Translational Issues in Psychological Science © 2017 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 3, No. 3, e1-e26 2332-2136/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000127 and the Limits of Self-Interest: System Justification and Conservative Advantages in Mass Politics

John T. Jost, Melanie Langer, Flávio Azevedo and Vivienne Badaan University of Cologne New York University

Edgardo Etchezahar and Erin P. Hennes Joaquin Ungaretti Purdue University University of Buenos Aires

It is commonly assumed that political attitudes are driven by self-interest and that poor people heavily favor policies aimed at redistributing wealth. This assumption fails to explain the popularity of economic and the degree of support for the capitalist system. Such outcomes are typically explained by the suggestion that most poor people believe they will become rich one day. In a representative sample of low-income Americans, we observed that less than one-fourth were optimistic about their economic prospects. Those respondents who believed that they would become rich one day were no more likely to endorse the legitimacy of the system and no more supportive of conservative ideology or the Republican Party, compared to those who did not believe they would become rich. From a system justification perspective, we propose that people are motivated to defend the social systems on which they depend, and this confers a psychological advantage to conservative ideology. Providing ideological support for the status quo serves epistemic motives to reduce uncertainty, existential motives to reduce threat, and relational motives to share with members of mainstream society. We summarize evidence from the United States, Argentina, Lebanon, and other coun- tries bearing on these propositions—including a survey administered shortly before the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—and discuss political implications of system justification motivation. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. John T. Jost, Melanie Langer, and Vivienne Badaan, described in this article was supported by Time-Sharing This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualDepartment user and is not to be disseminated broadly. of Psychology, New York University; Flávio Experiments for the Social Sciences (TESS) and the Na- Azevedo, Center for Comparative Politics, University of tional Science Foundation (Award BCS-1627691). Cologne; Edgardo Etchezahar and Joaquin Ungaretti, In- We are grateful to Tara C. Dennehy, Sarah DiMuccio, terdisciplinary Center of Investigations in Mathematical Shahrzad Goudarzi, György Hunyady, Ido Liviatan, and Experimental Psychology (CIIPME), University of Jaime Napier, Ruthie Pliskin, Benjamin Saunders, Jo- Buenos Aires; Erin P. Hennes, Department of Psycholog- anna Sterling, Chadly Stern, Susanna Stone, and Noga ical Sciences, Purdue University. Sverdlik for helpful comments on an earlier version of This article is based (loosely) on presentations given by this article. the senior author at the Pocantico Center in Tarrytown, Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- New York; the University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany; dressed to John T. Jost, Department of Psychology, New the Whitney Humanities Center at Yale University; and the York University, 6 Washington Place, Room 578, New University of Missouri in Columbia. Some of the work York, NY 10003-6634. E-mail: [email protected]

e1 e2 JOST ET AL.

What is the significance of this article for the general public? It is commonly assumed that support for economically conservative policies is moti- vated by self-interest, either because an individual is already wealthy or expects to become so in the future. The research reviewed here on system justification theory suggests a different explanation. We propose that conservative ideology is often more attractive than progressive ideology because people are motivated to defend, bolster, and justify aspects of the societal status quo as something that is familiar and known. Although conservatism may address psychological needs for certainty, security, and shared reality with like-minded others, it can also lead people to downplay injustices and other social problems as they seek to maintain valued traditions.

Keywords: political ideology, , conservatism, economic inequality, system justification

“I understand why the Republicans get 1 percent of the understood in terms of the expression of “prim- vote—the richest 1 percent. That other 49% someone itive self-interest” (Campbell, Converse, Miller, will have to explain to me . . .” (Bill Maher, 2011, Real Time with Bill Maher) & Stokes, 1960, p. 205), and evolutionary the- orists today rely very heavily upon the same The theory of rational choice has cast an assumption (Pinsof & Haselton, 2016; Weeden especially long shadow over the social sciences, & Kurzban, 2017). and the generally sensible proposition that peo- Lincoln, Marx, Lipset, and many others are ple behave in a manner that is congruent with quite right that throughout history the poor have self-interest has often crowded out other types vastly outnumbered the rich. Nevertheless, eco- of explanation in psychology, politics, and re- nomic inequality persists in capitalist democra- lated disciplines (e.g., Green & Shapiro, 1994). cies around the world (Piketty, 2015), and there It is often taken for granted, for instance, that is often considerable ideological support for its support for the societal status quo comes more maintenance (Bénabou, 2008; Wisman & or less exclusively from those who benefit in Smith, 2011). Conservative and right-wing po- material terms from its maintenance, while litical parties and not only survive those who are disadvantaged by current condi- but continue to thrive throughout Europe and tions are revolutionaries-in-waiting. Thus, one around the world (e.g., Angelos, 2017; Wig- of the most influential political sociologists of more, 2015). the 20th century, Seymour Lipset (1960), wrote In the United States, self-identified conserva- that, “Conservatism is especially vulnerable in a tives outnumbered liberals for most of the 20th political democracy since, as Abraham Lincoln century (Bishop, 2005). According to the Gal- said, there are always more poor people than lup polling organization, over the past 25 years well-to-do ones, and promises to redistribute there have been one and a half conservatives for wealth are difficult to rebut” (p. 128). every liberal (Saad, 2015), and there have been A great many theorists before and after Lipset at least two economic conservatives for every have made precisely the same assumption. As economic liberal (Jones, 2015). According to This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Bertrand Russell (1938) pointed out, even Karl Bénabou (2008), a majority of citizens not only This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualMarx—the user and is not to be disseminated broadly. preeminent theorist of hegemonic from the United States and Canada but also ideology—concurred with orthodox economists from the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, that “economic interest could be taken as the Poland, Italy, Mexico, Brazil, China, India, fundamental motive in the social sciences” (p. South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, 3). Marx did, after all, appeal famously to ra- and Kenya agree that, “The free enterprise sys- tional self-interest when he implored the work- tem and free market economy is the best system ing classes to join in international struggle on on which to base the future of the world” (p. the grounds that they had “nothing to lose but 323). their chains.” The authors of The American Such strong support for the capitalist system Voter, too, assumed that public opinion was best is somewhat surprising given how sharply in- CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e3

come inequality has risen over the past several In the final months of the 2016 U.S. Presi- decades. Economists agree that by nearly every dential campaign, nearly everyone expected metric the rich in the United States and many Hillary Rodham Clinton to win. Indeed, she led other industrialized nations have grown richer, in almost every national poll leading up to the while the middle and working classes have not election, and many pundits and advisors as- (e.g., Economic Policy Institute, 2012; Piketty, sumed that she would eventually win over the 2015; Stiglitz, 2015). Between 1979 and 2012, working class (see Cohn, 2016). Fatefully, these the earnings of the top 0.1% quadrupled in the expectations proved to be overly optimistic, and United States, and the earnings of the top 1% Donald Trump was elected President after tak- more than doubled, while the earnings of the ing 67% of the White working-class vote (Ty- 1 remainder of the population either remained son & Maniam, 2016). As Garrison Keillor put stagnant or declined in real terms (Bernstein, it, “The disaffected White blue-collar workers 2016). elected a Fifth Avenue tycoon to rescue them Poverty continues to afflict the lives of mil- from the elitists.” But why? lions (e.g., Corning, 2011). And yet genuine In this article, we describe previously pub- efforts to redistribute wealth have been few and lished and unpublished pieces of evidence ad- far between, and they have not been especially dressing social psychological aspects of work- difficult to defeat, often because poor people are ing-class conservatism and related phenomena. scarcely more likely than the wealthy to support In so doing, we advance a motivational analysis redistributive policies—such as welfare, social- of political ideology and system justification ized medicine, and progressive forms of taxa- that helps to explain why people who are dis- tion—that would benefit them in material terms advantaged by the societal status quo may nev- (Ashok, Kuziemko, & Washington, 2015; ertheless endorse its legitimacy. In many cases Gilens, 1999; Graetz & Shapiro, 2005; Kelly & we find that members of disadvantaged groups hold attitudes about the social and economic Enns, 2010; Luttig, 2013). system that are quite similar to those held by Most citizens appear to reject progressive members of more advantaged groups. In this alternatives to the economic status quo. In 2016, respect, ideology sometimes trumps self- the Democratic-Socialist Bernie Sanders re- interest. We conclude that conservative beliefs ceived approximately 13 million votes during and ideologies in favor of the status quo possess the Democratic primary, which was a good certain psychological advantages over liberal or showing by historical standards. Nevertheless, progressive alternatives to the status quo, but Sanders lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton, not for the reasons that are commonly assumed. who distanced herself from Sanders’ economic views throughout the campaign. The billionaire real-estate mogul Donald Trump received 14 Do Poor People Support the System million votes in the Republican primary and 62 Because They Believe They Will Become million votes in the general election—nearly Rich One Day? five times as many as Sanders received during the primary campaign. Commentators on the political left and right For decades Democratic strategists have routinely float the notion that members of the come to depend upon liberal, self-interested working class keep the faith, especially in the This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. voting on the part of ethnic minorities and mem- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. bers of disadvantaged groups to deliver a stable, 1 We do not mean to oversimplify the role of economic if not permanent, electoral majority for the factors in the 2016 election or to suggest that social class Democratic Party (Judis & Teixeira, 2004; Phil- was the only or even the primary driver of support for Donald Trump. As others have pointed out, Trump’s sup- lips, 2016; Teixeira, 2012). Political analysts porters appear to have been slightly higher than average in often claim that demographic changes will spell terms of income (Carnes & Lupu, 2017). At the same time, the end of conservative politics over the next 35% of Trump’s 63 million votes came from people who few decades—as European Americans lose earned less than $50,000/year, which means that 22 million people in this income group voted for him. In any case, we their status as a numerical majority group in the discuss a number of variables other than social class that United States (Colby & Ortman, 2015; New- appear to have influenced the election outcome in the Ap- port, 2013). plications section at the end of this article. e4 JOST ET AL.

United States, that they will one day become In our own research, we have seen little ev- wealthy—and that this explains their support idence that the majority of poor people believe for conservative economic policies. “None of us that they will end up rich. In a Knowledge is really poor,” as David Brooks put it, “we’re Networks survey of low-income Americans just pre-rich.” whose family incomes were less than $30,000/ Bill Maher devoted several minutes of his year, we observed that most respondents were comedy special Live from D.C. to the popular fairly pessimistic (or perhaps realistic) about ideological trope that the United States is com- their own financial futures. Specifically, when prised not of “Have’s” and “Have-Not’s” but asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the rather “Haves” and “Soon-to-Have’s.” To illus- statement: “I believe that one day I may become trate the sentiment, he quoted from Republican rich,” only 24.2% of the respondents agreed. presidential candidate Marco Rubio’s stump Nearly half (47.3%) disagreed with the state- speech: “When Americans drive through a ment, and an additional 28.6% were unsure wealthy neighborhood, they’re not jealous. (Rankin, Jost, & Wakslak, 2009). These data are They say, ‘Congratulations, we’ll be joining based on a fairly small (but representative) sam- you soon!’” And in a penetrating analysis of the ple of low-income respondents, so they should conservative effort to repeal estate taxes, Graetz be interpreted with caution. Nevertheless, they and Shapiro (2005) cite “wishful thinking” as do provide some basis for questioning the wide- one reason for the success of those efforts: spread assumption that the expectation of future “large numbers of Americans are unrealistically wealth accounts for the popularity of economi- optimistic about their . . . economic circum- cally conservative beliefs, opinions, and values. stances. They underestimate the levels of in- Moreover, there were very few differences equality, overestimate their own wealth com- between these three groups of respondents in pared to others, and exaggerate their likelihood terms of their social and political attitudes (see of moving up significantly and getting rich” (p. Table 1). Importantly, those respondents who 119). believed that they would become rich one day

Table 1 Means (and Standard Deviations) of System Justification and Other Variables as a Function of Whether Participants Believed That They Would Become Rich One Day

“I believe that one day I may become rich” Disagree Uncertain Agree Variable (n ϭ 86) (n ϭ 49–52) (n ϭ 43–44) System justification (1–9) 4.62 (1.24) 4.63 (1.04) 4.58 (1.66) Liberal-conservative (1–7) 4.38 (2.04) 4.43 (1.75) 4.00 (2.09) Republican partisanship (1–7) 3.13 (2.16) 3.79 (2.11) 3.16 (2.17) Religiosity (1–7) 4.53 (2.05) 4.96 (1.51) 4.66 (2.06) Purpose in Life (1–7) 5.26 (1.21) 5.13 (1.04) 5.49 (1.26) Sense of mastery (1–7) 5.05a (1.23) 5.02a (1.15) 5.99b (.89) Sense of security (1–7) 4.12 (1.36) 4.39 (1.35) 4.64 (1.37)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Life satisfaction (1–7) 4.63 (1.58) 4.94 (1.43) 5.14 (1.23) a a b

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Happiness (1–7) 4.53 (1.67) 4.54 (1.65) 5.56 (1.20) Frustration (1–7) 3.84 (1.94) 3.58 (1.77) 3.52 (1.76) Anger (1–7) 2.92 (1.79) 3.14 (1.65) 2.98 (1.72) Anxiety (1–7) 3.36 (1.78) 3.63 (1.74) 3.55 (1.99) (1–7) 3.40 (1.62) 3.41 (1.28) 3.21 (1.52) Performance self-esteem (1–5) 3.39a (.85) 3.32a (.83) 3.92b (.87) Social self-esteem (1–5) 4.01 (.84) 3.94 (.96) 4.14 (.70) Note. Variables in which group means differed statistically according to Tukey post hoc tests of multiple comparison (p Ͻ .001) are indicated in italics, F(2, 172) Ͼ 7, p Ͻ .001. Unshared superscripts (within rows) indicate significant mean differences. There were no differences among groups for any of the other variables. For a full description of study details, see Rankin, Jost, and Wakslak (2009). CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e5

were not more likely to endorse the legitimacy purely meritocratic terms (Bartels, 2008; Bé- of the American social system (as measured on nabou & Tirole, 2006; Day & Fiske, 2017; the basis of Kay and Jost’s [2003] general sys- Goode, Keefer, & Molina, 2014; Jost, Blount, tem justification scale), nor did they identify Pfeffer, & Hunyady, 2003; McCoy & Major, themselves as any more conservative or more 2007; Monteith, Burns, Rupp, & Mihalec- supportive of the Republican Party, in compar- Adkins, 2016). Conservatives, in other words, ison with those respondents who doubted that exhibit stronger tendencies to engage in eco- they would become rich. Financial optimism nomic system justification, in comparison with about one’s own personal situation was unre- liberals and moderates. Conservatives are more lated to religiosity, a sense of security, purpose likely to believe, for instance, that “Economic in life, and self-reported emotion. We observed positions are legitimate reflections of people’s only a few statistically significant differences. achievements,” “Social class differences reflect Individuals who believed that they would be- differences in the natural order of things,” and come rich one day reported being happier, hav- “Most people who don’t get ahead in our soci- ing a greater sense of mastery, and having ety should not blame the system; they have only higher performance self-esteem than those who themselves to blame” (Hennes, Nam, Stern, & did not believe that they would become rich Jost, 2012; Jost & Thompson, 2000). Political (Rankin et al., 2009). conservatism is also correlated with general We are by no means suggesting that individ- system justification, including convictions that: ual and group self-interest are unrelated to po- “In general, the American system operates as it litical attitudes. On the contrary, we agree that should,” and “Most policies serve the greater there is typically a significant, albeit fairly mod- good” (Everett, 2013; Jost, Nosek, & Gosling, est, effect of self-interest on ideological prefer- 2008; Kay & Jost, 2003). ences (Weeden & Kurzban, 2017; see also To illustrate the empirical consistency and Bawn, 1999). At the same time, there are many robustness of the connection between political situations in which political ideology seems to conservatism and system justification, we pro- be underdetermined by considerations of self- vide data obtained from 26 samples of introduc- interest (e.g., Hoffarth & Jost, in press), and in tory psychology students at New York Univer- these situations a social psychological account sity between the years of 2004 and 2016 (see may be useful (Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009, also Hennes, 2015). Over 10,000 students from 2013). As Railton (2000/2003) pointed out, these years reported their political orientation “Ideological analysis is not to be confused with on a scale ranging from Ϫ5(Extremely Liberal) the sort of cynicism that attributes everything to to5(Extremely Conservative); their demo- self-interest” (p. 359). graphic characteristics are summarized in Table In this article, we focus on the role of psy- 2. In 24 of the 26 samples, participants also chological needs pertaining to system justifica- completed Jost and Thompson’s (2000) 17-item tion motivation—which we define as the (often economic system justification scale (N ϭ nonconscious) tendency to defend, bolster, and 9,761), and in 23 samples, they completed Kay justify aspects of the societal status quo (Jost, and Jost’s (2003) 8-item general system justifi- Banaji, & Nosek, 2004)—and its implications cation scale (N ϭ 9,487). Correlational results, for political ideology. which are summarized in Table 3, supported the hypothesis that political conservatism would be This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Political Conservatism and positively and significantly associated with sys- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. System Justification tem justification. With respect to economic sys- tem justification, correlations ranged from .322 There is by now a great deal of evidence to .529 (weighted average r ϭ .429), and with indicating that people who support politically respect to general system justification, correla- conservative leaders, parties, policies, and opin- tions ranged from .174 to .461 (weighted aver- ions are more likely than others to believe that age r ϭ .335). the “free market” system is not only efficient Shortly before the 2016 U.S. Presidential but just—and that the economic outcomes of the election, we administered measures of ideology rich and poor are fair and deserved, having and system justification to a nationally repre- emanated from practices that are justified in sentative sample of 1,500 Americans (see e6 JOST ET AL.

Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of University Students Completing Measures of Ideological Self-Placement and System Justification (2004–2016)

Demographic characteristics Number Percentage Sex Male 3,358 32.5% Female 6,971 67.5% No response/missing 381 Race/Ethnicity American Indian/Alaskan Native 35 .3% Asian 2,967 29.6% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 61 .6% Black/African American 499 5.0% White/Caucasian 5,410 54.0% More than one race 1,044 10.4% No response/missing 694 Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino 1,240 12.4% Not Hispanic/Latino 8,773 87.6% No response/missing 697 Born Born in the United States 8,087 78.5% Born outside of the United States 2,219 21.5% No response/missing 404 Total N ϭ 10,710 Note. Because of an administrative error, no demographic data are available for the fall 2004 semester; this omission accounts for 338 of the missing values.

Azevedo, Jost, & Rothmund, in press). In ac- The connection between political conserva- cordance with past findings (Cichocka & Jost, tism and system justification may be especially 2014; Everett, 2013; Hennes et al., 2012; Jost, pronounced in the United States, where faith in Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2008; Jost et al., 2014), the American Dream leads people to believe including results summarized in Table 3,we that the economic system is a truly meritocratic observed that respondents who identified them- one and that hard work and ingenuity will be selves as right-wing (vs. left-wing), more so- rewarded with success (e.g., Bénabou & Tirole, cially and economically conservative (vs. lib- 2006; Bloom & Hobby, 2009; Hochschild, eral), more aligned with the Republican (vs. 1995; McCoy & Major, 2007). At the same Democratic) Party, and more (vs. less) religious time, these general patterns do not seem to be scored higher on general and economic system unique to the United States. Studies conducted justification (see Table 4). Both forms of system in such varied contexts as Sweden, Italy, Po- justification were associated with retrospective land, and Turkey find that general and economic reports of having voted for Republican presi- system justification are associated with right- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. dential candidates in 2008 and 2012 and with a wing (vs. left-wing) political orientation This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. preference for Donald Trump over Hillary Clin- (Cichocka & Jost, 2014; Dirilen-Gumus, 2011; ton in 2016, and economic system justification Nilsson & Jost, 2017; Pacilli, Taurino, Jost, & was strongly associated with these political out- van der Toorn, 2011). comes. Consistent with a self-interest perspec- In April of 2016, we surveyed a nationally tive, income and education were positively, al- representative sample of 500 adults living in beit modestly, correlated with general and Lebanon—an Arab country with rampant social economic system justification. Importantly, and economic inequality and a deeply en- economic system justification was strongly as- trenched hierarchical political system based on sociated with intentions to vote for Trump over religious sects (Badaan & Jost, 2017). We ob- Clinton at all levels of income and education. served that, as in the United States and other CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e7

Table 3 Correlations (and Sample Sizes) Between Ideological Self-Placement (Political Conservatism) and System Justification (2004–2016)

Economic system General system Semester and year justification justification Spring 2004 .414 (338) N/A Fall 2004 .413 (502) N/A Spring 2005 .322 (382) N/A Fall 2005 .422 (419) .461 (419) Spring 2006 .472 (407) .429 (407) Fall 2006 .360 (490) .419 (490) Spring 2007 .426 (376) .393 (376) Fall 2007 .399 (513) .455 (513) Spring 2008 .431 (435) .413 (435) Fall 2008 .427 (489) .334 (489) Spring 2009 .385 (204) .379 (204) Fall 2009 N/A .232 (501) Spring 2010 N/A .317 (446) Fall 2010 .449 (470) .377 (470) Spring 2011 .408 (443) .216 (443) Fall 2011 .486 (478) .334 (478) Spring 2012 .456 (405) .295 (406) Fall 2012 .495 (482) .288 (482) Spring 2013 .398 (376) .174 (376) Fall 2013 .416 (395) .258 (395) Spring 2014 .447 (401) .248 (401) Fall 2014 .438 (297) .366 (297) Spring 2015 .424 (362) .281 (361) Fall 2015 .465 (431) .313 (432) Spring 2016 .401 (369) .356 (369) Fall 2016 .529 (297) .380 (297) Range .322–.529 .174–.461 Unweighted average .426 .338 Weighted average .429 .335 Total N 9,761 9,487 Note. There were 10,710 participants who completed the ideological self-placement item; their demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 2. Of these participants, 9,761 also completed the economic system justification scale, and 9,487 also completed the general system justification scale. Economic and general system justification are scored so that higher numbers indicate greater system justification. Ideological self-placement is scored so that higher numbers indicate greater conservatism (in general). Numerical entries are zero-order, bivariate correlation coefficients (with sample sizes in parentheses). N/A ϭ Not Adminis- tered. All correlations are statistically significant, p Ͻ .001 (two-tailed).

contexts, rightists and “free market” conserva- procapitalist “March 14” alliance over the eco- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. tives scored higher than leftists and liberals on nomically leftist, socialist-leaning “March 8” This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. both general and economic forms of system alliance. Interestingly, the effects of income justification (see Table 5). People who scored were opposite for general and economic forms higher on general and economic system justifi- of system justification. Poorer respondents cation defended the legitimacy of the sectarian tended to score lower on general system justi- political system more than those who did not, fication, but they scored higher on economic and those who scored higher on economic sys- system justification; this last finding is hard to tem justification tended to be more religious. In square with a self-interest perspective (see also terms of partisan alignment, economic (but not Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003; Sen- general) system justification was significantly gupta, Osborne, & Sibley, 2015). Less educated associated with a preference for the neoliberal, respondents scored higher on general system e8 JOST ET AL.

Table 4 Correlations Between System Justification and Political Preferences in a Nationally Representative Sample of Americans (August–September 2016)

Ideological and Economic system General system demographic variables justification justification ءءء148. ءءءGeneral conservatism .528 ءءء102. ءءءSocial conservatism .475 ءءء167. ءءءEconomic conservatism .570 ءءء109. ءءءPolitical partisanship .511 ءءء114. ءءءReligiosity .195 ءءء208. ءءءIncome .195 ءءء124. ءءEducation .099 ءءء121. ءءءRetrospective vote 2008 .498 ءءء133. ءءءRetrospective vote 2012 .524 ءءء095. ءءءLiking for Trump .408 ءء068. ءءءLiking for Clinton Ϫ.395 014. ءءءVoting intention 2016 .487 Note. Entries are zero-order, bivariate correlation coefficients (N ϭ 1,500). Ideological variables scored so that higher numbers indicate greater conservatism. Economic and general system justification are scored so that higher numbers indicate greater system justification. Retrospective voting variables (for 2008 and 2012) are scored so that higher numbers indicate preference for the Republican candidate (McCain and Romney, respectively) over the Dem- ocratic candidate (Obama in both cases). Likewise, voting intention 2016 is scored so that higher numbers indicate a preference for Trump over Clinton. .(p Ͻ .001 (two-tailed ءءء .p Ͻ .01 ءء

justification, but there was no correlation be- significant role in conservative, right-wing pol- tween education and economic system justifica- itics as well as support for the current sectarian tion. Overall, these results indicate that system political system in Lebanon (Badaan & Jost, justification—especially economic system jus- 2017). tification, which was found to be stronger Thus far, we have reviewed evidence demon- among poor respondents in this study—plays a strating that system justification is associated

Table 5 Correlations Between System Justification and Political Preferences in a Nationally Representative Sample in Lebanon (April 1–18, 2016)

Ideological and demographic Economic system General system variables justification justification ءء231. ءءLeft/right ideological self-placement .297 ءءSocial/cultural conservatism .034 .305 ءء417. ءءEconomic conservatism .143 ءء525. ءءSectarian system justification .222 ءءء This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Religiosity .116 .013 ءء ءء This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Income Ϫ.145 .137 ءءEducation Ϫ.016 Ϫ.121 077. ءءPartisan alignment .176 Note. Entries are zero-order, bivariate correlation coefficients (N ϭ 500). Economic and general system justification are scored so that higher numbers indicate greater system justification. Ideological variables are scored so that higher numbers indicate more conser- vative, right-wing orientations. Partisan alignment was defined in terms of preferences for one of the two major political alliances in Lebanon since 2005; it was measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strong support for the “March 8” alliance, which is predominantly economically leftist/socialist) to 5 (supporter of the “March 14” alliance, which is predominantly economically conservative/capitalist). .(p Ͻ .001 (two-tailed ءءء .p Ͻ .01 ءء CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e9

with ideological preferences that are conserva- terms, that is, to analyze the cognitive and mo- tive or right-wing (as opposed to liberal or left- tivational processes associated with ideological wing) in such varied contexts as the United activity—and not just its sociological or politi- States, Lebanon, Argentina, Sweden, Italy, Po- cal outcomes or manifestations (Jost & Banaji, land, and Turkey. Consistent with the observa- 1994; Jost & van der Toorn, 2012). It helps to tion that there are important left–right ideolog- explain why—at least in some contexts—even ical differences in system justification relatively poor people find it difficult to reject motivation, we wish to emphasize that in no the notion that the system on which they depend way are we implying that everyone engages in is a truly just and meritocratic one (DiMaggio, system justification all the time, although this is 2015; Douglas, 2016; Godfrey & Wolf, 2016; a caricature of system justification theory that Im, 2014; Kraus & Tan, 2015; Newman, John- sometimes crops up. As with all other human ston, & Lown, 2015; Wiederkehr, Bonnot, motives, the strength of system justification var- Krauth-Gruber, & Darnon, 2015). ies according to situational as well as disposi- The crux of our motivational argument is that tional factors (Jost, Gaucher, & Stern, 2015; on some level people need or want to believe Jost & van der Toorn, 2012; Kay & Friesen, that the institutions, authorities, and arrange- 2011). ments on which they depend are good, fair, Our collaborators and investigators from desirable, and legitimate. Believing that the so- other laboratories around the world have iden- cietal status quo is legitimate and stable serves tified a number of situational factors that trigger epistemic motives to reduce uncertainty and increased system justification motivation, in- unpredictability, existential motives to reduce cluding: (a) feelings of powerlessness or depen- fear and threat, and relational motives to con- dence on the system and its authorities (e.g., form to and share reality with most other mem- Shepherd & Kay, 2012; van der Toorn, Tyler, & bers of mainstream society (Jost, Ledgerwood Jost, 2011; van der Toorn et al., 2015); (b) et al., 2008). Because conservative ideology perceptions of the status quo as inevitable or supports social stability and maintenance of the inescapable (Kay et al., 2009; Laurin, Shepherd, status quo rather than social change, we argue & Kay, 2010); (c) exposure to system criticism that it is better suited—subjectively, though not or threat (Jost, Kivetz, Rubini, Guermandi, & necessarily objectively—to assuaging threat, Mosso, 2005; Kay, Jost, & Young, 2005; Kay et uncertainty, and social discord. al., 2009); and (d) perceptions of the system as The argument may be easier to grasp in its traditional or longstanding (Blanchar & Eidel- negative form. To truly challenge the status quo, man, 2013; Shockley, Rosen, & Rios, 2016). In one must be willing to face existential threats to all of these cases, the activation of system jus- one’s physical safety and security (such as be- tification motivation through experimental ing arrested or beaten by the police), epistemic means has been shown to produce significant threats such as volatile uncertainty and unpre- ideological consequences, such as increased le- dictability during and after protest movements, gitimation of economic, racial, and gender dis- and relational threats that come when friends parities in society. and family members simply do not understand what one is protesting or why. System justifi- Epistemic, Existential, and Relational cation theory may help to explain not only why most people prefer to make peace with the sta-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Motives Underlying System Justification tus quo, if they can, but also why stress and This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Phenomena such as working-class conserva- burnout are so high among political activists tism have long bedeviled social and behavioral (Klandermans, 2003; Kovan & Dirkx, 2003; scientists, at least in part because they appear to Rodgers, 2010). violate assumptions of self-interest so strenu- It is possible to measure the strength of epis- ously (Hochschild, 1981; Kelly & Enns, 2010; temic, existential, and relational needs or mo- Kluegel & Smith, 1986; Lane, 1962; Lukes, tives, which vary dispositionally from person to 2011; Luttig, 2013; Runciman, 1969; Wisman person, as well as situationally from one time & Smith, 2011). System justification theory was and place to another. That is, people differ, both developed to explain false consciousness and chronically and temporarily, in how much they related phenomena in social psychological like to ponder the uncertainties of life, how e10 JOST ET AL.

much cognitive effort they wish to expend, how statistically mediated or explained, at least in sensitive they are to potential dangers and part, by economic system justification. threats, including death, and how much they We conducted a parallel study involving 373 value the experience of sharing a sense of real- university students in Argentina (ranging in age ity with others. In the context of an Internet from 18 to 62), in which we administered items survey of 182 American-born adults ranging in designed to measure epistemic, existential, and age from 18 to 68, Hennes et al. (2012) admin- relational motives as well as economic system istered several items designed to gauge epis- justification, ideological self-placement, and temic, existential, and relational motives as well support for the current president and opposition as general and economic system justification party. We obtained results that were similar to scales, ideological self-placement items, and a those obtained in the United States by Hennes et variety of questions about public policy prefer- al. (2012). As illustrated in Figure 1, respon- ences. The results, which are summarized in dents who scored higher on the need for cogni- Table 6, indicated that people who scored lower tive closure, death anxiety, and the need to share on need for (that is, people who re- reality also scored higher on economic system ported that they did not enjoy thinking very justification and right-wing (vs. left-wing) ori- much) and people who scored higher on death anxiety and the need to share reality with like- entation. Furthermore, economic system justifi- minded others: (a) were more politically con- cation mediated the effects of epistemic, exis- servative, (b) endorsed general and economic tential and relational motives on right-wing (vs. system justification to a stronger degree, (c) left-wing) orientation and partially explained were more likely to endorse conservative posi- support for center-right President Mauricio tions on issues of climate change, health care Macri in the preceding presidential election reform, immigration policy, and plans to build a (and rejection of the center-left opposition party mosque near Ground Zero of the 9/11 terror FPV or “Front for Victory” party). People who attacks on New York City, and (d) were more scored higher on economic system justification supportive of the Tea Party movement and less also rejected initiatives designed to promote supportive of the Occupy Wall Street move- open and respectful discussion of controversial ment. Furthermore, the effects of epistemic, ex- issues by members of both parties and felt that istential, and relational motives on political it was justifiable to limit news coverage of ral- preferences and social movement support were lies by Cristina Kirchner (leader of the FPV) to

Table 6 Correlations Between Epistemic, Existential, and Relational Motives and Various Ideological Outcomes, Including System Justification

Epistemic Existential motivation motivation Relational motivation Ideological outcomes (Need for cognition)(Death anxiety)(Need to share reality) ءءء19. ءءءGeneral system justification Ϫ.12† .18 ءء22. ءء22. ءءءEconomic system justification Ϫ.29 † ءءء This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Ideological self-placement (political conservatism) Ϫ.24 .09 .13 ءءء Ϫ ءء Ϫ ءء This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualBelief user and is not to be disseminated broadly. in global warming .21 .18 .25 ءϪ.01 Ϫ.18 ءءApproval of the Affordable Care Act .20 †Ϫ.12 05. ءApproval of mandatory healthcare provision .17 11. ء18. ءApproval of Arizona’s stricter immigration policy Ϫ.17 ءϪ.14 ءءApproval of Ground Zero Mosque plans .11 Ϫ.19 09. ءء22. ءSupport for Tea Party Movement Ϫ.18 ءءءϪ.05 Ϫ.24 ءءSupport for Occupy Wall Street Movement .19 Note. Entries are zero-order (bivariate) correlation coefficients. Ideological self-placement is scored so that higher numbers indicate greater political conservatism. Economic and general system justification are scored so that higher numbers indicate greater system justification. In most cases, n ϭ 182. For a full description of study details, see Hennes, Nam, Stern, and Jost (2012). .(p Ͻ .001 (two-tailed ءءء .p Ͻ .01 ءء .p Ͻ .05 ء .p Ͻ .10 † CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e11

Figure 1. Economic system justification mediates the effects of existential, relational, and epistemic meeds on political orientation and political preferences in Argentina. Numerical entries are standardized regression coefficients. Political orientation is scored so that higher numbers indicate greater right-wing orientation. The two outcome variables are continuous measures of support for center-right President Macri and the center-left opposition party FPV (values range from 1 ϭ No support at all to 10 ϭ Full support). Nonsignificant paths (not shown) were fixed to zero. The model provided an adequate fit to the data: AGFI ϭ .949, CFI ϭ .963, IFI ϭ .964, RMSEA ϭ .062 (.032–.092), ␹2 ϭ 26,721; df ϭ 11; p ϭ .005; ␹2/df ϭ 2,429. We tested indirect effects (with 95% confidence intervals) using a bootstrap- ping analysis and found that economic system justification mediated the effects of death anxiety {.01, .19}, shared reality {.01, .22}, and for need for cognitive closure {.01, .37} on political orientation. In addition, political orientation mediated the effect of economic system .p Ͻ .001 ءءء.{justification on support for Macri {.01, .42} and support for FPV {Ϫ.34, Ϫ.01

prevent dissemination of their “dangerous 2016; Harding & Sibley, 2013; Jost, Wakslak, ideas.” & Tyler, 2008; Wakslak, Jost, Tyler, & Chen, Although working-class conservatism may 2007). It is comforting, in other words, to be- be puzzling from a self-interest perspective, the lieve that the way things are is the way they fact that system-justifying systems serve ought to be, and that prevailing institutions are underlying epistemic, existential, and relational legitimate, necessary, desirable, and justifiable motives may help to explain its occurrence. (Kay et al., 2009). System justification may even provide members of some disadvantaged The Palliative Function of groups with a sense of control and mastery over System Justification future outcomes (Laurin, Fitzsimons, & Kay, 2011; McCoy, Wellman, Cosley, Saslow, & System justification theory posits that be- Epel, 2013; Rankin et al., 2009). It is instructive cause of underlying epistemic, existential, and to consider how distressing the opposite of relational needs, people are motivated (often beliefs would be: What would it be like to live nonconsciously, in a variety of situations) to and work in a system that one experienced as defend, justify, and bolster aspects of the soci- irredeemably awful, unfair, illegitimate, ex- etal status quo, including existing social, eco- ploitative, oppressive, and corrupt? nomic, and political systems, institutions, and In line with the palliative function of system This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. arrangements (Jost et al., 2010; Kay et al., 2009; justification, studies repeatedly show that con- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Liviatan & Jost, 2014). Researchers have inves- servatives and rightists around the world report tigated the related notion, inspired in part by being happier and more satisfied than liberals Marx’s theory of , that system-justifying and leftists (Napier & Jost, 2008; see also Bix- beliefs and ideologies serve the palliative func- ter, 2015; Burton, Plaks, & Peterson, 2015; tion of making people feel better about the Choma, Busseri, & Sadava, 2009; Cichocka & status quo (Jost & Hunyady, 2003; Jost et al., Jost, 2014; Okulicz-Kozaryn, Holmes, & Av- 2014). A number of studies indicate that the ery, 2014; Onraet, Van Assche, Roets, Haese- expression of system-justifying sentiments is voets, & Van Hiel, 2017; Schlenker, Chambers, associated with increased positive affect and & Le, 2012). Furthermore, system justification decreased negative affect (Bahamondes-Correa, partially mediates (or explains) the association e12 JOST ET AL.

between ideology and self-reported happiness are consistent with other research on (Burton et al., 2015; Cichocka & Jost, 2014; action, which suggests that a strong sense of Napier & Jost, 2008; Schlenker et al., 2012). injustice is a key motivator of protest activity This does not necessarily mean that conserva- (e.g., Goodwin & Jasper, 2006; Jost et al., 2012; tives are genuinely happier, let alone healthier, Kawakami & Dion, 1995; van Zomeren, Post- than others (see Wojcik, Hovasapian, Graham, mes, & Spears, 2008). Motyl, & Ditto, 2015)—or that conservative Another potential cost to society is in terms societies make people happier or healthier of the motivated perception of social problems. (Okulicz-Kozaryn et al., 2014). System justifi- System justification is associated not only with cation, after all, should be thought of as akin to the belief that the economic system is fair and denial, rationalization, and self-deception (Jost legitimate (Jost, Blount et al., 2003), but also et al., 2010; Lerner, 1980). That is, the emo- with the tendency to downplay corruption in tional benefits of engaging in system justifica- business and politics (Tan, Liu, Huang, & tion may be fairly short-lived. In the long term, Zheng, 2017; Tan, Liu, Huang, Zheng, & Liang, the extent to which members of disadvantaged 2016). There is some reason to think that it may groups buy into the legitimacy of the overarch- also be associated with retaliation against ing social system predicts psychological suffer- whistleblowers (Sumanth, Mayer, & Kay, ing in terms of lowered self-esteem, depressed 2011). And, finally, a number of studies suggest entitlement, and an internalized sense of inferi- that system justification actively promotes mo- ority (e.g., Jost & Hunyady, 2003; see also tivated skepticism about global warming as well Bahamondes-Correa, 2016; Harding & Sibley, as biased processing of scientific 2013; Jost & Thompson, 2000; O’Brien & Ma- about climate change (Feygina, Jost, & Gold- jor, 2005; O’Brien, Major, & Gilbert, 2012; smith, 2010; Hennes, Ruisch, Feygina, Mon- Pacilli et al., 2011; Rankin et al., 2009). teiro, & Jost, 2016; Jost, 2015). Thus, system Because it serves the palliative function of justification not only undercuts the motivation increasing satisfaction with the status quo (at to improve upon the status quo—it hinders the least in the short term) and decreasing action- ability to perceive it accurately. Nevertheless, oriented emotions such as anger, system justi- the palliative function of system justification fication dampens support for the amelioration of renders conservative ideology more psycholog- inequality (Jost et al., 2012; Jost, Becker, Os- ically appealing, and this may explain why sys- borne, & Badaan, 2017; Wakslak et al., 2007). tem justification sometimes trumps self-interest For example, Becker and Wright (2011) ex- when it comes to the attitudes held by members posed young women to relatively subtle, “be- of disadvantaged group members. nevolent” justifications for sexism and found that this led them to express more positive af- Conflicts Among Ego, Group, and System fect, state that there are more advantages to Justification Motives being a woman, and score higher on gender- specific system justification. Exposure to benev- Importantly, we do not claim that members of olent sexism also reduced women’s intention to disadvantaged groups are typically or ordinarily participate in feminist collective action, and this the most enthusiastic supporters of the status effect was mediated by system justification. quo, although this is a view that has been at- Likewise, in a nationally representative study tributed to us (Brandt, 2013; Caricati & This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. of New Zealanders, Osborne, and Sibley (2013) Lorenzi-Cioldi, 2012; Owuamalam, Rubin, & This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. observed that the endorsement of system- Spears, 2016). In each of the examples men- justifying beliefs was associated with decreased tioned above, the short-term psychological psychological distress and the withholding of comfort facilitated by system justification support for political mobilization. In addition, comes at the cost of endorsing a system that system justification was associated with an at- legitimates one’s own subjugation. Thus, we tenuation of the effects of (a) individual-based would not expect those who are disadvantaged relative deprivation on distress and dissatisfac- to always (or even usually) exhibit higher levels tion with one’s standard of living, and (b) of system justification than those who are ad- group-based relative deprivation on support for vantaged. The point is that members of disad- protest on behalf of one’s group. These findings vantaged groups are sometimes reluctant to CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e13

criticize the system in which they are disadvan- system justification theory may be useful for taged (and, in some cases, surprisingly willing understanding when members of disadvantaged to accept its legitimacy). Other theories—which groups do—and do not—develop attitudes that only consider self-interested and/or group- are consistent with self-interest. When the dis- interested forms of motivation—are ill- advantaged feel especially powerless or depen- equipped to explain this phenomenon (see Car- dent on the social system, when they perceive vacho et al., 2013; Dirilen-Gumus, 2011; the status quo as inevitable, inescapable, tradi- Douglas, 2016; Durrheim, Jacobs, & Dixon, tional, or longstanding, and when they are de- 2014; Godfrey, 2013; Godfrey & Wolf, 2016; fending the system against criticism or threat, Henry & Saul, 2006; Hoffarth & Jost, in press; they should be more strongly motivated by sys- Im, 2014; Jost, Blount et al., 2003; Lane, 1962; tem justification and less strongly motivated by Sengupta et al., 2015; Shockley, Wynn, & Ash- considerations of self-interest. In contrast, when burn-Nardo, 2016; Pacilli et al., 2011; van der ego and group justification motives are high in Toorn et al., 2015; Wiederkehr et al., 2015; salience or strength, members of disadvantaged Zimmerman & Reyna, 2013). groups should be more likely to protest against From the very start, system justification the- the status quo (Jost et al., 2017). ory assumed the presence of at least three po- tentially conflicting motives or tendencies, Applications and Next Steps: The U.S. namely ego, group, and system justification Presidential Election of 2016 and Beyond (Jost & Banaji, 1994). For members of advan- taged groups, there is no real conflict or com- The election of Donald Trump as President of petition among motives to feel good about one- the United States in 2016 has drawn a frenzied self, one’s group, and the overarching social and eclectic set of social scientific explanations system (Jost & Thompson, 2000). The come- (Konnikova, 2016; Reicher & Haslam, 2016; dian Maria Bamford put it this way: Resnick, 2017). Perhaps the most obvious con- nection is to the social psychological phenom- So, you guys, I love my country. And maybe that’s because I’m White and rich, but things have been enon of authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel- really looking out for me. I didn’t even know there was Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950): “When a game on, but I am winning. I am not, technically, they face physical threats or threats to the status rich, but I do have a lot of shit that I do not need that quo, authoritarians support policies that seem to I refuse to share with anyone. And that feels solid offer protection against those fears. They favor somehow. forceful, decisive action against things they per- By contrast, members of disadvantaged ceive as threats. And they flock to political groups are frequently in the position of having leaders [like Trump] who they believe will to choose between feeling good about them- bring this action” (Taub, 2016). A similar ac- selves (and their group) and feeling good about count emphasizes the role of social dominance the system (Jost, Burgess, & Mosso, 2001), a orientation: Trump voters clearly possessed a conundrum that W.E.B. DuBois (1903) de- stronger desire than Clinton voters to enforce a scribed as double-consciousness: “two souls, hierarchical system of group-based inequality two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two (Blair, 2016). warring ideals in one dark body” (p. 3). To the Authoritarianism and social dominance ori- extent, therefore, that ego and group justifica- entation are correlated not only with political This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. tion motives are in opposition to system justi- conservatism and system justification (e.g., Jost This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. fication, members of disadvantaged groups are & Thompson, 2000; Osborne & Sibley, 2014), generally expected to justify the societal status but also with prejudice, , and eth- quo less than members of advantaged groups nocentrism (Altemeyer, 1998; Carvacho et al., (Jost et al., 2001; Jost & Thompson, 2000). 2013; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Thus, explana- Nevertheless, the fact that members of disad- tions focusing on authoritarianism and/or social vantaged groups often find it difficult to reject in dominance are highly compatible with observa- toto the legitimacy of the social system—to tions suggesting that support for Trump was simply write it off in the name of self- or group- related to hostility directed at immigrants, sex- preservation—is a testament to the power of ism, racial resentment, and opposition to in- system justification motivation. In any case, creasing ethnic and cultural diversity (e.g., Don- e14 JOST ET AL.

ovan, Redlawsk, & Tolbert, 2016; Major, likely to regard the capitalist economic system Blodorn, & Major Blascovich, 2016; Schaffner, and the system of gender relations between men MacWilliams, & Nteta, 2017; Wayne, Valen- and women (including the division of labor tino, & Oceno, 2016). within the family) as legitimate and justified, in As mentioned earlier in this article, we sur- comparison with supporters of Clinton. This veyed a nationally representative sample of was true of female as well as male respondents 1,500 Americans prior to the 2016 U.S. Presi- (see Figure 4). With respect to race and ethnic- dential election and administered several social ity, we observed that White and non-White sup- psychological instruments, including three mea- porters of Clinton (vs. Trump) scored signifi- sures of system justification (Azevedo et al., in cantly lower on all three types of system press). The results reveal that—even after ad- justification (see Figure 5). justing for authoritarianism, social dominance For the most part, these findings are clearly at orientation, and a host of demographic vari- odds with the widespread assumption that “Mr. ables—system justification played a significant Trump personified the vote against the status role in support for Trump over Clinton. Specif- quo” (Kuhn, 2016), that he was an “archetypal ically, when we entered general, economic, and anti-establishment character” (Chasmar, 2017), gender-specific system justification into a logis- and that his campaign “galvanized legions of tic regression model we discovered that all three aggrieved Americans in a loud repudiation of variables exerted significant (and independent) the status quo” (Tumulty, Rucker, & Gearan, effects on voting intentions, although the effects were not all in the same direction (see Table 7). 2016). It is true that Trump supporters rejected Whereas economic and gender-specific system liberal governance under President Obama (and justification were associated with an increase in opposed a continuation of liberal policies under the likelihood of voting for Trump, general sys- Clinton), but the results of our survey indicate tem justification was associated with a decrease that they were far from challenging the status in the likelihood of voting for him. Trump sup- quo in a more profound sense. Supporters of porters scored significantly higher than Clinton Donald Trump—like political conservatives in supporters on economic and gender-specific general—strongly defended and justified the ex- system justification—but the difference was isting degree of economic inequality as well as quite small with respect to general system jus- gender-based disparities in American society. tification. The working-class Whites who voted for Trump Moreover, this overall pattern emerged at ev- may well have been deeply frustrated by the ery level of respondent income (see Figure 2) consequences of global capitalism, but there is and education (see Figure 3). Regardless of little or no evidence that they blamed the eco- whether they were rich or poor or highly edu- nomic system itself; in ideological terms, they cated or not, supporters of Trump were far more appeared to be unwilling or unable to criticize

Table 7 Voting Intentions (Trump vs. Clinton) Regressed Onto Economic, Gender- Specific, and General System Justification, Adjusting for Demographic Variables, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Social Dominance Orientation This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Ideological and demographic variables Estimate Std. error t value Pr (Ͼ|t|) (Intercept) Ϫ10.425 .816 Ϫ12.769 .001 Economic system justification .583 .135 4.305 .001 Gender-specific system justification .668 .103 6.481 .001 General system justification Ϫ.671 .095 Ϫ7.103 .001 Right-wing authoritarianism .958 .094 10.156 .001 Social dominance orientation .361 .079 4.556 .001 Income .052 .050 1.049 .294 Education Ϫ.135 .094 Ϫ1.434 .151 Age .255 .059 4.315 .001 CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e15 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 2. Economic, gender-specific, and general system justification among respondents who intended to vote for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as a function of income level. At every income level, Trump supporters were far more likely than Clinton supporters to regard the capitalist economic system (top panel) and the system of gender relations between men and women (middle panel) as legitimate and justified. The picture was more complicated for general system justification (bottom panel). e16 JOST ET AL. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 3. Economic, gender-specific, and general system justification among respondents who intended to vote for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as a function of educational level. At every educational level, Trump supporters were far more likely than Clinton supporters to regard the capitalist economic system (top panel) and the system of gender relations between men and women (middle panel) as legitimate and justified. The picture was more complicated for general system justification (bottom panel). CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e17 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Figure 4. Economic, gender-specific, and general system justification among male and female respondents who intended to vote for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Male and female Trump supporters were more likely than male and female Clinton supporters to regard the capitalist economic system (top panel) and the system of gender relations between men and women (middle panel) as legitimate and justified. There were no differences between Trump and Clinton supporters in terms of general system justification for either male or female groups of respondents (bottom panel). e18 JOST ET AL. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Figure 5. Economic, gender-specific, and general system justification among Caucasian and non-Caucasian respondents who intended to vote for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Caucasian and non-Caucasian supporters of Trump were more likely than Caucasian and non-Caucasian supporters of Clinton to regard the capitalist economic system (top panel), the system of gender relations between men and women (middle panel), and the American system in general (bottom panel) as legitimate and justified. CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e19

the capitalist system and the existing social or- sess an advantage for motivational reasons, in- der (see also Hennes et al., 2012). cluding the fact that they better satisfy— Future research would do well to explore the subjectively, but not necessarily objectively— notion that there are multiple meaningful di- underlying epistemic, existential, and relational mensions (or domains) of system justification needs, which everyone possesses to at least (Liviatan & Jost, 2014; Wakslak, Jost, & Bauer, some degree. 2011). The same individual may be an enthusi- In other words, system justification theory astic proponent of the system of traditional helps to explain the psychological appeal of “family values” (or the “free market” economy) conservative ideology. In this way, our analysis but an opponent of the liberal tradition of dem- is consistent with that of Gerald Cohen (2011), ocratic governance in the United States (or vice who penned a well-known philosophical essay versa). As Kay and colleagues (2008) demon- outlining a number of ways in which a conser- strated, some people seek to satisfy epistemic, vative —which he defined as a “natu- existential, and relational needs through faith in ral” bias in favor of existing value—is intui- God, while others prefer to place their trust in tively appealing. Likewise, Samuel Scheffler “the .” There is, then, more than one (2010) observed that: “Most human beings have sense in which someone may be said to accept strong conservative impulses, in the sense that or reject the societal status quo. We are only they have strong desires to preserve what they now at the precipice of understanding the myr- value, including what they value about past and iad implications of this fact for political atti- present practices, forms of social organization, tudes and behavior. Far from calling into ques- and ways of life” (p. 268). At the same time, tion the importance or utility of ideological both philosophers warn that a purely conserva- distinctions such as conservative or progressive, tive attitude of this kind is problematic when it these observations highlight the fact that polit- comes to questions of hierarchy and social in- ical actors may be motivated by a complicated justice. This is “because what conservatives . . . mix of system-justifying and system-challeng- want to conserve is that which has intrinsic ing concerns, depending (at least in part) upon value, and injustice lacks intrinsic value (and the social system that is in question. has, indeed, intrinsic disvalue)” (Cohen, 2011, p. 144, emphasis added). Concluding Remarks One of the defining ethical challenges of our time, it would seem, is to distinguish clearly and In this article, we have suggested that a mo- forcefully between those elements of the soci- tivational analysis may help to explain why, etal status quo that possess intrinsic value— among other things, members of disadvantaged such as democratic norms, traditions, and insti- groups sometimes hold the same system- tutions—and those that do not, such as popular justifying beliefs as members of advantaged forms of chauvinism, parochialism, and social groups. One example among many is that of exclusion. In some cases, “conservative impuls- working-class conservatism (Hochschild, 1981; es”—which are motivated by system justifica- Jost, Blount et al., 2003; Lane, 1962; Lipset, tion concerns and a constellation of underlying 1960; Runciman, 1969). If it is true that system epistemic, existential, and relational needs— justification—including justification of the cap- may indeed lead us to defend and maintain italist economic system—serves fundamental forms of social organization that are truly valu- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. epistemic, existential, and relational needs for able; in other cases, however, such impulses This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. certainty, security, and conformity, this could may lead us very badly astray. help to explain why conservative economic at- titudes are relatively popular even among those who do not benefit (in material terms) from References conservative economic policies (DiMaggio, Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, 2015; Frank, 2004; Lukes, 2011; Newman et D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian al., 2015; Wisman & Smith, 2011). The conclu- personality. New York, NY: Harper. sion that emerges from a system justification Altemeyer, R. A. (1998). The other “authoritarian analysis is fairly clear: certain kinds of conser- personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in vative beliefs and ideologies are likely to pos- experimental (pp. 47–91). San e20 JOST ET AL.

Diego, CA: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10 are more likely to be Islamophobic, racist, trans- .1016/s0065-2601(08)60382-2 phobic, and homophobic [Web log post]. Re- Angelos, J. (2017, January 24). Will France sound trieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/ the death knell for social democracy? New York 10/10/a-basket-of-deplorables-a-new-study-finds- Times (Online). Retrieved from http://search that-trump-supporters-are-more-likely-to-be- .proquest.com/docview/1861030044 islamophobic-racist-transphobic-and-homophobic/ Ashok, V., Kuziemko, I., & Washington, E. (2015). Blanchar, J. C., & Eidelman, S. (2013). Perceived Support for redistribution in an age of rising in- system longevity increases system justification and equality: New stylized facts and some tentative the legitimacy of inequality. European Journal of explanations. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Social Psychology, 43, 238–245. http://dx.doi.org/ Economic Research. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/ 10.1002/ejsp.1960 w21529 Bloom, H., & Hobby, B. (2009). The American Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., & Rothmund, T. (in press). dream. New York, NY: Bloom’s Literary Criti- “Making America great again”: System justifica- cism. tion in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Trans- Brandt, M. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legiti- lational Issues in Psychological Science. mize the social system? A large-scale test of the Badaan, V., & Jost, J. T. (2017). Religiosity, sectar- status-legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personal- ian ingroup bias, and system justification in Leb- ity and Social Psychology, 104, 765–785. http://dx anon. Manuscript in preparation. .doi.org/10.1037/a0031751 Bahamondes-Correa, J. (2016). System justification’s Burton, C. M., Plaks, J. E., & Peterson, J. B. (2015). opposite effects on psychological wellbeing: Test- Why do conservatives report being happier than ing a moderated mediation model in a gay men and liberals? The contribution of . Journal lesbian sample in Chile. Journal of Homosexuality, of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 89–102. 63, 1537–1555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0091 http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.117 8369.2016.1223351 Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The po- (1960). The American voter. New York, NY: Wi- litical economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, ley. NJ: Princeton University Press. Caricati, L., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2012). Does status Bawn, K. (1999). Constructing “us”: Ideology, coali- matter? Testing hypotheses from strong form of tion politics, and false consciousness. American system justification theory. Revue Internationale Journal of Political Science, 43, 303–334. http:// de Psychologie Sociale, 25, 67–95. dx.doi.org/10.2307/2991797 Carnes, N., & Lupu, N. (2017, June 10). It’s time to Becker, J. C., & Wright, S. C. (2011). Yet another bust the myth: Most Trump voters were not work- dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism under- ing class. The News & Observer. Retrieved from mines and hostile sexism motivates collective ac- http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/ tion for social change. Journal of Personality and article155489679.html Social Psychology, 101, 62–77. http://dx.doi.org/ Carvacho, H., Zick, A., Haye, A., González, R., 10.1037/a0022615 Manzi, J., Kocik, C., & Bertl, M. (2013). On the Bénabou, R. (2008). Ideology. Journal of the Euro- relation between social class and prejudice: The pean Economic Association, 6, 321–352. roles of education, income, and ideological atti- Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and tudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, prosocial behavior. The American Economic Re- 272–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1961 view, 96, 1652–1678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer Chasmar, J. (2017, March 27). Punk icon Johnny .96.5.1652 Rotten defends Trump, slams ‘left-wing media’. Bernstein, J. (2016). Wages in the United States: The Washington Times. Retrieved from http:// Trends, explanations, and solutions. In I. Kirsch & www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/27/ This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. H. Brown (Eds.), The dynamics of opportunity in johnny-rotten-defends-donald-trump-slams-left- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notAmerica to be disseminated broadly. (pp. 167–195). New York, NY: Springer. wing/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25991-8_6 Choma, B. L., Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. Bishop, G. F. (2005). The illusion of public opinion: (2009). Liberal and conservative political ideolo- Fact and artifact in American public opinion polls. gies: Different routes to happiness? Journal of Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Research in Personality, 43, 502–505. http://dx Bixter, M. T. (2015). Happiness, political orientation, .doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.016 and religiosity. Personality and Individual Differ- Cichocka, A., & Jost, J. T. (2014). Stripped of illu- ences, 72, 7–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid sions? Exploring system justification processes in .2014.08.010 capitalist and post-Communist societies. Interna- Blair, K. L. (2016, October 10). A ‘basket of deplo- tional Journal of Psychology, 49, 6–29. http://dx rables’? A new study finds that Trump supporters .doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12011 CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e21

Cohen, G. A. (2011). Rescuing conservatism: A de- Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 150–164. fense of existing value. In R. J. Wallace, R. Ku- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.11.006 mar, & S. Freeman (Eds.), Reasons and recogni- Economic Policy Institute. (2012). Average family tion: Essays on the of T. M. Scanlon income, by income group, 1947–2010 in 2011 dol- (pp. 203–230). New York, NY: Oxford University lars. Retrieved from http://stateofworkingamerica Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ .org/chart/swa-income-table-2-1-average-family- 9780199753673.003.0009 income/ Cohn, N. (2016). Why Trump won: Working-class Everett, J. A. C. (2013). The 12 item social and Whites. The New York Times. Retrieved from economic conservatism scale (SECS). PLoS One, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/ 8(12), e82131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html .pone.0082131 Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). the size and composition of the U.S. population: System justification, the denial of global warming, 2014 to 2060 (Current population reports, P25- and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. 1143). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Re- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, trieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/ 326–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167 Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143 209351435 .pdf Frank, T. (2004). What’s the matter with Kansas?: Corning, P. A. (2011). The fair society: The science How conservatives won the heart of America. New of human nature and the pursuit of social justice. York, NY: Metropolitan Books. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http:// Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226116303.001 Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. .0001 Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http:// Day, M. V., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Movin’ on up? dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226293660.001 How perceptions of social mobility affect our will- .0001 Godfrey, E. B. (2013). System justification, mental ingness to defend the system. Social Psychological health, and behavior among disadvantaged moth- & Personality Science, 8, 267–274. https://doi.org/ ers and their children. Basic and Applied Social 10.1177/1948550616678454 Psychology, 35, 382–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.10 DiMaggio, A. R. (2015). Class sub-conscious: Hege- 80/01973533.2013.803965 mony, false consciousness, and the development of Godfrey, E. B., & Wolf, S. (2016). Developing crit- political and economic policy attitudes. Critical ical consciousness or justifying the system? A Sociology, 41, 493–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ qualitative analysis of attributions for poverty and 0896920514540185 wealth among low-income racial/ethnic minority Dirilen-Gumus, O. (2011). Differences in system jus- and immigrant women. Cultural Diversity & Eth- tification with respect to gender, political conser- nic Minority Psychology, 22, 93–103. http://dx.doi vatism, socio-economic status and religious funda- .org/10.1037/cdp0000048 mentalism. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Goode, C., Keefer, L. A., & Molina, L. E. (2014). A Sciences, 30, 2607–2611. http://dx.doi.org/10.10 compensatory control account of meritocracy. 16/j.sbspro.2011.10.510 Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2, Donovan, T., Redlawsk, D., & Tolbert, C. (2016, 313–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v2i1.372 September). The right-wing populist appeal of Goodwin, J., & Jasper, J. (2006). Emotions and social Donald Trump in comparative perspective. Paper movements. In J. Stets & J. Turner (Eds.), Hand- presented at the Elections, Public Opinion and book of the sociology of emotions (pp. 611–635). Parties Annual Conference, Canterbury, UK. Re- New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10 trieved from https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/epop/files/ .1007/978-0-387-30715-2_27 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. 2016/07/Donovan-Redlawsk-and-Tolbert.pdf Graetz, M. J., & Shapiro, I. (2005). Death by a This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualDouglas, user and is not to be disseminated broadly. K. R. (2016). Barriers to social change: thousand cuts: The fight over taxing inherited Neoliberalism and the justification of the status- wealth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. quo among low-income African Americans (Mas- Green, D. P., & Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of ter’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation rational choice theory: A critique of applications Publishing. (Accession No. 10140924) in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer- Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of Black folk. sity Press. New York, NY: Bantam Books Classics. Harding, J. F., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). The palliative Durrheim, K., Jacobs, N., & Dixon, J. (2014). Ex- function of system justification: Concurrent bene- plaining the paradoxical effects of intergroup con- fits versus longer-term costs to wellbeing. Social tact: Paternalistic relations and system justification Indicators Research, 113, 401–418. http://dx.doi in domestic labour in South Africa. International .org/10.1007/s11205-012-0101-1 e22 JOST ET AL.

Hennes, E. (2015, July). Stability and change in Psychological Science, 26, 99–108. http://dx.doi system justification motivation over the last ten .org/10.1177/0963721417690633 years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, G. International Society of Political Psychology, San (2003). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive- Diego, CA. motivational underpinnings. Research in Organi- Hennes, E. P., Nam, H. H., Stern, C., & Jost, J. T. zational Behavior, 25, 53–91. http://dx.doi.org/10 (2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epis- .1016/S0191-3085(03)25002-4 temic, existential and relational needs predict sys- Jost, J. T., Burgess, D., & Mosso, C. O. (2001). tem-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition, 30, Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and 669–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30 system. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psy- .6.669 chology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on Hennes, E. P., Ruisch, B. C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. C. A., & Jost, J. T. (2016). Motivated recall in the 363–388). New York, NY: Cambridge University service of the economic system: The case of an- Press. thropogenic climate change. Journal of Experi- Jost, J. T., Chaikalis-Petritsis, V., Abrams, D., Sida- mental Psychology: General, 145, 755–771. http:// nius, J., van der Toorn, J., & Bratt, C. (2012). Why dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000148 men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of Henry, P. J., & Saul, A. (2006). The development of system justification on willingness to protest. Per- system justification in the developing world. So- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 197– cial Justice Research, 19, 365–378. http://dx.doi 208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167211422544 .org/10.1007/s11211-006-0012-x Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Hochschild, J. L. (1981). What’s fair?: American Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, Harvard University Press. 60, 307–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev Hochschild, J. L. (1995). Facing up to the American .psych.60.110707.163600 dream: Race, class, and the soul of the nation. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2013). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Political ideologies and their social psychological Hoffarth, M., & Jost, J. T. (in press). When ideology functions. In M. Freeden, L. T. Sargent, & M. contradicts self-interest: Conservative opposition Stears (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political to same-sex marriage among sexual minorities—A ideologies (pp. 232–250). New York, NY: Oxford commentary on Pinsof and Haselton (2016). Psy- University Press. chological Science. Jost, J. T., Gaucher, D., & Stern, C. (2015). “The Im, D. K. (2014). The legitimation of inequality. world isn’t fair”: A system justification perspective Sociological Perspectives, 57, 506–525. http://dx on social stratification and inequality. In M. Mi- .doi.org/10.1177/0731121414536883 kulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Jones, J. M. (2015, May 22). On social ideology, the Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and left catches up to the right. Gallup. Retrieved from social psychology (pp. 317–340). Washington, http://www.gallup.com/poll/183386/social- DC: American Psychological Association. http:// ideology-left-catches-right.aspx dx.doi.org/10.1037/14342-012 Jost, J. T. (2015). Resistance to change: A social Jost, J. T., Hawkins, C. B., Nosek, B. A., Hennes, psychological perspective. Social Research, 82, E. P., Stern, C., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, J. 607–636. (2014). Belief in a just god (and a just society): A Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of system justification perspective on religious ideol- stereotyping in system-justification and the pro- ogy. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical duction of false consciousness. British Journal of Psychology, 34, 56–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. http://dx.doi.org/10 a0033220 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x to be disseminated broadly. Jost, J., & Hunyady, O. (2003). The psychology of Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A system justification and the palliative function of decade of system justification theory: Accumu- ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, lated evidence of conscious and unconscious bol- 13, 111–153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10463 stering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 280240000046 881–919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221 Jost, J., Kivetz, Y., Rubini, M., Guermandi, G., & .2004.00402.x Mosso, C. (2005). System-justifying functions of Jost, J. T., Becker, J., Osborne, D., & Badaan, V. complementary regional and ethnic : (2017). Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, Cross-national evidence. Social Justice Research, system justification, and the motivational anteced- 18, 305–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211- ents of protest behavior. Current Directions in 005-6827-z CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e23

Jost, J. T., Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C. D. (2008). rections in Psychological Science, 20, 360–364. Shared reality, system justification, and the rela- http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422059 tional basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Per- Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., sonality Psychology Compass, 2, 171–186. http:// & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00056.x testing a compensatory control mechanism for the Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledger- support of external systems. Journal of Personality wood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). and Social Psychology, 95, 18–35. System justification: How do we know it’s moti- Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., vated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). & J. M Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see 173–203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. the way things are as the way they should be. Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and 421–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015997 political psychology. Perspectives on Psychologi- Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary cal Science, 3, 126–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but j.1745-6916.2008.00070.x honest” exemplars on system justifica- Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, tion and implicit activation of the justice motive. B. N. (2003). and the reduction of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: 823–837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85 Evidence of enhanced system justification among .5.823 the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., & Young, S. (2005). Victim Psychology, 33, 13–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ derogation and victim enhancement as alternate ejsp.127 routes to system justification. Psychological Sci- Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based ence, 16, 240–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.09 56-7976.2005.00810.x dominance and opposition to equality as indepen- Kelly, N. J., & Enns, P. K. (2010). Inequality and the dent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and dynamics of public opinion: The self-reinforcing social policy attitudes among African Americans link between economic inequality and mass pref- and European Americans. Journal of Experimental erences. American Journal of Political Science, Social Psychology, 36, 209–232. http://dx.doi.org/ 54, 855–870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 10.1006/jesp.1999.1403 5907.2010.00472.x Jost, J. T., & van der Toorn, J. (2012). System Klandermans, B. (2003). Disengaging from move- justification theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. ments. In J. Goodwin & J. M. Jasper (Eds.), The Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of social movements reader: Cases and concepts (pp. theories of social psychology (pp. 313–343). Lon- 128–140). Malden, MA: Blackwell. don, UK: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978144 Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about 6249222.n42 inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what Jost, J. T., Wakslak, C., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). ought to be. New York, NY: A. de Gruyter. System justification theory and the alleviation of Konnikova, M. (2016, December 25). The psycho- emotional distress: Palliative effects of ideology in logical research that helps explain the election. The an arbitrary social hierarchy and in society. In K. New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.new Hegtvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Justice: Ad- yorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/the-psycho vances in group processes (Vol. 25, pp. 181–211). logical-research-that-helps-explain-the-election Bingley, UK: JAI/Emerald. http://dx.doi.org/10 Kovan, J. T., & Dirkx, J. M. (2003). “Being called .1016/S0882-6145(08)25012-5 awake”: The role of transformative learning in the This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Judis, J. B., & Teixeira, R. A. (2004). The emerging lives of environmental activists. Adult Education This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notDemocratic to be disseminated broadly. majority. New York, NY: Simon & Quarterly, 53, 99–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Schuster. 0741713602238906 Kawakami, K., & Dion, K. L. (1995). Social identity Kraus, M. W., & Tan, J. J. X. (2015). Americans and affect as determinants of collective action: overestimate social class mobility. Journal of Ex- Toward an integration of relative deprivation and perimental Social Psychology, 58, 101–111. http:// social identity theories. Theory & Psychology, 5, dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.01.005 551–577. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959354 Kuhn, D. P. (2016, December 26). Sorry, Liberal. 395054005 Bigotry didn’t elect Donald Trump. The New York Kay, A. C., & Friesen, J. (2011). On social stability Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/ and social change: Understanding when system 2016/12/26/opinion/sorry-liberals-bigotry-didnt- justification does and does not occur. Current Di- elect-donald-trump.html e24 JOST ET AL.

Lane, R. E. (1962). Political ideology: Why the ence, 19, 565–572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j American common man what he does. .1467-9280.2008.02124.x New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe. Newman, B. J., Johnston, C. D., & Lown, P. L. Laurin, K., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2011). (2015). False consciousness or class awareness? Social disadvantage and the self-regulatory func- Local income inequality, personal economic posi- tion of justice beliefs. Journal of Personality and tion, and belief in American meritocracy. Ameri- Social Psychology, 100, 149–171. http://dx.doi can Journal of Political Science, 59, 326–340. .org/10.1037/a0021343 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12153 Laurin, K., Shepherd, S., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Re- Newport, F. (2013). Democrats racially diverse; Re- stricted emigration, system inescapability, and de- publicans mostly White. Retrieved from http:// fense of the status quo: System-justifying www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially- consequences of restricted exit opportunities. Psy- diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx chological Science, 21, 1075–1082. http://dx.doi Nilsson, A., & Jost, J. T. (2017). Revisiting polarity .org/10.1177/0956797610375448 theory: Humanism, normativism, and the bipolar Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A structure of left-right ideology in the U.S. and fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Sweden. Manuscript submitted for publication. Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899- O’Brien, L. T., & Major, B. (2005). System- 0448-5 justifying beliefs and psychological well-being: Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man: The social bases The roles of group status and identity. Personality of politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1718–1729. Liviatan, I., & Jost, J. T. (2014). A social-cognitive http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278261 analysis of system justification goal striving. So- O’Brien, L. T., Major, B. N., & Gilbert, P. N. (2012). cial Cognition, 32, 95–129. http://dx.doi.org/10 Gender differences in entitlement: The role of sys- .1521/soco.2014.32.2.95 tem-justifying beliefs. Basic and Applied Social Lukes, S. (2011). In defense of “false conscious- Psychology, 34, 136–145. http://dx.doi.org/10 ness”. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 3, 19– .1080/01973533.2012.655630 28. Retrieved from http://chicagounbound Okulicz-Kozaryn, A., Holmes, O., & Avery, D. R. .uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2011/iss1/3 (2014). The subjective well-being political para- Luttig, M. (2013). The structure of inequality and dox: Happy welfare states and unhappy liberals. Americans’ attitudes toward redistribution. Public Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1300–1308. Opinion Quarterly, 77, 811–821. http://dx.doi.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037654 10.1093/poq/nft025 Onraet, E., Van Assche, J., Roets, A., Haesevoets, T., Major, B., Blodorn, A., & Major Blascovich, G. & Van Hiel, A. (2017). The happiness gap between (2016). The threat of increasing diversity: Why conservatives and liberals depends on country- many White Americans support Trump in the 2016 level threat. Social Psychological & Personality presidential election. Group Processes & Inter- Science, 8, 11–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948 group Relations. Advance online publication. 550616662125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430216677304 Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Through rose- McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2007). Priming meritoc- colored glasses: System-justifying beliefs dampen racy and the psychological justification of inequal- the effects of relative deprivation on well-being ity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, and political mobilization. Personality and Social 43, 341–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006 Psychology Bulletin, 39, 991–1004. http://dx.doi .04.009 .org/10.1177/0146167213487997 McCoy, S. K., Wellman, J. D., Cosley, B., Saslow, Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). Endorsement of L., & Epel, E. (2013). Is the belief in meritocracy system-justifying beliefs strengthens the relation- palliative for members of low status groups? Evi- ship between church attendance and Right-Wing This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. dence for a benefit for self-esteem and physical Authoritarianism. Group Processes & Intergroup This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is nothealth to be disseminated broadly. via perceived control. European Journal of Relations, 17, 542–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ Social Psychology, 43, 307–318. http://dx.doi.org/ 1368430213507322 10.1002/ejsp.1959 Owuamalam, C. K., Rubin, M., & Spears, R. (2016). Monteith, M. J., Burns, M. D., Rupp, D. E., & Mi- The system justification conundrum: Re-examin- halec-Adkins, B. P. (2016). Out of work and out of ing the cognitive dissonance basis for system jus- luck? Layoffs, system justification, and hiring de- tification. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1889. http:// cisions for people who have been laid off. Social dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01889 Psychological & Personality Science, 7, 77–84. Pacilli, M. G., Taurino, A., Jost, J. T., & van der http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550615599827 Toorn, J. (2011). System justification, right-wing Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). Why are conser- conservatism, and internalized homophobia: Gay vatives happier than liberals? Psychological Sci- and lesbian attitudes toward same-sex parenting in CONSERVATIVE ADVANTAGES IN POLITICS e25

Italy. Sex Roles, 65, 580–595. http://dx.doi.org/10 Scheffler, S. (2010). Equality and tradition: Ques- .1007/s11199-011-9969-5 tions of value in moral and political theory. New Phillips, S. (2016). Brown is the new White: How the York, NY: Oxford University Press. demographic revolution has created a new Amer- Schlenker, B. R., Chambers, J. R., & Le, B. M. ican majority. New York, NY: New Press. (2012). Conservatives are happier than liberals, but Piketty, T. (2015). The economics of inequality. why? Political ideology, personality, and life sat- Cambridge, MA: Belknap. http://dx.doi.org/10 isfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, .4159/9780674915565 127–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12 Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. (2016). The political .009 divide over same-sex marriage: Mating strategies Sengupta, N. K., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. in conflict? Psychological Science, 27, 435–442. (2015). The status-legitimacy hypothesis revisited: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797615621719 Ethnic-group differences in general and dimen- Railton, P. (2003). , ideology, and reflection: sion-specific legitimacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 324–340. http://dx.doi.org/10 Or, the duck sits yet. In P. Railton (Ed.), Facts, .1111/bjso.12080 values, and norms: Essays toward a morality of Shepherd, S., & Kay, A. C. (2012). On the perpetu- consequence (pp. 353–384). New York, NY: Cam- ation of ignorance: System dependence, system bridge University Press. (Original work published justification, and the motivated avoidance of so- 2000) http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805 ciopolitical information. Journal of Personality 11613982.013 and Social Psychology, 102, 264–280. http://dx Rankin, L. E., Jost, J. T., & Wakslak, C. J. (2009). .doi.org/10.1037/a0026272 System justification and the meaning of life: Are Shockley, E., Rosen, R. K., & Rios, K. (2016). the existential benefits of ideology distributed un- Change resistance moderates existence and lon- equally across racial groups? Social Justice Re- gevity biases. Social Influence, 11, 87–100. http:// search, 22, 312–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2016.1154104 s11211-009-0100-9 Shockley, E., Wynn, A., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2016, November 19). (2016). Dimensions of Black identity predict sys- The politics of hope: Donald Trump as an entre- tem justification. Journal of Black Psychology, 42, preneur of identity. Scientific American. Retrieved 103–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00957984 from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ 14557276 the-politics-of-hope-donald-trump-as-an-entre Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: preneur-of-identity/ An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and op- Resnick, B. (2017, March 20). 7 psychological con- pression. New York, NY: Cambridge University cepts that explain the Trump era of politics. Vox. Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97811 Retrieved from http://www.vox.com/science-and- 39175043 health/2017/3/20/14915076/7-psychological- Stiglitz, J. E. (2015). The origins of inequality, and concepts-explain-trump-politics policies to contain it. National Tax Journal, 68, Rodgers, K. (2010). ‘Anger is why we’re all here’: 425–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2015.2.09 Mobilizing and managing emotions in a profes- Sumanth, J. J., Mayer, D. M., & Kay, V. S. (2011). sional activist organization. Social Movement Why good guys finish last. Organizational Psy- Studies, 9, 273–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ chology Review, 1, 165–184. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/2041386611398283 14742837.2010.493660 Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., & Zheng, W. (2017). Runciman, W. (1969). False consciousness. Philoso- Working for the hierarchical system: The role of phy, 44, 303–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ meritocratic ideology in the endorsement of cor- S0031819100009438 ruption. Political Psychology, 38, 469–479. http:// This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Russell, B. (1938). Power, a new social analysis. dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12341 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notNew to be disseminated broadly. York, NY: Norton. Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., Zheng, W., & Liang, Y. Saad, L. (2015). U.S. liberals at record 24%, but still (2016). The effects of general system justification trail conservatives. Gallup. Retrieved from http:// on corruption perception and intent. Frontiers in www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record- Psychology, 7, 1107. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ trail-conservatives.aspx fpsyg.2016.01107 Schaffner, B. F., MacWilliams, M., & Nteta, T. Taub. (2016, March 1). The rise of American author- (2017, January). Explaining White polarization in itarianism. Vox. Retrieved from http://www.vox the 2016 vote for President: The sobering role of .com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism racism and sexism. Paper presented at the confer- Teixeira, R. (2012, November 9). The emerging dem- ence on the U.S. elections of 2016: Domestic and ocratic majority turns 10. The Atlantic. Retrieved international aspects, Herzliya, Israel. from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/ e26 JOST ET AL.

2012/11/the-emerging-democratic-majority-turns- 18, 267–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 10/265005/ 9280.2007.01887.x Tumulty, K., Rucker, P., & Gearan, A. (2016, No- Wayne, C., Valentino, N., & Oceno, M. (2016, Oc- vember 8). Donald Trump wins the presidency in tober 23). How sexism drives support for Donald stunning upset over Clinton. The Washington Post. Trump. Retrieved from https://www.washington Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc post.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/23/how- view/1837532648 sexism-drives-support-for-donald-trump/?utm_ Tyson, A., & Maniam, S. (2016, March 30). Behind termϭ.ca7b978e2270 trump’s victory: Divisions by race, gender, educa- Weeden, J., & Kurzban, R. (2017). Self-interest is tion. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http:// often a major determinant of issue attitudes. Polit- www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/ ical Psychology, 38(Suppl. S1), 67–90. http://dx behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender- .doi.org/10.1111/pops.12392 education/ Wiederkehr, V., Bonnot, V., Krauth-Gruber, S., & van der Toorn, J., Feinberg, M., Jost, J. T., Kay, Darnon, C. (2015). Belief in school meritocracy as A. C., Tyler, T. R., Willer, R., & Wilmuth, C. a system-justifying tool for low status students. (2015). A sense of powerlessness fosters system Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1053. http://dx.doi.org/ justification: Implications for the legitimation of 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01053 authority, hierarchy, and government. Political Wigmore, T. (2015). Why are right wing parties Psychology, 36, 93–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ thriving across Europe? New Statesman. Retrieved pops.12183 from http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/ van der Toorn, J., Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2011). observations/2015/10/why-are-right-wing-parties- More than fair: Outcome dependence, system jus- thriving-across-europe tification, and the perceived legitimacy of author- Wisman, J. D., & Smith, J. F. (2011). Legitimating ity figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- inequality: Fooling most of the people all of the chology, 47, 127–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j time. American Journal of Economics and Sociol- .jesp.2010.09.003 ogy, 70, 974–1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). .1536-7150.2011.00795.x Toward an integrative social identity model of Wojcik, S. P., Hovasapian, A., Graham, J., Motyl, collective action: A quantitative research synthesis M., & Ditto, P. H. (2015). Conservatives report, of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psycho- but liberals display, greater happiness. Science, logical Bulletin, 134, 504–535. http://dx.doi.org/ 347, 1243–1246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504 .1260817 Wakslak, C. J., Jost, J. T., & Bauer, P. (2011). Zimmerman, J. L., & Reyna, C. (2013). The meaning Spreading rationalization: Increased support for and role of ideology in system justification and large-scale and small-scale social systems follow- resistance for high- and low-status people. Journal ing system threat. Social Cognition, 29, 288–302. of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032967 Wakslak, C. J., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. S. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening Received June 30, 2016 effect of system justification on support for redis- Revision received June 26, 2017 tributive social policies. Psychological Science, Accepted June 27, 2017 Ⅲ This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.