A consequential ideology in Western society is the uncontested belief that a committed relationship is the most important adult relationship and almost all people want to marry or seriously couple (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). In the present article, I investigated the extent to which the system justification motive may contribute to the adoption of this ideology. In Studies 1 and 2, I examined whether a heightened motive to maintain the status quo would increase defense of committed relationship values. In Study 3, I examined the reverse association, that is, whether a threat to committed relationship ideology would also affect socio-political system endorsement. As past research has found that the justification of political systems depends upon how much these systems are perceived as having control over life outcomes, in Study 4 I tested whether the defense of the system of committed relationships would also increase when framed as controlling. Results from Studies 1–4 were consistent with my hypotheses, but only for men. In Study 5, using cross-cultural data, I sought to replicate these findings correlationally and probe for a cause of the gender effect. Results from over 33 000 respondents indicated a relationship (for men) between defense of the socio-political system and defense of marriage in countries where the traditional advantages of men over women were most threatened. In Studies 6 and 7, I investigated when the gender difference found in the earlier studies disappears. Results revealed that when I measured (Study 6) or manipulated (Study 7) personal relationship identity (i.e., how much relationships are part of the active self-concept), rather than relationship ideology, effects also emerge for women.

How do people cope when they feel uninformed or unable to understand important social issues, such as the environment, energy concerns, or the economy? One would intuitively expect that a lack of knowledge would motivate an increased, unbiased search for information, thereby facilitating participation and engagement in these issues – especially when they are consequential, pressing, and self-relevant. However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the importance/self-relevance of social issues and people’s willingness to engage with and learn about them. Drawing from the literature on System Justification Theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), I hypothesized that, rather than motivating an increased search for information, a lack of knowledge about a specific socio-political issue will (a) foster feelings of dependence on the government, which will (b) increase system justification and government trust, which will (c) increase desires to avoid learning about the relevant issue when information is negative or when information valence is unknown. In other words, I suggest that ignorance – as a function of the system justifying tendencies it may activate – may, ironically, breed more ignorance. The rational for these predictions is discussed in Chapter 1. Then, in the contexts of energy, environmental, and economic issues, I present seven studies that: (a) provide evidence for this specific psychological chain (i.e., ignorance about an issue → dependence → government trust → avoidance of information about that issue); (b) shed light on the role of threat and motivation in driving the second and third links in this chain; and (c) illustrate the unfortunate consequences of this process for individual action in those contexts that may need it most.

Evidence linking poverty with poor mental and physical health outcomes is well documented, but until recently little research has focused on the underlying psychological factors that mediate these relationships. This report represents the first step toward exploring how two emerging theories, allostatic load and system justification theory, can be harmonized to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that propagate poverty. Specifically, this report addresses the question of how poverty-related stress might moderate the degree to which an impoverished individual is inclined to justify a system that fundamentally does not favor them. Promising future research will be addressed. / text

A consequential ideology in Western society is the uncontested belief that a committed relationship is the most important adult relationship and almost all people want to marry or seriously couple (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). In the present article, I investigated the extent to which the system justification motive may contribute to the adoption of this ideology. In Studies 1 and 2, I examined whether a heightened motive to maintain the status quo would increase defense of committed relationship values. In Study 3, I examined the reverse association, that is, whether a threat to committed relationship ideology would also affect socio-political system endorsement. As past research has found that the justification of political systems depends upon how much these systems are perceived as having control over life outcomes, in Study 4 I tested whether the defense of the system of committed relationships would also increase when framed as controlling. Results from Studies 1–4 were consistent with my hypotheses, but only for men. In Study 5, using cross-cultural data, I sought to replicate these findings correlationally and probe for a cause of the gender effect. Results from over 33 000 respondents indicated a relationship (for men) between defense of the socio-political system and defense of marriage in countries where the traditional advantages of men over women were most threatened. In Studies 6 and 7, I investigated when the gender difference found in the earlier studies disappears. Results revealed that when I measured (Study 6) or manipulated (Study 7) personal relationship identity (i.e., how much relationships are part of the active self-concept), rather than relationship ideology, effects also emerge for women.

How do people cope when they feel uninformed or unable to understand important social issues, such as the environment, energy concerns, or the economy? One would intuitively expect that a lack of knowledge would motivate an increased, unbiased search for information, thereby facilitating participation and engagement in these issues – especially when they are consequential, pressing, and self-relevant. However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the importance/self-relevance of social issues and people’s willingness to engage with and learn about them. Drawing from the literature on System Justification Theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), I hypothesized that, rather than motivating an increased search for information, a lack of knowledge about a specific socio-political issue will (a) foster feelings of dependence on the government, which will (b) increase system justification and government trust, which will (c) increase desires to avoid learning about the relevant issue when information is negative or when information valence is unknown. In other words, I suggest that ignorance – as a function of the system justifying tendencies it may activate – may, ironically, breed more ignorance. The rational for these predictions is discussed in Chapter 1. Then, in the contexts of energy, environmental, and economic issues, I present seven studies that: (a) provide evidence for this specific psychological chain (i.e., ignorance about an issue → dependence → government trust → avoidance of information about that issue); (b) shed light on the role of threat and motivation in driving the second and third links in this chain; and (c) illustrate the unfortunate consequences of this process for individual action in those contexts that may need it most.

The purpose of this research was to examine how non-Aboriginal Canadians might respond if the label genocide is used to describe the historical mistreatment of the Aboriginal Peoples’ of Canada. In two studies, I manipulated the perception of Residential Schools as genocide by informing (or not informing) undergraduate student participants that some people believe what happened should be labeled genocide. I also assessed the potential moderating role of knowledge by either measuring participants’ pre-existing knowledge of Residential Schools or manipulating how much participants learned about Residential Schools through a passage. Overall, participants’ reactions to the label depended on what they knew about Residential Schools such that participants with a superficial level of knowledge responded defensively to a description of Residential Schools as genocide, while participants with no knowledge or high levels of knowledge responded positively. Findings provide theoretical insight into how knowledge affects perpetrator group members’ reactions to historical harms.

Hierarchies are a ubiquitous form of human social organization. I hypothesized that one reason for hierarchies’ prevalence might be that core motivational needs for order and control make hierarchies psychologically appealing—because of the structure they offer—relative to other, less structured forms of social organization. This hypothesis is rooted in compensatory control theory (Kay et al., 2008), which posits that individuals have a basic need to perceive the world as orderly and structured. Therefore, personal and external sources of control are substitutable, inasmuch as they both serve the superordinate goal of believing that the world operates in an orderly fashion. An initial study confirmed that hierarchies are perceived as more structured and orderly relative to egalitarian arrangements. In five subsequent experiments, I threatened participants’ sense of personal control to increase their need to rely on external structure. Participants who lacked control perceived more hierarchy occurring in ambiguous social situations (Study 2) and preferred hierarchy more strongly in business contexts (Studies 3-4). Two studies tested my account that hierarchies are appealing because of their structure. Preference for hierarchy was higher among individuals high in Personal Need for Structure (PNS), and control threat increased preference for hierarchy even among low-PNS participants (Study 4). Importantly, framing a hierarchy as unstructured reversed the previous effects, so that participants who lacked control now found hierarchy unappealing (Study 5). A final study found that hierarchy-enhancing careers were more appealing after control threat, even when those jobs were low-status (Study 6). I discuss how the compensatory control account for the allure of hierarchies complements and extends other influential theories of hierarchy maintenance, such as Social Dominance Theory and System Justification Theory.

The purpose of this research was to examine how non-Aboriginal Canadians might respond if the label genocide is used to describe the historical mistreatment of the Aboriginal Peoples’ of Canada. In two studies, I manipulated the perception of Residential Schools as genocide by informing (or not informing) undergraduate student participants that some people believe what happened should be labeled genocide. I also assessed the potential moderating role of knowledge by either measuring participants’ pre-existing knowledge of Residential Schools or manipulating how much participants learned about Residential Schools through a passage. Overall, participants’ reactions to the label depended on what they knew about Residential Schools such that participants with a superficial level of knowledge responded defensively to a description of Residential Schools as genocide, while participants with no knowledge or high levels of knowledge responded positively. Findings provide theoretical insight into how knowledge affects perpetrator group members’ reactions to historical harms.

Among the most notable trends of the last several decades in the United States have been the rise of corporate power, the entrenchment of neoliberalism, the rise in inequality, along with discussions regarding the ‘culture wars’ and the phenomenon of polarization. The onset of the neoliberal era has been accompanied and facilitated by a decades-long marketing campaign propagating the consistent narrative of individualism over the collective, that government is the problem rather than a solution to problems, while associating freedom exclusively with the market. This thesis project draws on critical theory, Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic power, discourse, narrative and communications theory, along with some insights from social psychology to examine the discursive shifting of the political spectrum that has occurred over the last four decades and has helped to entrench market fundamentalism as a hegemonic common sense. The thesis pays particular attention to the weaponization of the word ‘liberal’ and how this strategy has affected the understanding of the political spectrum and how the centre is currently framed. The research design I use to interrogate this entails a qualitative content analysis of various media sources noting how ‘common sense’ populist discourse, such as terms like ‘liberal’, are utilized by Republican operatives and conservative commentators, as well as by the mainstream media and the general public. Using a multi-disciplinary theoretical approach and a methodological framework provided by Stone and Parker, I deconstruct and analyze the narrative that has been built up around neoliberalism and how it can serve to reinforce neoliberalism as a little-questioned hegemonic paradigm, often by-passing cognition. Neoliberal logics reject the political in terms of participatory democracy, while still requiring a strong state to stabilize the economic order. The resulting erosion of democracy augurs the possibility of right-wing authoritarianism, exacerbates inequality, and promotes a growth model that is unsustainable ecologically / Graduate

No description available.