重新审视Buchel等人(2021)对地位合法性假设的检验

IF 2.7 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Chuma Kevin Owuamalam, Luca Caricati, Chee Meng Tan, Andrea Soledad Matos, Chiara Bonetti, Mark Rubin, Russell Spears, Marco Marinucci
{"title":"重新审视Buchel等人(2021)对地位合法性假设的检验","authors":"Chuma Kevin Owuamalam,&nbsp;Luca Caricati,&nbsp;Chee Meng Tan,&nbsp;Andrea Soledad Matos,&nbsp;Chiara Bonetti,&nbsp;Mark Rubin,&nbsp;Russell Spears,&nbsp;Marco Marinucci","doi":"10.1002/ejsp.3173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The status-legitimacy hypothesis posits that low-status groups more strongly endorse social hierarchies and disadvantageous systems (i.e., engage in system justification), particularly under extreme societal inequality. Buchel et al. (2021) found supportive evidence for this hypothesis based on a 28-nation survey (<i>N</i> = 48,802). However, other large-scale studies have produced contradictory evidence. Consequently, we re-examined Buchel et al.’s (2021) data, this time breaking down the critical status <span></span><math>\n <semantics>\n <mo>×</mo>\n <annotation>$ \\times $</annotation>\n </semantics></math> inequality interaction and visualizing the patterns with scatterplots. Contrary to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, our results often showed that both objective and subjective status were associated with system justification in the <i>opposite</i> direction–even in contexts of high societal inequality. However, higher societal inequality sometimes reduces the system justification gap between status groups. We discuss the implications of these mixed findings for the debate around the existence of a system justification motive.</p>","PeriodicalId":48377,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"55 5","pages":"950-965"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.3173","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Re-Examining Buchel et al.’s (2021) Test of the Status Legitimacy Hypothesis\",\"authors\":\"Chuma Kevin Owuamalam,&nbsp;Luca Caricati,&nbsp;Chee Meng Tan,&nbsp;Andrea Soledad Matos,&nbsp;Chiara Bonetti,&nbsp;Mark Rubin,&nbsp;Russell Spears,&nbsp;Marco Marinucci\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejsp.3173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The status-legitimacy hypothesis posits that low-status groups more strongly endorse social hierarchies and disadvantageous systems (i.e., engage in system justification), particularly under extreme societal inequality. Buchel et al. (2021) found supportive evidence for this hypothesis based on a 28-nation survey (<i>N</i> = 48,802). However, other large-scale studies have produced contradictory evidence. Consequently, we re-examined Buchel et al.’s (2021) data, this time breaking down the critical status <span></span><math>\\n <semantics>\\n <mo>×</mo>\\n <annotation>$ \\\\times $</annotation>\\n </semantics></math> inequality interaction and visualizing the patterns with scatterplots. Contrary to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, our results often showed that both objective and subjective status were associated with system justification in the <i>opposite</i> direction–even in contexts of high societal inequality. However, higher societal inequality sometimes reduces the system justification gap between status groups. We discuss the implications of these mixed findings for the debate around the existence of a system justification motive.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"55 5\",\"pages\":\"950-965\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.3173\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3173\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.3173","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

地位合法性假说认为,地位低的群体更强烈地支持社会等级制度和不利的制度(即参与制度辩护),特别是在极端社会不平等的情况下。Buchel等人(2021)基于28个国家的调查(N = 48,802)发现了支持这一假设的证据。然而,其他大规模研究得出了相互矛盾的证据。因此,我们重新检查了Buchel等人(2021)的数据,这次打破了临界状态× × × ×不等式相互作用,并用散点图将模式可视化。与地位-合法性假设相反,我们的研究结果经常表明,客观和主观地位与相反方向的制度正当性相关——即使在高度社会不平等的背景下也是如此。然而,较高的社会不平等有时会缩小地位群体之间的制度正当性差距。我们讨论了这些复杂的发现对围绕系统辩护动机存在的争论的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Re-Examining Buchel et al.’s (2021) Test of the Status Legitimacy Hypothesis

Re-Examining Buchel et al.’s (2021) Test of the Status Legitimacy Hypothesis

The status-legitimacy hypothesis posits that low-status groups more strongly endorse social hierarchies and disadvantageous systems (i.e., engage in system justification), particularly under extreme societal inequality. Buchel et al. (2021) found supportive evidence for this hypothesis based on a 28-nation survey (N = 48,802). However, other large-scale studies have produced contradictory evidence. Consequently, we re-examined Buchel et al.’s (2021) data, this time breaking down the critical status × $ \times $ inequality interaction and visualizing the patterns with scatterplots. Contrary to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, our results often showed that both objective and subjective status were associated with system justification in the opposite direction–even in contexts of high societal inequality. However, higher societal inequality sometimes reduces the system justification gap between status groups. We discuss the implications of these mixed findings for the debate around the existence of a system justification motive.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
84
期刊介绍: Topics covered include, among others, intergroup relations, group processes, social cognition, attitudes, social influence and persuasion, self and identity, verbal and nonverbal communication, language and thought, affect and emotion, embodied and situated cognition and individual differences of social-psychological relevance. Together with original research articles, the European Journal of Social Psychology"s innovative and inclusive style is reflected in the variety of articles published: Research Article: Original articles that provide a significant contribution to the understanding of social phenomena, up to a maximum of 12,000 words in length.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信