126:
self-stereotyping is an expression of outgroup favoritism or whether it should be operationalized and studied as an independent, but related concepts. On the one hand, several authors argue that, because outgroup favoritism is operationalized as a motive instead of a behavior or attitude, negative self-stereotyping is a clear behavioral and attitudinal expression of an underlying outgroup preference motive that is itself the product of internalized inferiority (essentially, that the stereotyping behavior can't occur without a motive and the motive itself can't be measured independent of its behavioral correlate). Jost explicitly states that it is “not that people have a special motivation to favor the outgroup merely because it is an outgroup. Rather, outgroup favoritism is seen as one manifestation of the tendency to internalize and thus perpetuate the system of inequality." Furthermore, given that system justification theory is motivation-based, some scholars propose that behavioral and attitudinal constructs like negative self-stereotyping would not be appropriate to consider independently of their motives in a purely motive-based understanding of system justification.
253:, Jost and colleagues refuted this idea as incorrectly equating outgroup favoritism with the accurate perception of an unjust reality. The main argument being that outgroup favoritism goes beyond simply acknowledging that a system is unjust or unfair, but rather demonstrates a motivated preference for the prioritization of a group outside of one’s own. Citing the work on implicit associations, negative self-stereotyping, and depressed entitlement, Jost and his colleagues emphasize that if outgroup favoritism was merely an expression of accurate social perception, scholars would not have observed the cognitive mechanisms people employ whilst expressing outgroup favoritism if it did not serve some system-justifying function above and beyond a social-identity one. Rubin and colleagues have since responded by clarifying their position, arguing that they were not equating outgroup favoritism with acceptance of an unjust social reality but rather accurate perception. Jost and his colleagues have yet to respond.
122:. For an example of how this works (and the proposed connections to outgroup favoritism): Burkley and Blanton conducted a 2008 study in which they asked men and women to complete a math test. All participants received failure feedback and were additionally asked to complete a stereotype endorsement measure with the order of these two components varying across conditions. The authors found that women were far more likely to embrace a negative stereotype about gendered math ability after receiving failure feedback, which they interpret as supporting the notion that individuals will palliatively leverage negative stereotypes against their own group. Extending this work, other scholars in this area have conducted studies on how women will negatively self-stereotype themselves as lacking a wide range of “masculine” traits or competencies after being exposed to information that threatens a gendered status quo.
151:
any of the eight dimensions, indicating that the objective quality of the thought-lists did not differ based on the gender of the author. However, when participants evaluated and paid themselves for their thought-list contributions, women's self-ratings were significantly lower than men's self-ratings on the dimensions of self-payment and insight. According to Jost, the finding that the independent judges did not perceive any differences in the quality of thought-lists generated by men and women, but women evaluated and paid themselves differently by rating their own contributions lower than men demonstrated the "depressed-entitlement effect" observed in previous research. Specifically, that depressed entitlement may be the cognitive mechanism that leads to the expression of outgroup preference (though, like most dimensions of system justification theory, this is a matter of academic debate).
220:
since this study other scholars have examined the relationships between implicit “anti-Black” bias, the centrality of social identity, and psychological health. These studies found that while Black participants with higher levels of anti-Black bias were found to be at higher risk for depression, this outcome varied as a function of the amount of racial discrimination they perceived to begin with. Such findings support the dual-outcome model of outgroup favoritism (particularly for minority groups). On the one hand, outgroup favoritism can lead to benefits by allowing individuals to justify systems of inequality. Yet once the evidence that inequality exists becomes salient enough, such tendencies actually lead to decreases in psychological well-being as individuals begin to attribute perceived discrimination internally (i.e., to themselves) rather than externally.
134:
self-stereotyping and outgroup favoritism allows individuals to justify existing inequality. Scholars have found that for both constructs, the perception that preservation of the status quo is the most important goal within a society has the detrimental side-effect of reducing the drive to challenge or change existing discriminatory systems by relieving an individual of his/her/their personal responsibility to engage in such efforts. Due to the similarities in outcomes for both constructs, research has trended toward looking at negative self-stereotyping and outgroup favoritism as interactive system justification components, but this is an area still under discussion.
229:
that the need to justify the systemic status quo is sufficiently powerful that people will endorse ideologies and practices supportive of "the norm" even when these ideologies and practices run counter to their own interests. Yet, in a debate that continues to the present day, outgroup favoritism has been critiqued as contradicting the long-standing idea that strong identification with the group on an individual level will generate the opposite (i.e., individuals are motivated to preserve a positive image of their own group. Specifically, critics argue that the instances of outgroup favoritism thus far observed within the literature are best attributed to
207:. Given the complexity of meritocracy as a concept, researchers have historically focused on the role of meritocratic beliefs in informing prejudices and biases. For example, several sociological and psychological scholars have found that meritocratic beliefs are correlated with increased prejudice and discrimination on the basis of aspects of social identity like gender or educational status. In terms of outgroup favoritism, researchers have proposed that meritocratic beliefs serve a similar role to those of just world beliefs, meaning that meritocratic beliefs may serve as a form of ideological foundation leading to an increase in outgroup preference.
181:
outcomes. Participants are then asked to evaluate the victims and assign responsibility or blame for their situation. These studies often manipulate the severity of the outcome or the perceived innocence of the victim to examine how these factors influence participants' reactions. Extensions of this work typically involve manipulating factors such as the attractiveness or likability of the victim, the presence of empathy instructions, or the level of personal involvement in the situation. These studies consistently show that people are more likely to derogate innocent victims when they perceive the world as just and orderly.
72:
is strongly associated with the endorsement of negative stereotypes on the implicit level and opposition to same-sex marriage, even amongst sexual minority groups. While the exact interpretation of these findings is still a topic of debate within the system justification literature, this study is one of the most widely cited within the academic community for demonstrating that even groups disadvantaged by the (in this case, legal) structures of the existing status quo will express and employ negative stereotypes about their own group and oppose policies that appear to contradict their own interests.
97:, a task in which participants are asked to sort members of specific categories (e.g., race) into specific evaluative categories (e.g., good/bad). One common method for capturing outgroup favoritism is via the implicit association test, the idea being that minority group members exist within a societal context that repeatedly reinforces their minority (and commonly, inferior) status. Scholars argue that this repeated exposure embeds rationalizing social inequality on an automatic level such that outgroup preference expresses itself most saliently using implicit measures.
55:. According to Jost and Banaji, system justification theory is constructed around the notion that people have three basic needs: 1) a need for certainty and meaning, 2) a need for safety and security, and 3) a need for a shared reality (i.e., epistemic, existential, and relational needs). Taking inspiration from the immense body of work already examining how people justify their experiences to themselves one the individual and group levels, Jost and Banaji additionally proposed that people meet these three needs on a systemic level.
68:
policies or structures that favor socially advantaged groups. Scholars have examined group-level expressions of out-group favoritism along dimensions ranging from political ideology to economic status to gender. For example, in one of the classic (albeit, somewhat debated) studies, Mark
Hoffarth and John Jost analyzed two different samples of sexual minority participants to examine the relationship between implicit stereotypic attitudes about sexual minorities, political orientation, and support for same-sex marriage.
216:
correlate with a number of different detrimental psychological outcomes under specific conditions. Specifically, that while outgroup favoritism and other system justification motives serve palliative functions, there is a point at which reality/perception incongruence inhibits this palliative effect. Outgroup favoritism appears to be beneficial to psychological wellbeing depending on the individual’s level of internalization of dominant ideologies and their awareness of system rigidity.
246:
groups. In 2023, Rubin and colleagues posited a new model for understanding outgroup favoritism within the context of social identity theory (of which ingroup favoritism is a core component). They termed this new model the Social
Identity Model of System Attitudes (SIMSA). Within SISMA, the authors propose that outgroup favoritism is instead best understood as a functional adaptation that fulfills a social-identity-based need to perceived the social world in an accurate way.
101:
that their partner would either be Black or White. Participants were then asked to rate their partner in terms of performance expectations and likability. The authors found that for stereotypically “White” tasks, African
Americans implicitly favored Whites, giving them higher performance evaluations and likability—the implication being that, in strongly racially-stereotyped contexts, individuals from minority groups will implicitly express outgroup favoritism.
130:
nature of this debate is not helped by the research indicating that both negative self-stereotyping and outgroup favoritism engender similar beneficial and detrimental outcomes. For example, many scholars’ findings support that both negative self-stereotyping and outgroup favoritism have similarly palliative effects by allowing individuals within unjust systems to rationalize the status quo as fair and valid (in line with system justification theory).
143:
important cognitive mechanisms for reconciling outgroup favoritism is a depressed sense of what a given individual deserves. Essentially, in order to hold the idea that the outgroup is more favorable and therefore more deserving of specific outcomes that preserve the status quo, the oppressed ingroup must rationalize these beliefs with a depressed sense of entitlement to various cognitive, social, and psychological resources within a system.
59:
existential, and relational needs on a systemic level, sometimes above and beyond the individual and group-levels. Thus, conceptualized within a system justification theory framework, outgroup favoritism is best understood as an expression of how people are motivated to defend/preserve the status quo of a given system even when the normative ideologies and practices run counter to their own interests.
177:, the researchers asked participants to observe a confederate receiving electric shocks. The severity of the shocks and the innocence of the victim were manipulated. The researchers found that participants tended to derogate the victim more when the shocks were severe, suggesting that people are more likely to blame innocent victims when the outcomes are more negative.
147:
efforts. The thought-lists were then rated by two independent judges (one woman and one man) who were unaware of the hypotheses and the gender of the participants. The judges evaluated the thought-lists on seven dimensions: meaningfulness, logicality, sophistication, vividness, persuasiveness, originality, and insightfulness.
81:
specifically from those of system-justifying motives more broadly. Consequently, much of the literature in this area tends to focus on how outgroup favoritism interacts with other components of system justification theory such as negative self-stereotyping, depressed entitlement, and the role of individual beliefs.
215:
The third stream of literature on outgroup favoritism is dedicated to examining the consequences minority group members might bear as a result of holding implicit preferences for outgroup members. Numerous studies examining members of minority groups have found that expressions of outgroup favoritism
150:
The purpose of this rating procedure was to ensure that there were no differences in the objective quality of thought-lists generated by men and women. Jost found that the independent judges perceived no differences in quality between thought-lists written by men and thought-lists written by women on
47:
observed that the existing theories of ego-justification (i.e., the utilization of stereotypes as a means to protect the self) and group justification (i.e., the utilization of stereotypes to protect the status of a given social group) could not adequately explain why members of a given ingroup would
172:
proposes that individuals have a need to believe that their environment is a just and orderly place where people usually get what they deserve. In confirming the existence of this cognitive bias, Lerner and
Simmons conducted what has now become the classic study in the just world fallacy literature.
142:
Within the psychological literature, entitlement is defined as the judgments people make about their deservingness of specific outcomes based upon their identity or their actions. In 1997, as part of the evolving solidification of system justification theory, Jost and Banaji proposed that one of the
133:
Specifically, this work finds that both constructs provide the positive effect of buffering one's self-image against personal and social threats. Additionally in line with the “as sub-components” argument, research has demonstrated that the rationalization that occurs as a product from both negative
129:
On the other hand, those that consider negative self-stereotyping as a separate construct under the system justification umbrella note that negative self-stereotyping mediates similar outcomes to outgroup favoritism regardless of whether outgroup favoritism is considered as a variable. The amorphous
219:
To exemplify how this works: a 2007 study examining the psychological health of 316 Black undergraduates found that implicit outgroup favoritism (i.e., African
American students implicitly favoring Whites) is correlated with increased depression and lower overall psychological functioning. However,
184:
In terms of outgroup favoritism, researchers have proposed that just world beliefs potentially contribute to the expression of favorable attitudes toward advantaged groups. Specifically, some researchers propose that just world beliefs serve as an ideological foundation for outgroup favoritism, the
71:
Across two samples, the authors found a three-way interaction across the implicit association of sexual minorities with negative stereotypes, conservative political ideology, and support of same-sex marriage. Specifically, they found support for their original hypotheses that political conservatism
100:
For an example of how this operates, Ashburn-Nardo and
Johnson (2008) recruited 110 African-American undergraduate students and asked them to categorize faces across two categories: Black/White and pleasant/unpleasant. After completing the IAT task, participants were presented with a task and told
22:
is a social psychological construct intended to capture why some socially disadvantaged groups will express favorable attitudes (and even preferences) toward social, cultural, or ethnic groups other than their own. Considered by many psychologists as part of a variety of system-justifying motives,
245:
This perspective is echoed in some of the broader critiques of system justification theory—particularly those emphasizing that a need for “social accuracy” and a “positively distinct social identity” are sufficient to explain the expression of outgroup favoritism observed by members of low-status
228:
As somewhat alluded to in the previous sections, academics are continuing to discuss the nature of system justification theory (and by extension, outgroup favoritism). Considering outgroup favoritism as part of the broader ecosystem of system justification theory means accepting the basic premise
146:
The classic study in this area was conducted by Jost in 1997. Jost recruited 132 undergraduate students (68 men and 64 women) from Yale
College. The participants were asked to generate "open-ended thought-lists" in response to a prompt and later evaluate the quality and deservingness of their own
67:
The current research on this phenomenon tends to fall into three dominant streams. The first of these examines assessments of outgroup favoritism on the group attitude level. Work in this area commonly involves asking members of socially disadvantaged groups the extent to which they would support
58:
Contrary to the long-standing idea that strong identification with the group on an individual level will generate the opposite (i.e., individuals are motivated to preserve a positive image of their own group), system justification theory is founded upon the idea that people meet their epistemic,
180:
Given the advances in ethics in the social sciences that constrain such methodologies, but still inspired by Lerner and
Simmons' original work, current research in this area commonly involves presenting participants with scenarios or vignettes that involve innocent victims experiencing negative
80:
The second predominant stream within the literature investigates the potential mechanisms and correlated constructs that might fuel the behaviors characteristic of outgroup-favoritism-based motivations. In this area, scholars have struggled to isolate the mechanisms behind outgroup favoritism
125:
However, similar to Jost and
Hoffarth’s analyses of conservative sexual minority members, scholars are continuing to critique how negative self-stereotyping interacts with outgroup favoritism. Though many agree that the two share close links, there is an ongoing debate as to whether negative
109:
Negative self-stereotyping refers to the idea that members of various groups will express or endorse group stereotypes about fellow members of their own group that are unflattering and even outright harmful. While much of this work is concentrated on examining
185:
logic being that in a just and fair hierarchical system, a position of advantage is internally attributable to the members of the advantaged group (i.e., advantaged group members must deserve what they have because the world is a fair place).
23:
outgroup favoritism has been widely researched as a potential explanation for why groups—particularly those disadvantaged by the normative social hierarchy—are motivated to support, maintain, and preserve the status quo. Specifically,
2059:"Rejoinder to Rubin, Owuamalam, Spears, and Caricati (2023): Ideology is not accuracy; identity is not everything; and the social identity model of social attitudes does not explain system justification, it presupposes it"
93:’s dictionary, implicit association captures the subconscious attitudinal associations people express toward various object/evaluative pairings. The most common method of capturing these underlying attitudes is via the
998:"A social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system justification by the disadvantaged that do not depend on a separate system justification motive"
1748:
2000:
Chae, David H.; Powell, Wizdom A.; Nuru-Jeter, Amani M.; Smith-Bynum, Mia A.; Seaton, Eleanor K.; Forman, Tyrone A.; Turpin, Rodman; Sellers, Robert (November 2017).
115:
1711:
Komáromy, Zsuzsa; János, Réka (2019-06-30). "Does long-term focus increase victim-blaming? A study on the just-world hypothesis using the modified Stroop task".
882:"Why do women support socio-economic systems that favour men more? A registered test of system justification- and social identity-inspired hope explanations"
824:"When Ideology Contradicts Self-Interest: Conservative Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Among Sexual Minorities—A Commentary on Pinsof and Haselton (2016)"
2002:"The Role of Racial Identity and Implicit Racial Bias in Self-Reported Racial Discrimination: Implications for Depression Among African American Men"
372:"Why Do People from Low-Status Groups Support Class Systems that Disadvantage Them? A Test of Two Mainstream Explanations in Malaysia and Australia"
198:
197:
as a system that rewards individuals based on what they accomplish within said system. Specifically, the term was first credited to the sociologist
1848:"System Justification's Opposite Effects on Psychological Wellbeing: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model in a Gay Men and Lesbian Sample in Chile"
1332:"The Mental Health Stereotype About Gay Men: The Relation Between Gay Men's Self-Stereotype and Stereotypes About Heterosexual Women and Lesbians"
39:
In a 1994 review of the existing literature on the ideas people employ to legitimize and support ideas, structures, and behaviors, psychologists
51:
Thus, it was arguably out of the attempt to explain the phenomena of outgroup favoritism that led to the development of what would later become
2161:
1627:"Predicting Prosocial Behavior Toward Sex-Trafficked Persons: The Roles of Empathy, Belief in a Just World, and Attitudes Toward Prostitution"
2176:
1468:
600:
250:
1950:"For Better or Worse? System-Justifying Beliefs in Sixth-Grade Predict Trajectories of Self-Esteem and Behavior Across Early Adolescence"
90:
2166:
1903:"The Effects of System Justifying Beliefs on Skin-Tone Surveillance, Skin-Color Dissatisfaction, and Skin-Bleaching Behavior"
1449:"From Social Inequality to Personal Entitlement: the Role of Social Comparisons, Legitimacy Appraisals, and Group Membership"
48:
express negative stereotypes about themselves, often times leveraging these in contexts that disadvantaged their own group.
2181:
203:
52:
320:"System justification motivation as a source of backlash against equality-promoting policies—and what to do about it"
280:
114:, scholars have demonstrated that negative self-stereotyping occurs across a variety of social identities including
31:, which proposes that individuals exhibit a preference for members of their own group over members of the outgroup.
1767:"Educationism and the irony of meritocracy: Negative attitudes of higher educated people towards the less educated"
2151:
94:
1189:"Endorsing a negative in-group stereotype as a self-protective strategy: Sacrificing the group to save the self"
2156:
2057:
Jost, John T.; Bertin, Jeannine Alana; Javeed, Ali; Liaquat, Usman; Rivera
Pichardo, Eduardo J. (2023-07-03).
623:"Stereotypes as justifications for prior intergroup discrimination: Studies of Scottish national stereotyping"
880:
Owuamalam, Chuma Kevin; Caricati, Luca; Rubin, Mark; Matos, Andrea Soledad; Spears, Russell (December 2021).
770:"The Antipathy of Black Nationalism: Behavioral and Attitudinal Implications of an African American Ideology"
671:"System justification theory at 25: Evaluating a paradigm shift in psychology and looking towards the future"
535:"A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications"
1765:
Kuppens, Toon; Spears, Russell; Manstead, Antony S. R.; Spruyt, Bram; Easterbrook, Matthew J. (2018-05-01).
729:"Stereotypes from the Inside: Chinese International Students' Experiences with Peers' Outgroup Favoritism"
230:
1742:
2106:"Social identity explanations of system justification: Misconceptions, criticisms, and clarifications"
1766:
1448:
1188:
423:
2058:
1847:
1490:
193:
In a similar vein to just world beliefs, the American Psychological Association’s dictionary defines
24:
1626:
670:
534:
2191:
2186:
1275:"Academic Race Stereotypes, Academic Self-Concept, and Racial Centrality in African American Youth"
1099:
28:
1048:"Implicit Outgroup Favoritism and Intergroup Judgment: The Moderating Role of Stereotypic Context"
2086:
1930:
1883:
1654:
1518:
1255:
1227:
1149:
1127:
1075:
969:
909:
859:
797:
706:
562:
506:
451:
399:
347:
169:
1537:
1330:
Boysen, Guy A.; Fisher, Mary; DeJesus, Michael; Vogel, David L.; Madon, Stephanie (April 2011).
370:
Owuamalam, Chuma Kevin; Rubin, Mark; Spears, Russell; Weerabangsa, Maas Misha'ari (March 2017).
1674:"The just world hypothesis as an argumentative resource in debates about unemployment benefits"
371:
319:
2127:
2078:
2039:
2021:
1979:
1971:
1922:
1875:
1867:
1828:
1786:
1730:
1693:
1646:
1604:
1596:
1557:
1510:
1464:
1429:
1409:
1390:
1351:
1312:
1294:
1247:
1208:
1169:
1119:
1067:
1019:
961:
953:
901:
851:
843:
789:
750:
698:
690:
642:
596:
554:
498:
490:
443:
391:
339:
300:
2117:
2070:
2029:
2013:
1961:
1914:
1859:
1820:
1778:
1720:
1685:
1638:
1588:
1549:
1502:
1456:
1421:
1410:"Minority Members' Implicit Attitudes: Automatic Ingroup Bias As A Function Of Group Status"
1382:
1343:
1302:
1286:
1273:
Okeke, Ndidi A.; Howard, Lionel C.; Kurtz-Costes, Beth; Rowley, Stephanie J. (August 2009).
1239:
1200:
1161:
1150:""Women Like Me Are Bad at Math": The Psychological Functions of Negative Self-Stereotyping"
1111:
1059:
1009:
945:
893:
835:
781:
740:
682:
634:
588:
546:
482:
435:
383:
331:
292:
281:"The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness"
165:
1902:
933:
823:
470:
174:
119:
44:
1673:
1370:
881:
2171:
2034:
2001:
1506:
1307:
1274:
296:
1460:
1228:"Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping"
622:
2145:
2090:
1934:
1658:
1576:
1522:
1259:
1115:
1079:
913:
455:
403:
351:
1887:
1131:
973:
863:
710:
566:
510:
2104:
Rubin, Mark; Owuamalam, Chuma Kevin; Spears, Russell; Caricati, Luca (2023-07-03).
996:
Rubin, Mark; Kevin Owuamalam, Chuma; Spears, Russell; Caricati, Luca (2023-07-03).
728:
234:
2122:
2105:
2074:
1863:
1642:
1014:
997:
1553:
1425:
1331:
194:
1809:"Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes"
1782:
1347:
1204:
439:
1243:
1063:
934:"When Self-Interest Contradicts Ideology: A Reply to Hoffarth and Jost (2017)"
2131:
2082:
2025:
2017:
1975:
1926:
1918:
1871:
1832:
1790:
1734:
1697:
1650:
1600:
1561:
1514:
1491:"An Experimental Replication of the Depressed-Entitlement Effect Among Women"
1433:
1394:
1355:
1298:
1290:
1251:
1212:
1173:
1123:
1071:
1023:
957:
949:
905:
847:
839:
793:
754:
694:
646:
580:
558:
494:
486:
447:
395:
343:
304:
1824:
1047:
745:
592:
40:
2043:
1983:
1879:
1808:
1316:
965:
855:
702:
502:
424:"Simultaneous ingroup and outgroup favoritism in implicit social cognition"
1608:
1538:"Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead"
1725:
1577:"Observer's reaction to the "innocent victim": Compassion or rejection?"
1408:
Rudman, Laurie A.; Feinberg, Joshua; Fairchild, Kimberly (August 2002).
1966:
1949:
1165:
801:
769:
686:
550:
387:
335:
1689:
1386:
897:
1625:
Silver, Kristin E.; Karakurt, Gunnur; Boysen, Sarah T. (2015-09-14).
1592:
111:
1948:
Godfrey, Erin B.; Santos, Carlos E.; Burson, Esther (January 2019).
785:
669:
Osborne, Danny; Sengupta, Nikhil K.; Sibley, Chris G. (April 2019).
638:
469:
Govorun, Olesya; Fuegen, Kathleen; Payne, B. Keith (June 2006).
318:
Liaquat, Usman; Jost, John T.; Balcetis, Emily (January 2023).
1100:"Antecedents and Consequences of System-Justifying Ideologies"
237:(which inherently elevate the status of the dominant group).
1369:
Laurin, Kristin; Gaucher, Danielle; Kay, Aaron (June 2013).
422:
Axt, Jordan R.; Moran, Tal; Bar-Anan, Yoav (2018-11-01).
1046:
Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie; Johnson, Nathan J. (2008-12-01).
1371:"Stability and the justification of social inequality"
1536:
Lerner, Melvin J.; Miller, Dale T. (September 1978).
1041:
1039:
1037:
1035:
1033:
1678:
Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
1453:
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 26
1148:Bell, Angela C.; Burkley, Melissa (December 2014).
1455:, vol. 26, Academic Press, pp. 293–355,
875:
873:
822:Hoffarth, Mark R.; Jost, John T. (October 2017).
279:Jost, John T.; Banaji, Mahzarin R. (March 1994).
1901:Choma, Becky L.; Prusaczyk, Elvira (June 2018).
1631:Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma
932:Pinsof, David; Haselton, Martie (October 2017).
817:
815:
813:
811:
365:
363:
361:
1802:
1800:
1760:
1758:
1575:Lerner, Melvin J.; Simmons, Carolyn H. (1966).
1747:: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of August 2024 (
1620:
1618:
1226:Coleman, Jill M.; Hong, Ying-Yi (2008-01-01).
1187:Burkley, Melissa; Blanton, Hart (2008-01-01).
927:
925:
923:
664:
662:
660:
658:
656:
27:favoritism provides a contrast to the idea of
991:
989:
987:
985:
983:
8:
1995:
1993:
1846:Bahamondes-Correa, JoaquĂn (November 2016).
1672:Goodman, Simon; Carr, Philippa (July 2017).
1581:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
1143:
1141:
1098:Jost, John T.; Hunyady, Orsolya (Oct 2005).
1093:
1091:
1089:
35:Outgroup favoritism and system justification
1104:Current Directions in Psychological Science
768:Davis, Darren W.; Brown, Ronald E. (2002).
621:Rutland, Adam; Brown, Rachel (March 2001).
528:
526:
524:
522:
520:
274:
272:
270:
268:
266:
722:
720:
475:Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
417:
415:
413:
2121:
2033:
1965:
1771:Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
1724:
1336:Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
1306:
1193:Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
1154:Social and Personality Psychology Compass
1013:
744:
587:, Routledge, pp. 40–67, 2006-06-07,
428:Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
16:Explanation for a set of social behaviors
471:"Stereotypes Focus Defensive Projection"
241:Interactions with social identity theory
262:
1740:
1375:European Journal of Social Psychology
886:European Journal of Social Psychology
774:American Journal of Political Science
627:European Journal of Social Psychology
7:
2110:European Review of Social Psychology
2063:European Review of Social Psychology
1002:European Review of Social Psychology
675:British Journal of Social Psychology
539:British Journal of Social Psychology
285:British Journal of Social Psychology
251:British Journal of Social Psychology
1713:Transylvanian Journal of Psychology
173:Incorporating heavy influence from
1807:Nielsen, Mathias W. (2015-08-28).
1507:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00120.x
297:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
91:American Psychological Association
76:Proposed mechanisms and correlates
14:
733:Journal of International Students
155:Role of individual belief systems
1489:Jost, John T. (September 1997).
1116:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
249:In a published rejoinder in the
324:Social Issues and Policy Review
1:
2162:Barriers to critical thinking
2123:10.1080/10463283.2023.2184578
2075:10.1080/10463283.2022.2122319
1907:Psychology of Women Quarterly
1864:10.1080/00918369.2016.1223351
1643:10.1080/10926771.2015.1070231
1495:Psychology of Women Quarterly
1461:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60156-2
1015:10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422
2177:Prejudice and discrimination
1447:Major, Brenda (1994-01-01),
533:Jost, John T. (April 2019).
2006:Journal of Black Psychology
1554:10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030
1451:, in Zanna, Mark P. (ed.),
1426:10.1521/soco.20.4.294.19908
1279:Journal of Black Psychology
204:The Rise of the Meritocracy
53:system justification theory
2208:
1783:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.001
1348:10.1521/jscp.2011.30.4.329
1205:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.008
440:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.007
233:or the internalization of
105:Negative self-stereotyping
1813:Science and Public Policy
1244:10.1080/15298860600980185
1064:10.1007/s11211-008-0078-8
95:implicit association test
2167:Sociological terminology
2018:10.1177/0095798417690055
1919:10.1177/0361684317747845
1852:Journal of Homosexuality
1291:10.1177/0095798409333615
950:10.1177/0956797617723725
840:10.1177/0956797617694866
487:10.1177/0146167205285556
376:Journal of Social Issues
1729:(inactive 2024-08-16).
1052:Social Justice Research
746:10.32674/jis.v12i1.3174
593:10.4324/9780203135457-8
164:Originally proposed by
1542:Psychological Bulletin
585:Social Identifications
581:"Intergroup Behaviour"
231:demand characteristics
1825:10.1093/scipol/scv052
938:Psychological Science
828:Psychological Science
211:Negative consequences
138:Depressed entitlement
85:Implicit associations
1726:10.24193/tjp.xx.1.2
727:Ji, Yadong (2022).
20:Outgroup favoritism
2182:Appeals to emotion
1967:10.1111/cdev.12854
1166:10.1111/spc3.12145
687:10.1111/bjso.12302
551:10.1111/bjso.12297
388:10.1111/josi.12205
336:10.1111/sipr.12093
170:just-world fallacy
160:Just-world fallacy
29:ingroup favoritism
1954:Child Development
1858:(11): 1537–1555.
1690:10.1002/casp.2314
1470:978-0-12-015226-1
1387:10.1002/ejsp.1949
1232:Self and Identity
944:(10): 1525–1527.
898:10.1002/ejsp.2754
834:(10): 1521–1524.
602:978-0-203-13545-7
89:According to the
2199:
2152:Cognitive biases
2136:
2135:
2125:
2101:
2095:
2094:
2054:
2048:
2047:
2037:
1997:
1988:
1987:
1969:
1945:
1939:
1938:
1898:
1892:
1891:
1843:
1837:
1836:
1804:
1795:
1794:
1762:
1753:
1752:
1746:
1738:
1728:
1708:
1702:
1701:
1669:
1663:
1662:
1622:
1613:
1612:
1593:10.1037/h0023562
1572:
1566:
1565:
1548:(5): 1030–1051.
1533:
1527:
1526:
1486:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1444:
1438:
1437:
1414:Social Cognition
1405:
1399:
1398:
1366:
1360:
1359:
1327:
1321:
1320:
1310:
1270:
1264:
1263:
1223:
1217:
1216:
1184:
1178:
1177:
1145:
1136:
1135:
1095:
1084:
1083:
1043:
1028:
1027:
1017:
993:
978:
977:
929:
918:
917:
892:(7): 1073–1095.
877:
868:
867:
819:
806:
805:
765:
759:
758:
748:
724:
715:
714:
666:
651:
650:
618:
612:
611:
610:
609:
577:
571:
570:
530:
515:
514:
466:
460:
459:
419:
408:
407:
367:
356:
355:
315:
309:
308:
276:
166:Melvin J. Lerner
63:Proof of concept
2207:
2206:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2157:Group processes
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2103:
2102:
2098:
2056:
2055:
2051:
1999:
1998:
1991:
1947:
1946:
1942:
1900:
1899:
1895:
1845:
1844:
1840:
1806:
1805:
1798:
1764:
1763:
1756:
1739:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1671:
1670:
1666:
1624:
1623:
1616:
1574:
1573:
1569:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1488:
1487:
1483:
1475:
1473:
1471:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1368:
1367:
1363:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1272:
1271:
1267:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1186:
1185:
1181:
1160:(12): 708–720.
1147:
1146:
1139:
1097:
1096:
1087:
1045:
1044:
1031:
995:
994:
981:
931:
930:
921:
879:
878:
871:
821:
820:
809:
786:10.2307/3088374
767:
766:
762:
726:
725:
718:
668:
667:
654:
639:10.1002/ejsp.25
620:
619:
615:
607:
605:
603:
579:
578:
574:
532:
531:
518:
468:
467:
463:
421:
420:
411:
369:
368:
359:
317:
316:
312:
278:
277:
264:
259:
243:
226:
213:
191:
175:Stanley Milgram
162:
157:
140:
107:
87:
78:
65:
45:Mahzarin Banaji
37:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2205:
2203:
2195:
2194:
2189:
2184:
2179:
2174:
2169:
2164:
2159:
2154:
2144:
2143:
2138:
2137:
2116:(2): 268–297.
2096:
2069:(2): 244–267.
2049:
2012:(8): 789–812.
1989:
1960:(1): 180–195.
1940:
1913:(2): 162–177.
1893:
1838:
1819:(3): 386–399.
1796:
1754:
1703:
1684:(4): 312–323.
1664:
1637:(8): 932–954.
1614:
1587:(2): 203–210.
1567:
1528:
1501:(3): 387–393.
1481:
1469:
1439:
1420:(4): 294–320.
1400:
1381:(4): 246–254.
1361:
1342:(4): 329–360.
1322:
1285:(3): 366–387.
1265:
1218:
1179:
1137:
1110:(5): 260–265.
1085:
1058:(4): 490–508.
1029:
1008:(2): 203–243.
979:
919:
869:
807:
780:(2): 239–252.
760:
739:(1): 258–274.
716:
681:(2): 340–361.
652:
633:(2): 127–141.
613:
601:
572:
545:(2): 263–314.
516:
481:(6): 781–793.
461:
409:
357:
330:(1): 131–154.
310:
261:
260:
258:
255:
242:
239:
225:
222:
212:
209:
190:
187:
161:
158:
156:
153:
139:
136:
106:
103:
86:
83:
77:
74:
64:
61:
36:
33:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2204:
2193:
2190:
2188:
2185:
2183:
2180:
2178:
2175:
2173:
2170:
2168:
2165:
2163:
2160:
2158:
2155:
2153:
2150:
2149:
2147:
2133:
2129:
2124:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2100:
2097:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2053:
2050:
2045:
2041:
2036:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1996:
1994:
1990:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1968:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1951:
1944:
1941:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1897:
1894:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1842:
1839:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1803:
1801:
1797:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1761:
1759:
1755:
1750:
1744:
1736:
1732:
1727:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1707:
1704:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1668:
1665:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1621:
1619:
1615:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1571:
1568:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1532:
1529:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1485:
1482:
1472:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1443:
1440:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1404:
1401:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1365:
1362:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1326:
1323:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1269:
1266:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1222:
1219:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1183:
1180:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1094:
1092:
1090:
1086:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1042:
1040:
1038:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
992:
990:
988:
986:
984:
980:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
928:
926:
924:
920:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
876:
874:
870:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
818:
816:
814:
812:
808:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
764:
761:
756:
752:
747:
742:
738:
734:
730:
723:
721:
717:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
665:
663:
661:
659:
657:
653:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
617:
614:
604:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
576:
573:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
529:
527:
525:
523:
521:
517:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
465:
462:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
418:
416:
414:
410:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
366:
364:
362:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
314:
311:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
275:
273:
271:
269:
267:
263:
256:
254:
252:
247:
240:
238:
236:
232:
223:
221:
217:
210:
208:
206:
205:
200:
199:Michael Young
196:
188:
186:
182:
178:
176:
171:
168:in 1980, the
167:
159:
154:
152:
148:
144:
137:
135:
131:
127:
123:
121:
117:
113:
104:
102:
98:
96:
92:
84:
82:
75:
73:
69:
62:
60:
56:
54:
49:
46:
42:
34:
32:
30:
26:
21:
2113:
2109:
2099:
2066:
2062:
2052:
2009:
2005:
1957:
1953:
1943:
1910:
1906:
1896:
1855:
1851:
1841:
1816:
1812:
1774:
1770:
1743:cite journal
1719:(1): 33–50.
1716:
1712:
1706:
1681:
1677:
1667:
1634:
1630:
1584:
1580:
1570:
1545:
1541:
1531:
1498:
1494:
1484:
1474:, retrieved
1452:
1442:
1417:
1413:
1403:
1378:
1374:
1364:
1339:
1335:
1325:
1282:
1278:
1268:
1238:(1): 34–53.
1235:
1231:
1221:
1199:(1): 37–49.
1196:
1192:
1182:
1157:
1153:
1107:
1103:
1055:
1051:
1005:
1001:
941:
937:
889:
885:
831:
827:
777:
773:
763:
736:
732:
678:
674:
630:
626:
616:
606:, retrieved
584:
575:
542:
538:
478:
474:
464:
431:
427:
382:(1): 80–98.
379:
375:
327:
323:
313:
288:
284:
248:
244:
235:social norms
227:
218:
214:
202:
201:in his book
192:
183:
179:
163:
149:
145:
141:
132:
128:
124:
108:
99:
88:
79:
70:
66:
57:
50:
41:John T. Jost
38:
19:
18:
1777:: 429–447.
434:: 275–289.
291:(1): 1–27.
195:meritocracy
189:Meritocracy
2192:Corruption
2187:Narcissism
2146:Categories
1476:2023-12-01
608:2023-12-01
257:References
2132:1046-3283
2091:257481194
2083:1046-3283
2026:0095-7984
1976:0009-3920
1935:148605039
1927:0361-6843
1872:0091-8369
1833:0302-3427
1791:0022-1031
1735:1454-797X
1698:1052-9284
1659:143238945
1651:1092-6771
1601:1939-1315
1562:1939-1455
1523:144555414
1515:0361-6843
1434:0278-016X
1395:0046-2772
1356:0736-7236
1299:0095-7984
1260:144843925
1252:1529-8868
1213:0022-1031
1174:1751-9004
1124:0963-7214
1080:143835818
1072:1573-6725
1024:1046-3283
958:0956-7976
914:233914297
906:0046-2772
848:0956-7976
794:0092-5853
755:2166-3750
695:0144-6665
647:0046-2772
559:0144-6665
495:0146-1672
456:148822106
448:0022-1031
404:151458273
396:0022-4537
352:256262275
344:1751-2395
305:0144-6665
224:Critiques
120:sexuality
2044:29386696
1984:28631266
1888:27711703
1880:27715710
1317:20625536
1132:13892856
974:43010309
966:28837392
864:36490374
856:28837397
711:54571797
703:30525206
567:54660351
511:18038504
503:16648203
25:outgroup
2035:5788304
1609:5969146
1308:2901128
802:3088374
2130:
2089:
2081:
2042:
2032:
2024:
1982:
1974:
1933:
1925:
1886:
1878:
1870:
1831:
1789:
1733:
1696:
1657:
1649:
1607:
1599:
1560:
1521:
1513:
1467:
1432:
1393:
1354:
1315:
1305:
1297:
1258:
1250:
1211:
1172:
1130:
1122:
1078:
1070:
1022:
972:
964:
956:
912:
904:
862:
854:
846:
800:
792:
753:
709:
701:
693:
645:
599:
565:
557:
509:
501:
493:
454:
446:
402:
394:
350:
342:
303:
112:gender
2172:Error
2087:S2CID
1931:S2CID
1884:S2CID
1655:S2CID
1519:S2CID
1256:S2CID
1128:S2CID
1076:S2CID
970:S2CID
910:S2CID
860:S2CID
798:JSTOR
707:S2CID
563:S2CID
507:S2CID
452:S2CID
400:S2CID
348:S2CID
2128:ISSN
2079:ISSN
2040:PMID
2022:ISSN
1980:PMID
1972:ISSN
1923:ISSN
1876:PMID
1868:ISSN
1829:ISSN
1787:ISSN
1749:link
1731:ISSN
1694:ISSN
1647:ISSN
1605:PMID
1597:ISSN
1558:ISSN
1511:ISSN
1465:ISBN
1430:ISSN
1391:ISSN
1352:ISSN
1313:PMID
1295:ISSN
1248:ISSN
1209:ISSN
1170:ISSN
1120:ISSN
1068:ISSN
1020:ISSN
962:PMID
954:ISSN
902:ISSN
852:PMID
844:ISSN
790:ISSN
751:ISSN
699:PMID
691:ISSN
643:ISSN
597:ISBN
555:ISSN
499:PMID
491:ISSN
444:ISSN
392:ISSN
340:ISSN
301:ISSN
118:and
116:race
43:and
2118:doi
2071:doi
2030:PMC
2014:doi
1962:doi
1915:doi
1860:doi
1821:doi
1779:doi
1721:doi
1686:doi
1639:doi
1589:doi
1550:doi
1503:doi
1457:doi
1422:doi
1383:doi
1344:doi
1303:PMC
1287:doi
1240:doi
1201:doi
1162:doi
1112:doi
1060:doi
1010:doi
946:doi
894:doi
836:doi
782:doi
741:doi
683:doi
635:doi
589:doi
547:doi
483:doi
436:doi
384:doi
332:doi
293:doi
2148::
2126:.
2114:34
2112:.
2108:.
2085:.
2077:.
2067:34
2065:.
2061:.
2038:.
2028:.
2020:.
2010:43
2008:.
2004:.
1992:^
1978:.
1970:.
1958:90
1956:.
1952:.
1929:.
1921:.
1911:42
1909:.
1905:.
1882:.
1874:.
1866:.
1856:63
1854:.
1850:.
1827:.
1817:43
1815:.
1811:.
1799:^
1785:.
1775:76
1773:.
1769:.
1757:^
1745:}}
1741:{{
1717:20
1715:.
1692:.
1682:27
1680:.
1676:.
1653:.
1645:.
1635:24
1633:.
1629:.
1617:^
1603:.
1595:.
1583:.
1579:.
1556:.
1546:85
1544:.
1540:.
1517:.
1509:.
1499:21
1497:.
1493:.
1463:,
1428:.
1418:20
1416:.
1412:.
1389:.
1379:43
1377:.
1373:.
1350:.
1340:30
1338:.
1334:.
1311:.
1301:.
1293:.
1283:35
1281:.
1277:.
1254:.
1246:.
1234:.
1230:.
1207:.
1197:44
1195:.
1191:.
1168:.
1156:.
1152:.
1140:^
1126:.
1118:.
1108:14
1106:.
1102:.
1088:^
1074:.
1066:.
1056:21
1054:.
1050:.
1032:^
1018:.
1006:34
1004:.
1000:.
982:^
968:.
960:.
952:.
942:28
940:.
936:.
922:^
908:.
900:.
890:51
888:.
884:.
872:^
858:.
850:.
842:.
832:28
830:.
826:.
810:^
796:.
788:.
778:46
776:.
772:.
749:.
737:12
735:.
731:.
719:^
705:.
697:.
689:.
679:58
677:.
673:.
655:^
641:.
631:31
629:.
625:.
595:,
583:,
561:.
553:.
543:58
541:.
537:.
519:^
505:.
497:.
489:.
479:32
477:.
473:.
450:.
442:.
432:79
430:.
426:.
412:^
398:.
390:.
380:73
378:.
374:.
360:^
346:.
338:.
328:17
326:.
322:.
299:.
289:33
287:.
283:.
265:^
2134:.
2120::
2093:.
2073::
2046:.
2016::
1986:.
1964::
1937:.
1917::
1890:.
1862::
1835:.
1823::
1793:.
1781::
1751:)
1737:.
1723::
1700:.
1688::
1661:.
1641::
1611:.
1591::
1585:4
1564:.
1552::
1525:.
1505::
1459::
1436:.
1424::
1397:.
1385::
1358:.
1346::
1319:.
1289::
1262:.
1242::
1236:7
1215:.
1203::
1176:.
1164::
1158:8
1134:.
1114::
1082:.
1062::
1026:.
1012::
976:.
948::
916:.
896::
866:.
838::
804:.
784::
757:.
743::
713:.
685::
649:.
637::
591::
569:.
549::
513:.
485::
458:.
438::
406:.
386::
354:.
334::
307:.
295::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.