The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Theory of System Justification
Abstract
Psychologist John Jost has spent decades researching poor people who vote for policies of inequality and women who think men deserve higher salaries. He argues that the persecuted often justify and defend the very social systems that oppress them because doing so serves a fundamental need for certainty, security, and social acceptance.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“System-justifying mechanisms, which are often overlooked in social psychological analyses of political polarization, reflect the fact that some individuals and groups are motivated to preserve the status quo — and to resist various forms of social change — while others are motivated to challenge or improve upon it100,101.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [101]
In the citing paper
“Consequently, those who endorse conservative attitudes exhibit stronger biases in favour of the status quo than those who endorse liberal attitudes.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [101]
In the citing paper
“This is because system justification motivation — defined as the (not necessarily conscious) system-serving tendency to defend, bolster and legitimize aspects of the societal status quo — is generally correlated with political conservatism101.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [101]
In the citing paper
“This is because system justification motivation — defined as the (not necessarily conscious) system-serving tendency to defend, bolster and legitimize aspects of the societal status quo — is generally correlated with political conservatism101.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [101]
In the citing paper
“Presumably, this reflects economic system justification, that is, the conservative defence of increasing inequality as fair and legitimate under the neoliberal regime101,107,176–181.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [101]
In the citing paper
“Whereas liberal-leftists are more willing to challenge the societal status quo and push for egalitarian forms of social change, conservative-rightists are more authoritarian and more protective of cultural traditions as well as longstanding social, economic and political institutions101,107,149,166,168,172.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [101]
In the citing paper
“Finally, when it comes to democratic tolerance and other key outcomes, there are meaningful ideological asymmetries that should not be ignored.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [101]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–308 of 308
Onuora-Oguno, A. C. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-35548-5_3
Cech, E. A., & Moss-Pech, C. (2026) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/23780231261474205
Worldviews and public attitudes toward gene-edited foods in Japan
Yamaguchi, T., & 나일등 (2026) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625261479618
Alamsyah, A., & Yanti, M. (2026) · Journal of Asian Public Policy · doi:10.1080/17516234.2026.2727640
Latin America’s Persistent Disorder: Meritocracy Without Mobility
Cárdenas, J.-C., & Fergusson, L. (2025) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/00027162261473377
Martín, A. M. L., García, V. A., & Prados, J. L. P. (2026) · Revista CENTRA de Ciencias Sociales · doi:10.54790/rccs.145
Collectivized Suffering Among Marginalized Group Members
Sullivan, D., Figueroa, G. M., Yee, E., Goad, A. N., Sedivy, L. P., & Schmitt, H. J. (2026) · Race and Social Problems · doi:10.1007/s12552-026-09518-9
КОМАРОВ, В. В. (2026) · Институт психологии Российской академии наук Социальная и экономическая психология · doi:10.38098/ipran.sep_2026_43_3_07
Metadata
- Authors
- Jost, J. T.
- Corresponding author
- Jost, John T.
- ORCID
- Jost, John T.
- Venue
- Harvard University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Harvard University Press
- Published
- 2020-08-24
- OpenAlex
- W3038554755
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 40.05
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Harvard University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- system justification theory, social inequality, oppression, certainty, social acceptance, political attitudes, gender pay gap
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
