社会不平等如何影响低地位者的系统合理信念

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.01637

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

系统合理信念反映了人们的系统支持态度,即对社会系统公正性、合理性、正当性的感知,以及相应的支持和维护社会系统的态度。以往关于社会不平等与低地位者系统合理信念的关系形成了两种对立的理论观点。一方面,社会认同理论等自利取向的理论认为,严重的不平等不利于低地位者维护自我及内群体利益,因此会损害其系统合理信念;另一方面,系统合理化理论却提出,在不平等更极端（而非平等）的社会中,人们（甚至是低地位者）反而更可能合理化不平等,表现出更高的系统合理信念。实证研究中,两种观点分别得到了一些研究的支持,但同时也面临很多质疑。
面对上述分歧,本文提出了一个整合性的解释框架,即“社会不平等影响低地位者系统合理信念的双路径模型”。该模型认为,自利取向理论与系统合理化理论其实并不矛盾,而是共同解释了不平等与低地位者系统合理信念关系的“全貌”。因此,理论争议的焦点不在于不平等究竟增强还是减弱低地位者的系统合理信念,而在于分析不平等增强或减弱低地位者系统合理信念的不同条件（即认知基础）及其内在机制（即动机基础）。
第一,在认知基础方面,不同于以往研究仅关注不平等“量”的程度及其与系统合理信念的线性关系,该模型认为还应关注不平等“质”的差异及其不同效应,即关注低地位者对不平等的认知过程。一方面,严重的不平等损害低地位者个人或群体的现实利益,构成一种现实威胁;另一方面,严重不平等的社会现状与人们关于社会系统公正性、合理性的信念相冲突,构成一种象征威胁。
第二,在动机基础方面,低地位者的自利动机与系统合理化动机分别使其反对或维护不平等现状,且两种动机彼此冲突;不同于以往研究采用对立视角考察两种动机,或是过于强调二者之一的作用;该模型认为,两种动机是并存的,相互之间并非全或无的关系。因此有必要厘清二者发挥作用的条件,即什么影响二者孰强孰弱,又是什么决定了何者发挥主导作用。
第三,区分不平等“质”的差异是厘清自利动机与系统合理化动机如何发挥作用的关键。换言之,不同动机为低地位者反对或维护不平等现状提供了动力,而何种动机发挥主导作用则取决于低地位者如何对不平等进行认知。具体而言,当凸显不平等在个体或群体水平的现实威胁时,更可能激活低地位者的自利动机（进而抑制其系统合理化动机）,继而损害其系统合理信念;而当凸显不平等在系统水平的象征威胁时,更可能激活其系统合理化动机（进而抑制其自利动机）,继而增强其系统合理信念。
“双路径模型”通过分析不平等影响低地位者系统合理信念的不同认知基础,进而厘清不同动机的作用,将以往研究中看似矛盾的结论整合于一,为理解不平等对低地位者系统合理信念的影响、解释两种理论的“分歧”提供了一种整合框架,需要未来研究进一步检验和发展。

关键词: 社会不平等, 系统合理信念, 系统合理化动机, 自利动机, 社会治理

Abstract:

System-justifying beliefs reflect individuals’ system-supportive attitudes, which comprise perceptions of the fairness, legitimacy, and justifiability of the prevailing social system, as well as supportive and defensive attitudes toward this system. Previous research on the relationship between social inequality and the system-justifying beliefs of disadvantaged individuals remains inconclusive. On the one hand, self-interest-oriented theories (e.g., social identity theory) argue that inequality decreases the system-justifying beliefs of the disadvantaged, given that inequality conflicts with their self-interest. System justification theory, on the other hand, predicts that when inequality in the system is made especially salient, then system justification motivation is activated (or increased); thus, individuals (including the disadvantaged) would be more likely to defend and support the unequal status quo. Previous research has tested these two conflicting views, but failed to reach a consistent conclusion.
In this article, we intend to advance the debate by proposing a dual-process model. We argue that system justification theory is not, in fact, contradictory to self-interest-oriented theories, but that both of which jointly contribute to explaining the full picture of the relationship between social inequality and the system-justifying beliefs of the disadvantaged. Therefore, the focus of the debate is not whether inequality reduces or enhances their system-justifying beliefs, but rather when (i.e., the cognitive base) and how (i.e., the motivational base) inequality causes them to oppose or defend the status quo.
First, in terms of the cognitive base, we start our model by focusing on the construction, rather than the level, of inequality. From the constructivist perspective, individuals’ system-justifying beliefs depend on how the unequal system is processed psychologically. For the disadvantaged, inequality may pose different types of threats to them. On the one hand, inequality may threaten the interests of the disadvantaged at the individual or group level, which is termed a realistic threat. On the other hand, the unequal status quo may also conflict with their beliefs about the justice and legitimacy of the system around them, which is termed a symbolic threat. These two kinds of threats of inequality may affect their system-justifying beliefs differently.
Second, in terms of motivation base, self-interested motivation and system justification motivation cause disadvantaged individuals to oppose or defend the unequal status quo, respectively, and the two motivations conflict with each other. Previous research either examined the two motivations from opposite perspectives or overemphasized the role of one of them. In contrast, we believe that the two motivations are not all-or-nothing but can co-exist with each other. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the conditions under which they operate, that is, what determines which of them is stronger and which of them plays a dominant role.
Third, we argue that distinguishing between realistic and symbolic threats of inequality is key to clarifying how self-interested and system justification motivations operate. In other words, different motivations drive the disadvantaged to either oppose or defend the unequal status quo, and which motivation plays a dominant role depends on how inequality is processed psychologically. Specifically, when the realistic threat of inequality at the individual or group level is salient, it is more likely to activate the self-interested motivation of the disadvantaged (and thus inhibit their system justification motivation), and in turn weaken their system-justifying beliefs. However, when the symbolic threat of inequality at the system level is salient, it is more likely to activate their system justification motivation (and thus inhibit their self-interested motivation), thereby enhancing their system-justifying beliefs.
Our dual-process model offers a new approach to bridging the research gap. Future research is needed to test and develop the dual-process model and to extend our knowledge regarding people’s response to the high and rising level of inequality around the world.

Key words: social inequality, system-justifying beliefs, system justification motivation, self-interested motivation, social governance

中图分类号:

B849: C91

张跃, 丁毅, 杨沈龙, 解晓娜, 郭永玉. (2022). 社会不平等如何影响低地位者的系统合理信念. 心理科学进展 , 30(7), 1637-1650.

ZHANG Yue, DING Yi, YANG Shenlong, XIE Xiaona, GUO Yongyu. (2022). Exploring the effect of social inequality on system-justifying beliefs of the disadvantaged. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(7), 1637-1650.

图/表 1

参考文献 96

[1]	安德鲁·汤普森. (2020). 日益加剧的不平等威胁着联合国可持续发展目标的实现: 国家科研资助机构如何有所作为?. 中国科学院院刊, 35(11), 1398-1401.
[2]	白洁, 杨沈龙, 徐步霄, 郭永玉. (2021). 达者何以兼济天下: 高阶层再分配偏向的心理机制及谦卑的作用. 心理学报, 53(10), 1161-1172.
[3]	丁毅, 纪婷婷. (2021). 不患不均?容忍和支持经济不平等的心理学解释. 心理科学, 44(2), 412-418.
[4]	甘犁, 路晓蒙, 王香, 周瑞轩, 李振华, 王芳, … 冯程程. (2020). 疫情下中国家庭财富变动趋势. 中国经济报告, (4), 110-123.
[5]	郭永玉, 冯文倩, 杨沈龙. (2019). 阶层流动知觉对系统合理化的预测作用. 中国社会心理学评论, 16(1), 137-154.
[6]	胡小勇, 杨沈龙, 钟琪, 喻丰, 陈红. (2019). 社会阶层与健康的关系: “社会-心理-生理”机制. 科学通报, 64(2), 194-205.
[7]	怀默霆. (2009). 中国民众如何看待当前的社会不平等. 社会学研究, 24(1), 96-120.
[8]	吴忠民. (2019). 社会公正与中国现代化. 社会学研究, 34(5), 1-18+242.
[9]	许宪春, 郑正喜, 张钟文. (2019). 中国平衡发展状况及对策研究——基于“清华大学中国平衡发展指数”的综合分析. 管理世界, 35(5), 15-28.
[10]	杨菊华. (2020). 后小康社会的贫困: 领域, 属性与未来展望. 中共中央党校(国家行政学院)学报, 24(1), 111-119.
[11]	杨沈龙, 郭永玉, 胡小勇, 舒首立, 李静. (2016). 低阶层者的系统合理化水平更高吗?——基于社会认知视角的考察. 心理学报, 48(11), 1467-1478.
[12]	杨沈龙, 郭永玉, 李静. (2013). 低社会阶层者是否更相信系统公正. 心理科学进展, 21(12), 2245-2255.
[13]	杨沈龙, 郭永玉, 喻丰, 饶婷婷, 赵靓, 许丽颖. (2018). 系统合理化何以形成——三种不同的解释视角. 心理科学进展, 26(12), 2238-2248.
[14]	杨玉芳, 郭永玉. (2017). 心理学在社会治理中的作用. 中国科学院院刊, 32(2), 107-116.
[15]	张书维. (2013). 群际威胁与集群行为意向: 群体性事件的双路径模型. 心理学报, 45(12), 1410-1430.
[16]	张书维, 王二平, 周洁. (2012). 跨情境下集群行为的动因机制. 心理学报, 44(4), 524-545.
[17]	张跃, 郭永玉, 丁毅. (2020). 经济不平等对阶层流动感知的影响及其机制. 心理科学, 43(5), 1197-1203.
[18]	赵晓航, 李建新. (2017). 社会经济地位与社会政治态度——基于“中国家庭追踪调查” (CFPS2012) 的实证分析. 社会学评论, 5(3), 34-50.
[19]	周春燕, 郭永玉. (2013). 公正世界信念——重建公正的双刃剑. 心理科学进展, 21(1), 144-154.
[20]	Akfirat, S., Polat, F. Ç., & Yetim, U. (2016). How the poor deal with their own poverty: A social psychological analysis from the social identity perspective. Social Indicators Research, 127(1), 413-433. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-0953-2 URL
[21]	Brandt, M. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status-legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(5), 765-785. doi: 10.1037/a0031751 pmid: 23421361
[22]	Buchel, O., Luijkx, R., & Achterberg, P. (2021). Objective and subjective socioeconomic status as sources of status- legitimacy effect and legitimation of income inequality. Political Psychology, 42(3), 463-481. doi: 10.1111/pops.12707 URL
[23]	Buttrick, N. R., & Oishi, S. (2017). The psychological consequences of income inequality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(3), Article e12304. https://doi. org/10.1111/spc3.12304
[24]	Caricati, L., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2012). Does status matter? Testing hypotheses from strong form of system justification theory. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 25(1), 67-95.
[25]	Cheung, F. (2016). Can income inequality be associated with positive outcomes? Hope mediates the positive inequality- happiness link in rural China. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(4), 320-330. doi: 10.1177/1948550615619762 URL
[26]	Costa-Lopes, R., Dovidio, J. F., Pereira, C. R., & Jost, J. T. (2013). Social psychological perspectives on the legitimation of social inequality: Past, present and future. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(4), 229-237. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1966 URL
[27]	Curtis, J., & Andersen, R. (2015). How social class shapes attitudes on economic inequality: The competing forces of self-interest and legitimation. International Review of Social Research, 5(1), 4-19. doi: 10.1515/irsr-2015-0002 URL
[28]	Darke, P. R., & Chaiken, S. (2005). The pursuit of self-interest: Self-interest bias in attitude judgment and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 864- 883. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.864 URL
[29]	Du, H., King, R. B., & Chi, P. (2019). Income inequality is detrimental to long-term well-being: A large-scale longitudinal investigation in China. Social Science & Medicine, 232, 120-128. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.04.043 URL
[30]	Engler, S., & Weisstanner, D. (2020). The threat of social decline: Income inequality and radical right support. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(2), 153-173. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2020.1733636 URL
[31]	Fernando, J. W., Burden, N., Ferguson, A., O’Brien, L. V., Judge, M., & Kashima, Y. (2018). Functions of utopia: How utopian thinking motivates societal engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(5), 779-792. doi: 10.1177/0146167217748604 pmid: 29347880
[32]	Friedman, R. S., & Sutton, B. (2013). Selling the war? System- justifying effects of commercial advertising on civilian casualty tolerance. Political Psychology, 34(3), 351-367. doi: 10.1111/pops.12001 URL
[33]	Fritsche, I., & Jugert, P. (2017). The consequences of economic threat for motivated social cognition and action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 31-36. doi: S2352-250X(17)30050-7 pmid: 29221509
[34]	García-Castro, J. D., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., & Willis, G. B. (2020). Perceiving economic inequality in everyday life decreases tolerance to inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, Article 104019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104019
[35]	García-Sánchez, E., Correia, I., Pereira, C. R., Willis, G. B., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., & Vala, J. (2021). How fair is economic inequality? Belief in a just world and the legitimation of economic disparities in 27 European countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(3), 382-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211002366 doi: 10.1177/01461672211002366 URL
[36]	García-Sánchez, E., van der Toorn, J., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., & Willis, G. B. (2019). The vicious cycle of economic inequality: The role of ideology in shaping the relationship between “what is” and “what ought to be” in 41 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(8), 991- 1001. doi: 10.1177/1948550618811500 URL
[37]	Goubin, S., & Hooghe, M. (2020). The effect of inequality on the relation between socioeconomic stratification and political trust in Europe. Social Justice Research, 33(2), 219-247. doi: 10.1007/s11211-020-00350-z URL
[38]	Goudarzi, S., Pliskin, R., Jost, J. T., & Knowles, E. D. (2020). Economic system justification predicts muted emotional responses to inequality. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 383. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14193-z
[39]	Guinjoan, M., & Rico, G. (2018). How perceptions of inequality between countries diminish trust in the European Union: Experimental and observational evidence. Political Psychology, 39(6), 1289-1303. doi: 10.1111/pops.12541 URL
[40]	Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128-167. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128 URL
[41]	Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social identity theory. In S. McKeown, R. Haji, & N. Ferguson (Eds.), Understanding peace and conflict through social identity theory: Contemporary global perspectives (pp.3-17). New York: Springer.
[42]	Jia, Q., Zhou, J., & Huang, M. (2020). Life satisfaction predicts perceived social justice: The lower your life satisfaction, the less just you perceive society to be. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 540835. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.540835
[43]	Jiang, L., & Probst, T. M. (2017). The rich get richer and the poor get poorer: Country- and state-level income inequality moderates the job insecurity-burnout relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 672-681. doi: 10.1037/apl0000179 URL
[44]	Jost, J. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 263-314. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12297 URL
[45]	Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1-27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x URL
[46]	Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881-919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x URL
[47]	Jost, J. T., Becker, J., Osborne, D., & Badaan, V. (2017). Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of two types of protest behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 99-108. doi: 10.1177/0963721417690633 URL
[48]	Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 293-305. doi: 10.1177/0146167200265003 URL
[49]	Jost, J. T., Burgess, D., & Mosso, C. O. (2001). Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and system:The integrative potential of system justification theory. In J. T. Jost, & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp.363-388). New York: Cambridge.
[50]	Jost, J. T., Chaikalis-Petritsis, V., Abrams, D., Sidanius, J., van der Toorn, J., & Bratt, C. (2012). Why men (and women) do and don’t rebel: Effects of system justification on willingness to protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 197-208. doi: 10.1177/0146167211422544 URL
[51]	Jost, J. T., Gaucher, D., & Stern, C. (2015). “The world isn’t fair”:A system justification perspective on social stratification and inequality. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp.317-340). Washington, DC: APA.
[52]	Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). System justification:How do we know it’s motivated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173-204). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
[53]	Kaiser, C. R., Eccleston, C. P., & Hagiwara, N. (2008). Post- Hurricane Katrina racialized explanations as a system threat: Implications for Whites’ and Blacks’ racial attitudes. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 192-203. doi: 10.1007/s11211-008-0065-0 URL
[54]	Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 18-35. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18 URL
[55]	Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823-837. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823 URL
[56]	King, E. B., Knight, J. L., & Hebl, M. R. (2010). The influence of economic conditions on aspects of stigmatization. Journal of Social Issues, 66(3), 446-460. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01655.x URL
[57]	Kunst, J. R., & Obaidi, M. (2020). Understanding violent extremism in the 21st century: The (re) emerging role of relative deprivation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 55-59. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.010 URL
[58]	Lee, D., Chang, C. Y., & Hur, H. (2020). Economic performance, income inequality and political trust: New evidence from a cross-national study of 14 Asian countries. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 42(2), 66-88. doi: 10.1080/23276665.2020.1755873 URL
[59]	Lee, I.-C., Pratto, F., & Johnson, B. T. (2011). Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: An examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 1029-1064. doi: 10.1037/a0025410 pmid: 22023142
[60]	Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
[61]	Li, A., & Hu, A. (2021). Community contexts, socioeconomic status, and meritocratic beliefs and perceptions in China. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 7(3), 470-493. doi: 10.1177/2057150X211023235 URL
[62]	Li, W., Wu, J., & Kou, Y. (2020). System justification enhances life satisfaction of high-and low-status people in China. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(5), 588- 596. doi: 10.1177/1948550619866182 URL
[63]	Lüders, A., Urbanska, K., Wollast, R., Nugier, A., & Guimond, S. (2021). Bottom-up populism: How relative deprivation and populist attitudes mobilize leaderless anti-government protest. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9(2), 506-519. doi: 10.5964/jspp.7349 URL
[64]	Malahy, L. W., Rubinlicht, M. A., & Kaiser, C. R. (2009). Justifying inequality: A cross-temporal investigation of U.S. income disparities and just-world beliefs from 1973 to 2006. Social Justice Research, 22(4), 369-383. doi: 10.1007/s11211-009-0103-6 URL
[65]	McCall, L., Burk, D., Laperrière, M., & Richeson, J. A. (2017). Exposure to rising inequality shapes Americans’ opportunity beliefs and policy support. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(36), 9593-9598. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706253114 URL
[66]	Napier, J. L., Mandisodza, A. N., Andersen, S. M., & Jost, J. T. (2006). System justification in responding to the poor and displaced in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 6(1), 57-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2006.00102.x URL
[67]	Newman, B. J., Johnston, C. D., & Lown, P. L. (2015). False consciousness or class awareness? Local income inequality, personal economic position, and belief in American meritocracy. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 326-340. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12153 URL
[68]	Osborne, D., García-Sánchez, E., & Sibley, C. G. (2019). Identifying the psychological mechanisms underlying the effects of inequality on society:The macro-micro model of inequality and relative deprivation (MIRED). In J. Jetten & K. Peters (Eds.), The social psychology of inequality (pp.249-266). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
[69]	Osborne, D., Jost, J. T., Becker, J. C., Badaan, V., & Sibley, C. G. (2019). Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 244-269. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2522
[70]	Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Through rose-colored glasses: System-justifying beliefs dampen the effects of relative deprivation on well-being and political mobilization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 991- 1004. doi: 10.1177/0146167213487997 pmid: 23719621
[71]	Osborne, D., Sibley, C. G., & Sengupta, N. K. (2015). Income and neighbourhood-level inequality predict self-esteem and ethnic identity centrality through individual- and group- based relative deprivation: A multilevel path analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 368-377. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2087 URL
[72]	Power, S. A., Madsen, T., & Morton, T. A. (2020). Relative deprivation and revolt: Current and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 119-124. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.06.010 URL
[73]	Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271-320. doi: 10.1080/10463280601055772 URL
[74]	Rodríguez-Bailón, R. (2020). Inequality viewed through the mirror of COVID-19. International Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 647-655. doi: 10.1080/02134748.2020.1796298 URL
[75]	Sánchez-Rodríguez, Á., Willis, G. B., Jetten, J., & Rodríguez- Bailón, R. (2019). Economic inequality enhances inferences that the normative climate is individualistic and competitive. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(6), 1114-1127. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2557 URL
[76]	Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition, 25(5), 638-656. doi: 10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.638 URL
[77]	Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 2-91). New York: Academic Press.
[78]	Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Levin, S., Pratto, F., & Obaidi, M. (2015). Support for asymmetric violence among Arab populations: The clash of cultures, social identity, or counterdominance? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(3), 343-359.
[79]	Smith, H. J., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2014). The Subjective interpretation of inequality: A model of the relative deprivation experience. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(12), 755-765. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12151 URL
[80]	Smith, H. J., Pettigrew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Relative deprivation: A theoretical and meta- analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(3), 203-232. doi: 10.1177/1088868311430825 URL
[81]	Solt, F., Hu, Y., Hudson, K., Song, J., & Yu, D. E. (2016). Economic inequality and belief in meritocracy in the United States. Research & Politics, 3(4), 1-7.
[82]	Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 433-450. doi: 10.1037/a0024618 URL
[83]	Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice (pp.43-59). Lawrence Erlbaum.
[84]	Tan, X., Liu, L., Huang, Z., & Zheng, W. (2017). Working for the hierarchical system: The role of meritocratic ideology in the endorsement of corruption. Political Psychology, 38(3), 469-479. doi: 10.1111/pops.12341 URL
[85]	Trump, K. S., & White, A. (2018). Does inequality beget inequality? Experimental tests of the prediction that inequality increases system justification motivation. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 5(3), 206-216. doi: 10.1017/XPS.2018.2 URL
[86]	van der Toorn, J., Feinberg, M., Jost, J. T., Kay, A. C., Tyler, T. R., Willer, R., & Wilmuth, C. (2015). A sense of powerlessness fosters system justification: Implications for the legitimation of authority, hierarchy, and government. Political Psychology, 36(1), 93-110. doi: 10.1111/pops.12183 URL
[87]	Vargas-Salfate, S., Paez, D., Liu, J. H., Pratto, F., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2018). A comparison of social dominance theory and system justification: The role of social status in 19 nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 1060-1076. doi: 10.1177/0146167218757455 pmid: 29544389
[88]	Vesper, D., König, C. J., Siegel, R., & Friese, M. (2022). Is use of the general system justification scale across countries justified? Testing its measurement equivalence. British Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12520
[89]	Walker, J., Tepper, S. J., & Gilovich, T. (2021). People are more tolerant of inequality when it is expressed in terms of individuals rather than groups at the top. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(43), Article e2100430118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100430118
[90]	Wienk, M. N., Buttrick, N. R., & Oishi, S. (2021). The social psychology of economic inequality, redistribution, and subjective well-being. European Review of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1955458
[91]	Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2017). The enemy between us: The psychological and social costs of inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(1), 11-24. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2275 URL
[92]	Wiwad, D., Mercier, B., Piff, P. K., Shariff, A., & Aknin, L. B. (2021). Recognizing the impact of COVID-19 on the poor alters attitudes towards poverty and inequality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 93, Article 104083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104083
[93]	Yoshimura, K., & Hardin, C. D. (2009). Cognitive salience of subjugation and the ideological justification of U.S. geopolitical dominance in Japan. Social Justice Research, 22, 298-311. doi: 10.1007/s11211-009-0102-7 URL
[94]	Zhou, X., & Wu, Y. (2011). Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 582-588. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.017 URL
[95]	Zimmerman, J. L., & Reyna, C. (2013). The meaning and role of ideology in system justification and resistance for high-and low-status people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1), 1-23. doi: 10.1037/a0032967 pmid: 23815234
[96]	Zmerli, S., & Castillo, J. C. (2015). Income inequality, distributive fairness and political trust in Latin America. Social Science Research, 52, 179-192. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.02.003 pmid: 26004456