Bruno Ponte Belarmino Lima, Luana Elayne Cunha de Souza, John T Jost
{"title":"弱势少数群体成员的制度正当性、主观幸福感和心理健康症状。","authors":"Bruno Ponte Belarmino Lima, Luana Elayne Cunha de Souza, John T Jost","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although system justification-believing that the societal status quo is legitimate and desirable-is positively associated with subjective well-being and mental health outcomes for members of advantaged groups, the picture is more complicated for members of disadvantaged minority groups. According to system justification theory, believing that the social system is legitimate and desirable is a way of coping with one's own and fellow in-group members' state of disadvantage. At the same time, it is also a potential stressor, insofar as it implies that there are deficiencies of the individuals and groups who \"fail\" to succeed in a fair system. In this article, we quantitatively summarize the results of 34 articles (and 65 effect sizes) identified through computerized searches of scientific databases. Meta-analytic results revealed that system justification among members of disadvantaged minority groups was associated with lower levels of psychological distress (r = -0.131, k = 22, N = 25,506) and higher levels of subjective well-being (r = 0.190, k = 31, N = 172,075) and self-esteem (r = 0.106, k = 12, N = 4,839). These findings are consistent with the notion that, in general, system justification serves the palliative function of reducing distress and improving subjective well-being, most likely by increasing perceptions of personal control and individual mobility and decreasing perceptions of discrimination. At the same time, system justification can come at the expense of mental health when associated with the internalization of inferiority. Suggestions for future research are provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"115 ","pages":"102532"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"System justification, subjective well-being, and mental health symptoms in members of disadvantaged minority groups.\",\"authors\":\"Bruno Ponte Belarmino Lima, Luana Elayne Cunha de Souza, John T Jost\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102532\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although system justification-believing that the societal status quo is legitimate and desirable-is positively associated with subjective well-being and mental health outcomes for members of advantaged groups, the picture is more complicated for members of disadvantaged minority groups. According to system justification theory, believing that the social system is legitimate and desirable is a way of coping with one's own and fellow in-group members' state of disadvantage. At the same time, it is also a potential stressor, insofar as it implies that there are deficiencies of the individuals and groups who \\\"fail\\\" to succeed in a fair system. In this article, we quantitatively summarize the results of 34 articles (and 65 effect sizes) identified through computerized searches of scientific databases. Meta-analytic results revealed that system justification among members of disadvantaged minority groups was associated with lower levels of psychological distress (r = -0.131, k = 22, N = 25,506) and higher levels of subjective well-being (r = 0.190, k = 31, N = 172,075) and self-esteem (r = 0.106, k = 12, N = 4,839). These findings are consistent with the notion that, in general, system justification serves the palliative function of reducing distress and improving subjective well-being, most likely by increasing perceptions of personal control and individual mobility and decreasing perceptions of discrimination. At the same time, system justification can come at the expense of mental health when associated with the internalization of inferiority. Suggestions for future research are provided.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"115 \",\"pages\":\"102532\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102532\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102532","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
尽管制度正当性——相信社会现状是合理的和可取的——与优势群体成员的主观幸福感和心理健康结果呈正相关,但弱势少数群体成员的情况更为复杂。根据制度正当化理论,相信社会制度是合法的、可取的,是一种应对自身和群体内成员劣势状态的方式。与此同时,它也是一个潜在的压力源,因为它意味着在公平制度中“失败”的个人和群体存在缺陷。在这篇文章中,我们定量地总结了34篇文章(65个效应值)的结果,这些结果是通过计算机检索科学数据库确定的。meta分析结果显示,弱势少数群体成员的制度合理化与较低的心理困扰水平(r = -0.131, k = 22, N = 25,506)、较高的主观幸福感(r = 0.190, k = 31, N = 172,075)和自尊水平(r = 0.106, k = 12, N = 4,839)相关。这些发现与这样一种观点是一致的,即总的来说,制度辩护具有减轻痛苦和改善主观幸福感的缓和功能,最有可能的是通过增加个人控制和个人流动性的感知,以及减少歧视的感知。与此同时,当与自卑感内化联系在一起时,制度正当性可能以牺牲心理健康为代价。最后对今后的研究提出了建议。
System justification, subjective well-being, and mental health symptoms in members of disadvantaged minority groups.
Although system justification-believing that the societal status quo is legitimate and desirable-is positively associated with subjective well-being and mental health outcomes for members of advantaged groups, the picture is more complicated for members of disadvantaged minority groups. According to system justification theory, believing that the social system is legitimate and desirable is a way of coping with one's own and fellow in-group members' state of disadvantage. At the same time, it is also a potential stressor, insofar as it implies that there are deficiencies of the individuals and groups who "fail" to succeed in a fair system. In this article, we quantitatively summarize the results of 34 articles (and 65 effect sizes) identified through computerized searches of scientific databases. Meta-analytic results revealed that system justification among members of disadvantaged minority groups was associated with lower levels of psychological distress (r = -0.131, k = 22, N = 25,506) and higher levels of subjective well-being (r = 0.190, k = 31, N = 172,075) and self-esteem (r = 0.106, k = 12, N = 4,839). These findings are consistent with the notion that, in general, system justification serves the palliative function of reducing distress and improving subjective well-being, most likely by increasing perceptions of personal control and individual mobility and decreasing perceptions of discrimination. At the same time, system justification can come at the expense of mental health when associated with the internalization of inferiority. Suggestions for future research are provided.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.