What is the relation between System Justification and voting behaviour? An experimental survey in The Netherlands Masters thesis political theory and political behaviour Name: Koenraad Wiering (10674640) Supervisor: Gijs Schumacher Second reader: Marc van de Wardt University: University of Amsterdam Date: 24 June 2016 Abstract This study presents the significant correlation between the level of system justification and conservative voting behaviour. According to the System Justification Theory, people have a general ideological motive to justify the existing structures in a social system. By means of this gives System Justification Theory an explanation for the conservation of the inequalities in status quo and the absent of change to a more equal society. The data of the experimental survey shows a significant positive correlation between the level of system justification and ideological conservative voting (H1) (r=0.30) and voting for current government parties (H2) (r=0.46). No support is found for H3, for which a positive relation between the level of system justification and the chance to choose the same as last elections was expected. These results might imply that SJ, by means of the positive relation with conservative voting behaviour, is partly responsible for absents of change in the current inequalities in The Netherlands. 1 Index Table of Contents Abstract......................................................................................................................... 1 Index .............................................................................................................................. 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 Central research question ........................................................................................... 5 Theory ........................................................................................................................... 7 System Justification Theory (SJT) .............................................................................. 7 SJT compared with cognitive dissonance theory .......................................................... 8 Conservatism .............................................................................................................. 9 Voting behaviour ...................................................................................................... 10 Voting behaviour in The Netherlands ....................................................................... 11 Coherence of SJT, conservatism and voting behaviour ............................................. 12 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................ 14 H1: The level of SJ has a positive relation with propensities to vote for conservative parties..................................................................................................................... 14 H2: The level of SJ has a positive relation with propensities to vote for government parties..................................................................................................................... 14 H3: The level of SJ has a positive relation with the chance to make the same choice as during last elections ................................................................................................. 14 Method ........................................................................................................................ 15 Manipulation method: complementary stereotypes (Group A + B) ........................... 15 Manipulation method: system threat (Group C + D)................................................. 16 Control group E ........................................................................................................ 18 Results ......................................................................................................................... 20 Characteristics of the sample .................................................................................... 20 Effects of control variables ........................................................................................ 21 Differences between manipulation groups ................................................................. 22 Difference between manipulation groups in manipulation scores ................................ 22 Difference between manipulation groups in propensities to vote for conservative parties (H1) ....................................................................................................................... 23 2 Difference between manipulation groups in propensities to vote for government parties (H2) ....................................................................................................................... 24 Difference between manipulation groups in chance to make the same choice as during the last election (H3)................................................................................................ 24 Differences between manipulation and control groups .............................................. 25 Differences between manipulation and control groups in sum SJ scores on the SJ scale 25 Difference between manipulation and control groups in sum score propensities to vote for conservative parties (H1) .................................................................................... 26 Difference between manipulation and control groups in sum score propensities to vote for government parties (H2) ..................................................................................... 26 Difference between manipulation and control groups in the score for chance to make the same choice as during the last election (H3) .............................................................. 27 Explanations for the high mean sum score in control group 5 on propensities to vote for conservative and government parties ........................................................................ 27 The relation between SJ and conservative voting behaviour (without distinguishing groups) ...................................................................................................................... 30 Correlation between sum SJ scale scores and sum scores for propensities to vote for conservative parties (H1) ......................................................................................... 30 Correlation between the sum SJ scale scores and the sum scores for propensities to vote for government parties (H2) ..................................................................................... 32 Correlation between sum SJ scale scores and chance scores to make the same choice as during the last election (H3) ..................................................................................... 33 Conclusion & discussion ............................................................................................ 35 References:.................................................................................................................. 39 Appendix 1: Social-Cognitive Motives Model ......................................................... 45 Appendix 2: Internal reliability constructs SJ scale & H1 .................................... 46 Appendix 3: Survey (Dutch) ..................................................................................... 48 Appendix 4: Regression coefficients control variables ........................................... 54 Appendix 5: Regression coefficients group assignment ......................................... 56 3 Introduction In the latest report of the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP) on the topic of ‘how the Dutch society is doing’, they claim: “The citizens in our country still have to deal with many differences and inequalities in their opportunities to participate in this prosperity and to realize their individual aspirations and interests. Sometimes these differences are desirable or inevitable, but sometimes they result in unequal opportunities and outcomes that are considered unnecessary and unjust” (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, 2015. p.7). These unnecessary and unjust inequalities are nowadays still a matter of fact in the Netherlands. The same report states that over the last decade the income inequalities in the Netherlands are not decreasing and act stable (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, 2015). However, when you look at the income inequalities from the beginning of the 90’s you see that the inequalities even slightly increased over the years (Vrooman & Wildeboer Schut, 2015). An underlying question where many social scientists have worked on is: why do disadvantaged people tolerate the unjust system instead of doing everything in their power to change the system (Jost & Thompson, 2000; Frank, 2004; Eyerman & Jamison, 1991; Neckerman, 2004)? The ‘System Justification Theory’ (SJT), first published by Jost & Banaji (1994), gives a possible explanation for the conservation of the status quo and the absence of change in the current inequalities. According to the SJT, there is a general ideological motive to justify the existing structures in a social system. SJT proposes that people actively defend and bolster existing social arrangements, often by denying or rationalizing injustice and other problems, even when doing so comes at the expense of their personal and group interest (Jost, Nanaji, and Nosek, 2004; Jost, Burgess,