People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms.
Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.
Thus, the notion that individuals are simultaneously supporters and victims of the system-instilled norms is a central idea in system justification theory.
[1][2] Previous social psychological theories that aimed to explain intergroup behavior typically focused on the tendencies for people to have positive attitudes about themselves (ego-justification) and their self-relevant groups (group-justification).
[2] In other words, people are motivated to engage in behaviors that allow for them to maintain a high self-esteem and a positive image of their group.
Individuals with a high social dominance orientation (SDO) will hold myths that tend to be hierarchy-enhancing, which justify an in-group's place and their relation to it.
In other words, preference for stability, predictability, and the perception of personal control, over random chance, motivates one to see the status quo as fair and legitimate.
[3] Further, system justification emphasizes that those that lack means of material production (lower status) are subject to the ideas, (cultural values, legislation, and social teachings) of the dominant, controlling group.
One of the main aspects of system justification theory explains that people are motivated to justify the status quo and view it as stable and desirable.
System justification for seemingly inevitable and unavoidable outcomes serves as a stress or dissonance reducer and provides psychological and emotional consolation, as well as allowing the individual to feel a sense of control over external events.
When people perceive threats to the predominant system, they are more inclined to cling to and back the existing structure, and one way of doing so is by means of endorsing stereotypes that rationalize inequality.
As perceived legitimacy of the system or threat to it increases, members of both disadvantaged and advantaged groups will be more motivated to utilize stereotypes as explanatory rationalizations (no matter how weak) for unequal status differences.
Stereotypes also deflect blame of unfair status differences from the system and instead, attribute inequality to group traits or characteristics.
[3] System justification theorists argue that this is an example or manifestation of how some people have unconsciously absorbed, processed, and attempted to cope with existing inequalities—more specifically, one's own disadvantaged position in the social hierarchy.
System justification theorists have suggested that depressed entitlement is another general example of how individuals of low-status groups absorb their inferiority in order to justify the status quo.
[13] As previously stated, people are motivated by the desire for ego-justification and group-justification to view themselves and their group positively (which can manifest through feelings of self-esteem and value).
[2] The system-justification motive is people's desire to view the system or status quo in a favorable light as legitimate and fair.
Research has found that people with increased system justification motives are more resistant to change, and thus an implication of this would be greater difficulty to move towards policies, governments, authority figures, and hierarchies that reflect equality.
[19] Research suggests that system justification motives reduce emotional distress in people that would otherwise result in demands for amendments to perceived injustices or inequalities.
Researchers who have studied these reactions, found that the slow and inefficient response of relief efforts were perceived by some to expose "governmental shortcomings, call into question the legitimacy of agency leadership, and highlight racial inequality in America.
[2] In particular, since the majority of the communities affected by Hurricane Katrina were generally low-income and composed mostly of minorities, some people used stereotypes to blame the victims for their misfortune and restore legitimacy to the government.
[24][25][26] In 2019, a series of position and reply articles were published by proponents of both system justification theory[27][28] and SIMSA[29][30] in the debate section of the British Journal of Social Psychology.
Generally, the status quo bias refers to a tendency to prefer the default or established option when making choices.
Findings by researchers have shown that people with more conservative ideologies differed in certain brain structures, which was associated with sensitivity to threat and response conflict.
[35] Recent findings by researchers have shown that system justification motives to legitimize the status quo was found in young children.
System justification motives were also observed in that children from low-status groups were found to display implicit outgroup favoritism.