Exploring the Link Between System Justification and Obedience to Laws
22. 9. 2023
Probing the Notion of Equal Rules and System Justification
29. 9. 2023
v
The notion of system justification theory continues to be a fascinating subject of study, shedding light on why individuals tend to defend and legitimize existing social, economic, and political systems. In a recent examination of this theory, researchers delved into the realm of perceived fairness by examining individuals’ agreement with the statement, “Ordinary people do not get a fair share of the national wealth.” The results were thought-provoking.
Interestingly, a negative relationship was hypothesized, suggesting that people with higher System Justification Scores (SJS) might be expected to agree with the statement to a lesser extent than those with lower SJS scores. The data indeed supported this hypothesis – the numbers do not lie: those who “definitely agree” that “ordinary people don’t get a fair share of the national wealth” have an average SJS of 16.31, while those who “definitely disagree” have a mean SJS of 19.47.
The results revealed a compelling trend. Individuals with higher SJS scores were less likely to agree with the idea that ordinary people do not receive a fair share of the national wealth. This pattern is consistent with the principles of System Justification Theory. It suggests that those who support and justify the current system tend to downplay issues of inequality and fairness in the distribution of wealth.
This finding urges us to explore more deeply the complex relationship between our perceptions of fairness and our propensity to maintain established systems. It underscores the idea that our attitudes toward the distribution of wealth are shaped by our propensity to justify the system and sparks meaningful conversations about wealth inequality and its societal implications.
💡 You can find more results here.
