Talk:System justification

Untitled
Added link to this fascinating concept (that I have only just discovered) from Ideology - a very relevant one too I might add. Mattjs 09:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Added See also back links to similar sociological and political concepts. Mattjs 09:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it fit into the List of cognitive biases somewhere?? I need an expert to decide which sub-category or sub-categories there it might fit into and link from? Thanks. Mattjs 09:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I added it to the See Also there also linked from Groupthink. This article is no longer a stub - an unlinked one anyway.  Maybe I should now remove the stub banner also after having removed the earlier top "please add links" banner before? Mattjs 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! Still could be added to a bit more though but at least it has several important back-links now! Mattjs 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so far so good... maybe a few more suitable back-links can be discovered? Fascinating article.  Added to List of cognitive biases Social Biases list: finally figured out where it fitted in! Mattjs 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest, Nominate to delete
Hmmmm. This article is not on firm ground. It was presumably begun by the same person who coined the term (User: Johnjost) Thus it's a COI (Conflict of Interest). Without citations, there's no compelling case that anyone other than professor Jost is using this term. --Dylanfly 20:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the theory, the citations, and the author. I think it's a reasonably fair description of the idea, and the idea has real currency in social psychology and political psychology.  I would NOT delete it--in fact, I've found it very useful.


 * Pretty clear WP:COI.--Dylanfly 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete.Paulwharton 01:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just encountered the term in a book on social cognition (aptly titled "Social Cognition", Augoustinos, Walker, and Donaghue, 2006). That said, the section dedicated to systems-justification takes up at most two pages, but little is said about the actual idea of systems-justification. Looking at the citations referenced, it is only really Jost that is referred to. It is grouped with the idea of false consciousness, but there is more talk about its association with Maxism than anything else.

I'd say just relegate this to some byline under the psychological basis of ideology. 203.59.15.140 11:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote to keep. There are several labs using this theoretical framework (Jost at NYU, Mahzarin Banaji at Harvard, and Aaron Kay at Waterloo) and a growing body of literature in support of it. It's not just related to ideology, but also to Melvin Learner's just world theory. I don't have time at the moment, but will update the bibliography and article to reflect this. Full disclosure: Kay is my PhD supervisor. Justinfr (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I also vote to keep. The research lab I am involved with makes use of the System Justificaiton theory and other than a similar occupation we do not have any relation to Jost, Kay or any of the other researchers explicitly connected to the beginnings of the theory. It is also important to note that while much of the System Justification research has been done by Jost and friends the findings have been published in some of the most respected academic journals relevant to the theory and the field (social psychology). (MBrandt (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Vote to keep. I just added link to progress trap as the risk of some controversy I suspect. But then I am not a pedant my interest is only in practical psychology not academic: if the idea is cogent and has explanative value than it stays - it is for you Psychologists to see if it actually has merit in the lab. In my book it may be one of the many possible explanations for the planetary historical laboratory of the "flight recorders in the wreckage of crashed civilizations" to show why humanity is in the current predicament it is - (global overpopulation, environmental destruction, global warming, climate change etc etc) -: this idea and the mind of "an Ice Age hunter only half-evolved towards intelligence; clever but seldom wise" may be one of the keys. Invoking the "precautionary principle" ;-) I think you should keep it until you can show that the concept has no explanantory value whatsoever. Check out A Short History of Progress and tell me that the False consciousness, Groupthink, Ideology, Just-world phenomenon, and cognitive bias this idea explains ISN'T a part of the problem!? Thanks, Mattjs (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I am a little pissed right now and I understand what you are all on about here: the progress trap article is actually self promotional for a guy selling a book and most of the contents over there are to do with the news item on his blog about the book! It doesnt have to be this way - it could be a good and useful entry. But note that he actually has it linked form his book's website as its wiki!? So someone might like to go over there and put a suitable banner on that page also. I am going to de-link it from A Short History of Progress for that reason also... Mattjs (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on keeping? Unless there are objections, I'll remove the COI banner shortly. Justinfr (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am going to COI or something else or more the progress trap article... Mattjs (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well looks like system justification then is an idea that has found its time! 122.148.173.37 (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC) This is me: Mattjs (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to Systemantics
I reverted the addition of the "see also" link to Systemantics by 4.227.234.26 because I don't see how it's relevant, other than they both use the word "system". If re-adding, please explain here how it is applicable to system justification. Justinfr (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge w/Status quo bias?
It's been suggested that System justification and Status quo bias be merged. I'm tentatively for a merge. However, it looks possible that they are used in different contexts. It might be (and it would be good if someone in the know lets us know) that "status quo bias" is used for something fairly concrete and easily identifiable: I like my chair better than another chair; I like my job better than another job; I like the $50 I have more than the chance to get $75. while "system justification" is used for more complex, broad statuses, more in a cognitive dissonance way: I like having an elected president instead of a prime minister because if it wasn't better, it wouldn't be that way.. If this characterization is right, then I'm not sure if merging is the right thing to do.Cretog8 (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote to keep separate. You've got part of it there, Cretog8, but there are further differences. For example, the status quo bias is cognitive, whereas system justification is seen as a motivational theory. That is, people only show system justification tendencies when it's personally relevant. That is, only Americans would justify the President, not Canadians or British. Likewise, Americans have no need to justify the Canadian Prime Minister's actions. Justinfr (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote to keep separate also. May be the same things but from different angles as my learned college has pointed out. 122.148.173.37 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been two months and the consensus seems to be keep separate. I'm removing the tag. justinfr (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Vote to keep separate again. Status quo bias is something quite different, although the two are related. SQB is generally describing the tendency to stick with the SQ--it is often based on inertia, lazyness, etc. SJT is about the active and overt (ot others) justification of the status quo--it focuses on how people explain the SQ (usually about inequality and distribution systems that favors one group over another), while SQB is about how people tend to have a preference for "same" which may be about why they don't change their health insurance when new members prefer something different than what they've got. They're quite different phenomena at different levels of cognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.66.113 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a recent reference that addresses the motivational nature of SJT and why it's different than the status quo bias. It's a journal article on which I'm a coauthor so if anybody objects to the COI and removes it, I won't protest. (Though it's a solid reference in a peer-reviewed journal.) justinfr (talk/contribs) 14:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Feeling interior
Is this word in the second paragraph correct? "...an acceptance of interiority among low-status groups..." should it be inferiority? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.3.246.241 (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Anon. Nicely spotted, and thank you. I have just moved this to the appropriate location. Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)