No description available.

Acknowledged as the defining challenge of our time, economic inequality has far reaching individual and societal consequences. It negatively affects productivity, decision-making, and health outcomes on the one hand, and political stability and economic growth on the other. Increased competition for resources not allocated at the top skews available reference frames and leads to adoption of unachievable standards, generating stressful social comparisons and anxiety that may intensify inter-group conflicts. Yet, as this dissertation shows on data from surveys from across the world, many of the worse off tend to believe that the social world in general is fair and that large differences in incomes are justified and even necessary. To understand why and how are the widespread and entrenched differences in incomes and wealth not being contested at a larger scale, this dissertations links perceptions and judgments of economic inequalities to their perceived, and often misjudged, normativity. It is argued that there is a need for a greater attention and understanding of people’s beliefs about what are the popular opinions and shared values regarding political issues. It is not only that people not know of inequalities, underestimate them, or attempt to rationalize their existence as fair and deserved. It is that people also need to know that their sentiments are shared by others. Based on results of multiple experimental studies, this thesis explored and supported a possibility that people who believe that the unequal status quo is unsatisfactory and that the standing system should be challenged and changed also tend to believe that their views are not shared by the general population. Even more, such thinking tends to get reinforced when someone else is critical of the system in place. Thus, instead of rising in spirit and assuming that others will finally see at least some of the negative outcomes of the way things are, those hoping for change may get demoralized, feel isolated in their views, and may feel drawn to compromises they shouldn't need to consider. In particular, the dissertation mainly utilizes the framework of conservatism being a motivated political cognition (Jost et al., 2003) which proposes that adoption of system-legitimizing attitudes may be motivated by psychological needs to see the social world as orderly, structured, and generally just and fair. In four chapters, the dissertations explores how the conditions theorized to motivate adoption of status-legitimizing attitudes affect not only these attitudes, but also the perceptions of their normativeness. Chapter 2 presents a comprehensive test of the original reading of status-legitimacy hypothesis (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Ni Sullivan, 2003) which implied that those with lower objective status are the most motivated to system-justify, and of the re-specified version (van der Toorn et al., 2015) that posits subjective powerlessness to be the driver of undue system legitimization. Presented are results of a mixed-effects analysis of ISSP data on social inequality, covering almost 50,000 respondents from 28 countries. The results from analysis testing contextual moderation lend more support for the original, rather than the revised reading of status-legitimacy hypothesis - that it is the objectively disadvantaged who may experience greater motivation to defend the system. Chapter 3 adopts Lane's (1986) perspective explaining that political institutions create more dissonance than market institutions, and tests a proposition that while political institutions will be perceived as legitimate by the members of the lower classes, market institutions will be seen as less legitimate. Second, we hypothesize that those over and under-estimating their social class should report higher or lower perceived legitimacy of the system. Analysis of data from General Social Survey (2010-2016; total n = 4142) shows that those in lower classes report higher confidence in political, but not market institutions compared to those members of the upper classes. Similarly, relative to those under- or correctly estimating their class, those over-estimating their class positioning reported higher confidence in political compared to market institutions. Chapter 4 presents two experimental studies testing, on a sample of 201 students (in Tilburg, the Netherlands), how indirect threat to the country's culture and a direct criticism of the country's economic performance influence people's perceptions of attitudinal similarity with their society in general depending on their prior ideological views. The results suggest that those with views critical of the standing socio-political system imagine their co-nationals as more attitudinally different compared to those who consider the standing system to be fair and desirable. In particular, exposure to economic threat, but not cultural threat, increased the perceived ideological distance from the presumed attitudes of the rest of the society among those critical of the system, but not among those who considered the system to be fair and desirable as it is. Chapter 5 presents data from two studies conducted before and after the 2016 US Presidential election (mTurk, n = 478), and before and after the 2017 UK general election (Prolific Academic, n = 617). Data were gathered in two rounds, utilizing the same between-subjects experimental design to assess whether ideological differences moderate how threat (economic system threat) and uncertainty (outcome uncertainty about election) influence the perceived similarity between people's personal normative attitudes (how things should be) and their estimates of socially normative attitudes (what they believe others would say should be). Furthermore, the effect of the result of the election on beliefs about the legitimacy of the standing economic system among supporters of competing political parties was assessed in two studies using within-subjects design (US n = 80; UK n = 329). The findings support the hypothesis that ideology predicts differences in perception of the generalized other when faced with system threat and that people bolster their ideological commitments following threats to their worldview in form of electoral defeat. While liberals tend to overestimate the strength of conservative values within the society in general, conservatives view others as both more conservative and liberal compared to themselves.

The aim of this thesis was to investigate the relationship of ambivalent sexism toward women and men and system justification with understanding of honor and attitudes toward violence against women for protecting honor. 351 undergraduate students from METU, Ankara and Gazi University participated in the study (180 females and 166 males). Participants&amp / #8217 / ages ranged from 17 to 30 (M=21.56). Data was collected by a questionnaire consisting of Understanding of Honor Scale / Attitudes toward Violence against Women for Protecting Honor Scale / Ambivalent Sexism Inventory which has two subscales of Hostile Sexism (HS) and Benevolent Sexism (BS) / and Ambivalence toward Men Inventory which has two subscales of Hostility toward Men and Benevolence toward Men (BM) / and Economic System Justification Scale and demographic information. Seperate linear regression analyses for males and females were performed in order to compare their responses. Results showed that among males, higher levels of HS and BM / and lower levels of HM / and among females, higher levels of BM and system justification predicted higher tendency to relate honor with women&amp / #8217 / s virginity and holding men responsible for protecting it. Regarding attitudes toward violence against women for protecting honor, males&amp / #8217 / scores were positively associated with BM, whereas females&amp / #8217 / scores were positively associated with BM and ESJ scores. The thesis aims to contribute to the literature by (1) investigating the concept of honor which has not been delt with in psychology literature / (2) introducing two newly developed scales: Understanding of Honor Scale and Attitudes toward Violence against Women for Protecting Honor Scale / and (3) making use of ambivalence toward men and women, and system justification theory while investigating the topic.

No description available.

This dissertation argues that public opinion regarding the acceptability and desirability of income differences is affected by actual income inequality. Cross-national survey evidence is combined with laboratory and survey experiments to show that estimates regarding appropriate income differences depend on (perceptions of) real income differences. When income inequality changes, public opinion "habituates" by adjusting expectations for fair levels of inequality in the same direction as the factual change. The adjustment occurs because humans are subject to status quo bias and have a motivated tendency to believe in a just world. In the context of increasing inequality in developed democracies over the last 40 years, the implication is that normative expectations for appropriate levels of inequality have adjusted up. This habituation process helps explain why increases in inequality have not been accompanied by increased demands for redistribution and why cross-national variation in income inequality is not clearly linked to public opposition to such inequality. / Government

Les recherches historiques montrent que les croyances en la fin du monde (CFM) sont très anciennes et qu’elles s’adaptent aux cultures et aux époques en fonction de certains risques perçus par les groupes sociaux (Boia, 1999). Sur cette base cette thèse fait l'hypothèse générale d'un système de croyances déjà structuré intégrant ces CFM, système dont l'équilibre pourrait évoluer sous l'influence de certaines peurs humaines. La première partie de ce travail postule donc l'existence d'un système de pensée intégrant les CFM. A partir de questionnaires (881 participants), nous avons pu mettre en évidence trois modalités de CFM : la fin du monde écologique (responsabilité humaine), la fin du monde scientifique (éloignement temporel et totalité), et la fin du monde religieuse (cause religieuse et meilleur monde possible). Chacune de ces modalités est liée de manière spécifique à diverses façons de justifier le monde : les Croyances en un Monde Juste (notamment la Justice Finale et la Justice Immanente ; Maes, 1998), la Justification du Système (Kay & Jost, 2003), la Religion et la Spiritualité. C'est ce système que nous nous efforçons de "déséquilibrer" dans la deuxième partie en intégrant les apports de la Psychologie Existentielle Expérimentale (Greenberg, Koole & Pyszczynski, 2004). Selon la littérature, l’individu mis dans une situation de « menace existentielle » (i.e. Mort et Incertitude) a besoin de se raccrocher à des croyances rassurantes. Nous émettons donc l'hypothèse selon laquelle ces menaces bouleversent la structure de croyances de l’individu. Nos résultats (245 participants) confirment en partie cette idée, et indiquent aussi l’importance de mesurer les affects. Pour résumer, cette thèse montre l'existence et le fonctionnement d'un système de croyances capable de se déséquilibrer sous l'influence de menaces existentielles et de l’état émotionnel. / Historical research show that beliefs in the end of the world (BEW) are very ancient and that they are culturally guided through the risks that are perceived by social groups (Boia, 1999). Thus, this thesis makes the hypothesis that there is a beliefs structure which integrates BEW, and that this structure could evolve with human fears. The first part of the present study suggests that there is a beliefs system that integrates BEW. 881 participants answered to a questionnaire, and results have shown three main BEW: ecological end of the world (human responsibility), scientific end of the world (totality and temporal distance), and religious end of the world (religious causality and possibility of a better world). Each of these beliefs is linked with specific ways of justifying the present world: Beliefs in a Just World (particularly Ultimate Justice and Immanent Justice, Maes, 1998), System Justification (Kay & Jost, 2003), Religion and Spirituality. In the second part of this study, we used the Experimental Existential Psychology to make this beliefs system unbalanced (Greenberg, Koole & Pyszczynski, 2004). According to this theory, individual faced to an “existential threat” (i.e. Death and Uncertainty) needs to cling on to reassuring beliefs. Thus, we made the hypothesis that these existential threats would have an effect on the beliefs system analyzed previously. Results have partially confirmed this hypothesis (on 245 participants) and brought new information about the importance of measuring emotional state. To summarize, this thesis shows the existence of a beliefs system, how it works, and how existential threats and emotional state can unbalance this beliefs system.

<p>Intergroup relations are characterised by favourable and unfavourable biases. Towards one’s own group these biases are mostly favourable – ingroup favouritism. Research has, however, shown that outgroup favouritism, that is, the preference for a group to which the person does not belong, also permeates intergroup relations. Several theories such as social identity theory, social dominance theory, and system justification theory offer explanations of the dynamics of intergroup relations and biases. Despite not strictly being a theory of intergroup relations, right-wing authoritarianism also offers an explanation of intergroup bias by accounting for prejudice and ethnocentrism. Likewise, ideological conservatism has been shown to influence intergroup relations. </p><p>Based within these theories, this dissertation attempts to explain the social-psychological mechanisms regulating in- and outgroup favouritism. More specifically, Study I examines issues of power and legitimacy in relation to social perception and gender. Studies II and III examine the relationships between social psychological variables and affirmative action, which is aimed at diminishing inequalities between social groups. Together, the studies showed that gender plays a role in intergroup bias, both as an independent variable and as an object of social discrimination. Conservative ideologies predicted ingroup favouritism, but variably. Attitudes towards affirmative action were influenced by the way this issue is semantically framed. The results are discussed in relation to the theories of intergroup relations exposed above and the pertinent issue of attitude ambivalence in understanding outgroup favouritism.</p>

Intergroup relations are characterised by favourable and unfavourable biases. Towards one’s own group these biases are mostly favourable – ingroup favouritism. Research has, however, shown that outgroup favouritism, that is, the preference for a group to which the person does not belong, also permeates intergroup relations. Several theories such as social identity theory, social dominance theory, and system justification theory offer explanations of the dynamics of intergroup relations and biases. Despite not strictly being a theory of intergroup relations, right-wing authoritarianism also offers an explanation of intergroup bias by accounting for prejudice and ethnocentrism. Likewise, ideological conservatism has been shown to influence intergroup relations. Based within these theories, this dissertation attempts to explain the social-psychological mechanisms regulating in- and outgroup favouritism. More specifically, Study I examines issues of power and legitimacy in relation to social perception and gender. Studies II and III examine the relationships between social psychological variables and affirmative action, which is aimed at diminishing inequalities between social groups. Together, the studies showed that gender plays a role in intergroup bias, both as an independent variable and as an object of social discrimination. Conservative ideologies predicted ingroup favouritism, but variably. Attitudes towards affirmative action were influenced by the way this issue is semantically framed. The results are discussed in relation to the theories of intergroup relations exposed above and the pertinent issue of attitude ambivalence in understanding outgroup favouritism.

Background - Women are underrepresented in top management positions all over the globe. This also applies to Sweden, despite the country's long progressive and high material prosperity. This situation is particularly evident in the banking sector, where women represent approximately half of the workforce. However, in the four largest banks in Sweden, women only occupy 33,25 percent in the highest management teams and 34,5 percent on the boards. This phenomenon is often referred to as “the glass ceiling,” a set of barriers that hinder women’s accessibility to top management positions. This underrepresentation is, in turn, likely to result in a loss of potential human resources due to organizations not searching for competent candidates in approximately half of the population. Further, banks are associated with a lot of power in the society, where they have a significant impact, with a critical role in the economy, contributing to financial growth. Initiatives by for instance the EU Commission to increase gender diversity are on the high agenda. Consequently, the subject of understanding and overcoming these barriers stands high on the agenda of both politicians and researchers. Purpose - The purpose of this study is to identify barriers among women toward reaching top management positions in the commercial banking sector, as well as how women in top management positions have overcome them. By investigating the barriers and how women overcome them, we will contribute with a deeper understanding and meaningful insights to political and managerial practitioners on how they can identify and help women overcome the barriers. The foundation of the theoretical framework in this study will be based on Becker’s (1957) theory of discrimination, Social role theory, and System justification theory will lay the foundation of the theoretical framework in this study. Method - This study is based on qualitative research with a multiple case study in the banking sector in Sweden. Conclusion - We conclude that the most common barriers are based on stereotypical beliefs, the balance between private life and work, biases and discrimination, and organizational culture and structure. How to overcome these barriers is built on supporting organizations, an equal private life situation, and specifically identified personality traits.

No description available.