System Justification Theory

Ego and group justification state that individuals tend to view themselves and those in their in-group in a positive manner. Individuals also tend to view the system as fair, legitimate, and their actions justifiable. System Justification theory states that those who benefit the least from social arrangements are more likely to resist social change and defend the status quo. Further, those who suffer the most psychologically from a given set of circumstances will attempt to reduce dissonance through rationalization in order to make sense of their social reality. Ideological and cognitive mechanisms allow the individual to rationalize their external environment and this can have a “palliative function” of reducing dissonance. Ideological mechanisms can be meritocratic ideology, conservative ideology, opposition to equality in society, the protestant work ethic, and the Belief in a Just World 2. Cognitive mechanisms include a preference for order, structure and routine, the perception of the world as being an unsafe place, fear of death, and perceived threat to the existing social order (Jost et al.,

2003; Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Rankin et al., 2009).
Cognitive dissonance theory states that when an individual experiences two conflicting ideas (I believe myself to be a good person: the system is unfair) this will result in an uncomfortable psychological tension called dissonance.

A person will be psychologically motivated to reduce this dissonance in order to alleviate any distress. If an individual cannot externally justify a belief they will seek to internally justify it by changing their attitude or behavior. If an individual believes that the system is fair and just they are likely to adopt ideological mechanisms such as a conservative ideology or meritocratic ideology to reduce dissonance. Constant threats of violence that people see in the media or hear from political leaders can reinforce the idea that the world is an unsafe place and the threat of death is always near (Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Aronson,

2008).
One study shows that since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the twin towers there has been an increasing display of violence, threats to public safety, and crime in the media. The media displayed constant threats of terrorism around the September 11th attacks and this could help to partially explain President Bush’s higher approval ratings from both liberals and conservatives at that time due to his campaign on “justice” and fighting terrorism. The symbolic communication of the content in this news tends to invoke fear in listeners and this perception that “the world is unsafe place” has been found to increase solidarity amongst people in a society. This can lead people to support and defend the status quo (Altheide, 2006; Jost & Hunyady, 2005).
Jost & Hundyady (2005) also show that those who view the existing social institutions as fair and legitimate are less likely to engage in acts that could bring changes to society. They are also more inclined to view social inequalities as a normal condition of a modern society. This can create problems for creating positive social change, as most people in society are opposed to altering the status quo (Jost & Hunyady, 2005).