Social identity explanations of system justification: Misconceptions, criticisms, and clarifications

Abstract

In this article, we reply to Jost et al.'s (Citation2023) rejoinder to our article reviewing evidence for the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Rubin et al., Citation2023). We argue that (1) SIMSA treats system justification as the outcome of an interaction between general social psychological process and specific historical, political, cultural, and ideological environments; (2) it does not conflate perceived intergroup status differences with the perceived stability and legitimacy of those differences, (3) it is not fatalistic, because it assumes that people may engage in social change when they perceive an opportunity to do so; (4) it adopts a non-reductionist, social psychological explanation of system justification, rather than an individualist explanation based on individual differences; (5) it presupposes “existing social arrangements”, including their existing legitimacy and stability, and assumes that these social arrangements are either passively acknowledged or actively supported; and (6) it is not reliant on minimal group experiments in its evidence base.