Chuma Kevin Owuamalam

The association between social identification and system justification, especially amongst low‐status groups, is a highly contested issue in the social and political psychology literatures. While some researchers propose that this association should be largely negative, others assume that it should be largely positive. Here, we synthesised the accumulated evidence on this relationship using a 4‐level meta‐analysis of 84 papers supplying 248 different samples and 359 effect sizes ( N _total = 395,855). Overall the association between identification and system justification was positive, although weak ( Z _r = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.17) and was stronger for high‐ and intermediate‐status groups ( Z _r = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.13, 0.25 and Z _r = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.04, 0.20 respectively) but null for low‐status groups ( Z _r = 0.01, 95% CI = −0.04, 0.06). When theoretically relevant moderators were taken into account, the results further revealed that, for low‐status groups, subgroup identification was positively correlated with system justification, but only when status differences were stable and/or legitimate.

The status‐legitimacy hypothesis posits that low‐status groups more strongly endorse social hierarchies and disadvantageous systems (i.e., engage in system justification), particularly under extreme societal inequality. Buchel et al. (2021) found supportive evidence for this hypothesis based on a 28‐nation survey (N = 48,802). However, other large‐scale studies have produced contradictory evidence. Consequently, we re‐examined Buchel et al.’s (2021) data, this time breaking down the critical status inequality interaction and visualizing the patterns with scatterplots. Contrary to the status‐legitimacy hypothesis, our results often showed that both objective and subjective status were associated with system justification in the opposite direction–even in contexts of high societal inequality. However, higher societal inequality sometimes reduces the system justification gap between status groups. We discuss the implications of these mixed findings for the debate around the existence of a system justification motive.

System justification theory (SJT) assumes that social identity theory (SIT) cannot fully account for system justification by members of low-status (disadvantaged) groups. Contrary to this claim, we provide several elaborations of SIT that explain when and why members of low-status groups show system justification independent from any separate system justification motive. According to the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA), the needs for social accuracy and a positively distinct social identity fully account for system justification by members of low-status groups. In the present article, we (a) explain SIMSA’s accounts of system justification, (b) develop associated hypotheses, (c) summarise evidence that supports each hypothesis, and (d) highlight issues to be addressed in future research. We conclude that SIMSA provides a more parsimonious explanation of system justification by the disadvantaged than SJT, because it does not refer to an additional separate system justification motive.

In this article, we reply to Jost et al.'s ( Citation2023 ) rejoinder to our article reviewing evidence for the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Rubin et al., Citation2023 ). We argue that (1) SIMSA treats system justification as the outcome of an interaction between general social psychological process and specific historical, political, cultural, and ideological environments; (2) it does not conflate perceived intergroup status differences with the perceived stability and legitimacy of those differences, (3) it is not fatalistic, because it assumes that people may engage in social change when they perceive an opportunity to do so; (4) it adopts a non-reductionist, social psychological explanation of system justification, rather than an individualist explanation based on individual differences; (5) it presupposes “existing social arrangements”, including their existing legitimacy and stability, and assumes that these social arrangements are either passively acknowledged or actively supported; and (6) it is not reliant on minimal group experiments in its evidence base.

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.

Why would heterosexual men downplay their compassion for masculine (vs. feminine) gay victims of hate crime? Two social identity‐inspired explanations provide contrasting answers to this question. The reactive distinctiveness thesis (RD) assumes that heterosexual men would downplay their compassion more, when cued to a gay victim's masculinity than to their femininity, provided evaluative concerns are strong. In contrast, the feminization‐threat thesis (FT) assumes that compassion downplays would be more visible when heterosexual men are cued to a gay victim's femininity (not to the victim's masculinity), provided evaluative concerns are strong too. Consistent with RD, three experiments (N_total = 1,475) revealed that heterosexual men who read news about (gay) victims at a hate crime scene downplayed their compassion to a greater degree when cued to the masculinity rather than to the femininity of such targets (Studies 1–3). Meanwhile FT's prediction received partial support when considering feminine (vs. masculine) heterosexual victims, rather than homosexual victims (Study 3).