https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:42114 Br. J. Soc. Psychol, 33, 1) proposes that they do and that this motivation helps to (1) reduce cognitive dissonance and associated uncertainties and (2) soothe the pain that is associated with knowing that one's group is subject to social inequality. However, 25 years of research on this system justification motivation has given rise to several theoretical and empirical inconsistencies. The present article argues that these inconsistencies can be resolved by a social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, 2018, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci, 27, 91). SIMSA assumes that instances of system justification are often in alignment with (rather than opposed to) the interests of the disadvantaged. According to SIMSA, the disadvantaged may support social systems (1) in order to acknowledge social reality, (2) when they perceive the wider social system to constitute a superordinate ingroup, and (3) because they hope to improve their ingroup's status through existing channels in the long run. These propositions are corroborated by existing and emerging evidence. We conclude that SIMSA offers a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for system justification than does SJT.]]> Wed 13 Mar 2024 11:20:56 AEDT ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:53378 Wed 13 Mar 2024 09:25:21 AEDT ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:22681 weak. We compared these SJT predictions with identity management and hope for group advancement accounts that we deduced from social identity theory (SIT) which suggest that both system justification and support for social change will be significant when group interest is strong. Consistent with the SIT-based accounts, Study 1 (N = 116, Malaysia, M_age = 19.09 years) showed that strong identifiers were more concerned about their in-group’s reputation than weak identifiers, and that this concern increased system justification but only before an out-group audience to whom a need to present one’s group in good light is normally strong. Study 2 (N = 375, Australia, M_age = 23.59 years) conceptually replicated Study 1’s results and further revealed that strong identifiers justified the system due to the hope that their in-group status would improve in the future. Finally, Study 3 (N = 132, Germany, M_age = 20.34 years) revealed that system justification soothed anger and reduced support for social protest but only when group interest was strong (not weak). We did not find evidence in support of SJT predictions.]]> Wed 11 Apr 2018 17:13:46 AEST ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:15791 Wed 11 Apr 2018 15:34:26 AEST ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:25462 Wed 11 Apr 2018 15:19:27 AEST ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:22682 average position of members of intermediate-status groups, we reasoned that an indifference strategy would characterise perceivers’ competence vs. warmth judgements of these people because they do not possess features that deviate from normality. In contrast, high- and low-status groups deviate from normality, and we reasoned that attention to the negative aspects of their competence vs. warmness should enlist a complementary desire to compensate such groups on the opposite dimension, in line with societal norms of politeness. We tested these ideas in relation to people who were underweight (intermediate-status group), overweight (low-status group) and ideal weight (high-status group). Results from Study 1 showed that compensation was used for underweight faces and ideal weight faces, while an indifference strategy was used in the judgements of overweight faces, which we reasoned may be tied to cultural and individual differences. When these noise variables were removed in Studies 2a and 2b, we showed that, consistent with our assumptions, the indifference strategy was used in the evaluations of underweight people, and compensation was used for the ideal and overweight categories. Finally, Study 2b showed that norms of politeness predicted the use of compensation, but only for the overweight category.]]> Wed 11 Apr 2018 10:49:50 AEST ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:34139 weak. In contrast, we put forward an explanation based on social identity theory (SIT) that proposes that class-system justification is an identity-management strategy that should be most apparent amongst individuals from lower-status groups when group interests are strong. Results from three experiments (combined N = 626), conducted in Malaysia and Australia, which varied subjective social class, provided stronger support for the SIT-based explanation that lower-status individuals endorse societal class systems more strongly when group interests are strong (Studies 1 a-b) and when the class system is perceived to be unstable in the long-term (Study 2).]]> Tue 12 Feb 2019 15:46:25 AEDT ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:42113 British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1) assumes that system justification is motivated by a special system justification motive. In contrast, the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 2) argues that there is insufficient conclusive evidence for this special system motive, and that system justification can be explained in terms of social identity motives, including the motivation to accurately reflect social reality and the search for a positive social identity. Here, we respond to criticisms of SIMSA, including criticisms of its social reality, ingroup bias, and hope for future ingroup status explanations of system justification. We conclude that SJT theorists should decide whether system justification is oppositional to, or compatible with social identity motives, and that this dilemma could be resolved by relinquishing the theoretically problematic notion of a system justification motivation.]]> Thu 18 Aug 2022 14:07:28 AEST ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:31438 hunchback heuristic. But is this belief accurate? Here, we propose the alternative possibility that members of low-status groups might deliberately suppress anger to counter this stigma, while members of high-status groups might disinhibit their anger to assert their superiority. To test these propositions, we manipulated undergraduate students' relative group status by leading them to believe that provocative comments about their undergraduate social identity came from a professor (low-status condition) or a junior foundation year student (high-status condition). Using eye-tracking, we then measured their gaze durations on the comments, which we used as a physiological signal of anger: dwelling (Experiment 1). Results revealed that dwelling was significantly greater in the high-status condition than in the low-status condition. Experiment 2 conceptually replicated this pattern using a self-report method and found that the suppression-disinhibition effect occurred only when reputational concerns were strong.]]> Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:43:13 AEDT ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:47482 Mon 23 Jan 2023 11:47:33 AEDT ]]> https://nova.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:42823 Mon 05 Sep 2022 11:49:23 AEST ]]>