Moderators of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups: A comprehensive test of predictions from system justification theory

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Standard

Moderators of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups : A comprehensive test of predictions from system justification theory. / Essien, Iniobong; Calanchini, Jimmy; Degner, Juliane.

In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 120, No. 5, 05.2021, p. 1204-1230.

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{9504009579d24c4dbe1ad2d7dbb77ac9,
title = "Moderators of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups: A comprehensive test of predictions from system justification theory",
abstract = "We examined hypotheses proposed by System Justification Theory (SJT; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) regarding intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups, using large samples of online participants (total N = 715,721), spanning 8 intergroup domains and 14 nations. Using a meta-analytic approach, we tested these hypotheses at the individual level (as SJT is generally articulated), as well as at the social group level. Consistent with SJT, individual-level analyses revealed that disadvantaged groups demonstrated outgroup favoritism on Implicit Association Tests (IATs; i.e., implicit measures), but demonstrated ingroup favoritism or no intergroup preference on self-report (i.e., explicit) measures. Additionally, these average effects were characterized by high heterogeneity, and follow-up exploratory analyses revealed that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by the intergroup domain: Whereas some disadvantaged groups consistently displayed outgroup favoritism (e.g., age, weight), others consistently displayed ingroup favoritism (e.g., sexual orientation, religion), and yet others displayed diverging patterns on implicit and explicit measures (e.g., race, ethnicity). Consistent with SJT, intergroup evaluation on all measures was moderated by self-reported conservatism. Furthermore, the magnitude of these relationships depended on the level of analysis, with small effects emerging at the individual level and medium-sized effects emerging at the social group level. Social group-level analyses also indicated that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by stigma. Overall, these findings support and extend the predictions of SJT, but the relatively complex patterns of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups identified here illustrate a need for further theory development and more theory-driven research in this domain.",
keywords = "Psychology, intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups, stigma, disadvantaged groups, explicit bias, system justification theory",
author = "Iniobong Essien and Jimmy Calanchini and Juliane Degner",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 American Psychological Association.",
year = "2021",
month = may,
doi = "10.1037/pspi0000302",
language = "English",
volume = "120",
pages = "1204--1230",
journal = "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology",
issn = "0022-3514",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Moderators of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups

T2 - A comprehensive test of predictions from system justification theory

AU - Essien, Iniobong

AU - Calanchini, Jimmy

AU - Degner, Juliane

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2020 American Psychological Association.

PY - 2021/5

Y1 - 2021/5

N2 - We examined hypotheses proposed by System Justification Theory (SJT; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) regarding intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups, using large samples of online participants (total N = 715,721), spanning 8 intergroup domains and 14 nations. Using a meta-analytic approach, we tested these hypotheses at the individual level (as SJT is generally articulated), as well as at the social group level. Consistent with SJT, individual-level analyses revealed that disadvantaged groups demonstrated outgroup favoritism on Implicit Association Tests (IATs; i.e., implicit measures), but demonstrated ingroup favoritism or no intergroup preference on self-report (i.e., explicit) measures. Additionally, these average effects were characterized by high heterogeneity, and follow-up exploratory analyses revealed that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by the intergroup domain: Whereas some disadvantaged groups consistently displayed outgroup favoritism (e.g., age, weight), others consistently displayed ingroup favoritism (e.g., sexual orientation, religion), and yet others displayed diverging patterns on implicit and explicit measures (e.g., race, ethnicity). Consistent with SJT, intergroup evaluation on all measures was moderated by self-reported conservatism. Furthermore, the magnitude of these relationships depended on the level of analysis, with small effects emerging at the individual level and medium-sized effects emerging at the social group level. Social group-level analyses also indicated that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by stigma. Overall, these findings support and extend the predictions of SJT, but the relatively complex patterns of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups identified here illustrate a need for further theory development and more theory-driven research in this domain.

AB - We examined hypotheses proposed by System Justification Theory (SJT; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) regarding intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups, using large samples of online participants (total N = 715,721), spanning 8 intergroup domains and 14 nations. Using a meta-analytic approach, we tested these hypotheses at the individual level (as SJT is generally articulated), as well as at the social group level. Consistent with SJT, individual-level analyses revealed that disadvantaged groups demonstrated outgroup favoritism on Implicit Association Tests (IATs; i.e., implicit measures), but demonstrated ingroup favoritism or no intergroup preference on self-report (i.e., explicit) measures. Additionally, these average effects were characterized by high heterogeneity, and follow-up exploratory analyses revealed that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by the intergroup domain: Whereas some disadvantaged groups consistently displayed outgroup favoritism (e.g., age, weight), others consistently displayed ingroup favoritism (e.g., sexual orientation, religion), and yet others displayed diverging patterns on implicit and explicit measures (e.g., race, ethnicity). Consistent with SJT, intergroup evaluation on all measures was moderated by self-reported conservatism. Furthermore, the magnitude of these relationships depended on the level of analysis, with small effects emerging at the individual level and medium-sized effects emerging at the social group level. Social group-level analyses also indicated that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by stigma. Overall, these findings support and extend the predictions of SJT, but the relatively complex patterns of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups identified here illustrate a need for further theory development and more theory-driven research in this domain.

KW - Psychology

KW - intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups

KW - stigma

KW - disadvantaged groups

KW - explicit bias

KW - system justification theory

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088498712&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/pspi0000302

DO - 10.1037/pspi0000302

M3 - Journal articles

C2 - 32700959

VL - 120

SP - 1204

EP - 1230

JO - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

JF - Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

SN - 0022-3514

IS - 5

ER -

Links

DOI