (study 2), reported more negative explicit (study 3) and implicit (study 4) attitudes towards a dominant target person, and were coded more often for visible frown reactions (study 5) when the satisfaction of their implicit power motive was (potentially) thwarted compared to participants with a low implicit power motive and participants with a high implicit power motive that was, however, not at risk of being thwarted.

     

Group socialization and prejudice: the social transmission of intergroup attitudes and beliefs

In order to examine the social transmission of prejudice in the military, attitudes and beliefs of Francophone (minority) and Anglophone (majority) prospective military officers toward their own and other groups were assessed at the beginning and at the end of a four‐year officer‐training program. Consistent with social dominance theory and system justification theory, majority group members become significantly more negative toward outgroups (e.g. Francophones, civilians and immigrants) and more likely to internalize beliefs that legitimize the economic gap between Francophones and Anglophones in Canada. Moreover, as predicted on the basis of self‐categorization theory, the results show that identification with the category ‘Canadian Forces Officers’ assessed at the midpoint in the program, moderates the change in intergroup attitudes and beliefs. Finally, minority group members did not internalize negative stereotypes of their own group. These results provide important evidence for the role of group socialization in the explanation of intergroup attitudes and beliefs and suggest that social identification is a key factor in group socialization, consistent with self‐categorization theory. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.