System Justification, Group Identification and Political Behavior: Protests in Khabarovsk Krai

Objective. The aim of the present research is to investigate the relationship between justification of the social system and group identification, on the one hand, and the readiness for non-institutionalized political behavior, on the other. Background. There are two psychological approaches to the study of the factors of non-institutionalized political behavior: the first one is based on social identity theory, and the second one — on system justification theory. In most cases, research uses either one or the other approach. In this study, we will examine how these approaches are related to each other. Study design. We hypothesized that group identification and system justification are linked to the readiness for non-institutionalized political action, but this relationship is mediated by perceived injustice and collective political efficacy. These hypotheses were tested in a study conducted during the protests in Khabarovsk Krai in the summer and autumn of 2020. The study was conducted with a survey method. To test the hypotheses mediation analysis was used. Participants. 432 people living in Khabarovsk Krai: 53% of men and 47% of women; the age ranged from 18 to 63 years (MToloka=28.89, SDnetworks=9.48; MToloka=36.71, SDnetworks=11.47). Measurements. The respondents filled out questionnaires measuring justification of the system existing in contemporary Russia, identification with the residents of Khabarovsk Krai, perceived injustice of the arrest of Governor Sergei Furgal, collective efficacy of the residents of this region, and the readiness to take actions aimed at changing the current situation. Results. The results showed that system justification was negatively, and Khabarovsk identification was positively associated with the perceived injustice of the governor’s arrest and the collective efficacy of Khabarovsk residents. Perceived injustice and collective efficacy, in turn, were positively associated with the readiness to engage in all forms of non-institutionalized political behavior aimed at changing the current situation. At the same time, perceived injustice and collective efficacy mediated the links between system justification and Khabarovsk identification with the readiness to act. Conclusions. The social identity approach and the system justification approach independently explain people’s readiness to engage in non-institutionalized political behavior aimed at changing the status quo. In particular, group identification and system justification act in the opposite ways: the former strengthens political activity, while the latter weakens it.

1. Agadullina E., Ivanov A., Sarieva I. How do Russians perceive and justify the status quo: insights from adapting the system justification scales // Frontiers in Psychology. 2021 (under review)
2. Agadullina E., Lovakov A. Measurement model of in-group identification: Validation in Russian samples // Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics. 2013. Vol. 10. № 4. P. 143—157.
3. Chayinska M., Minescu A., McGarty C. ‘We fight for a better future for our country’: Understanding the Ukrainian Euromaidan movement as the emergence of a social competition strategy // British Journal of Social Psychology. 2019. Vol. 58. № 1. P. 45—65.
4. Hayes A.F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regession approach. Guilford Press, 2018. P. 3—4.
5. Hooghe M., Marien S. A comparative analysis of the relation between political trust and forms of political participation in Europe // European Societies. 2013. Vol. 15. № 1. P. 131—152.
6. Jost J.T. A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications // British Journal of Social Psychology. 2019. Vol. 58. № 2. P. 263—314.
7. Jost J.T., Banaji M.R., Nosek B.A. A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo // Political Psychology. 2004. Vol. 25. № 6. P. 881—919.
8. Jost J.T. et al. Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of two types of protest behavior // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2017. Vol. 26. № 2. P. 99—108.
9. Levada Center. Vzaimodeistvie grazhdan i gosudarstva [Elektronnyi resurs] [Interaction between the citizens and the state]. URL: https://www.levada.ru/2015/04/06/vzaimodejstvie-grazhdan-i-gosudarstva. (Accessed 18.07.2021).
10. Leach C.W. et al. Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008. Vol. 95. № 1. P. 144.
11. MacKinnon D.P., Lockwood C.M., Williams J. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods // Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2004. Vol. 39. № 1. P. 99—128.
12. Osborne D. et al. Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action // European Journal of Social Psychology. 2019. Vol. 49. № 2. P. 244—269.
13. Thomas E.F., McGarty C., Mavor K.I. Aligning identities, emotions, and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action // Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2009. Vol. 13. № 3. P. 194—218.
14. Thomas E.F. et al. Testing the social identity model of collective action longitudinally and across structurally disadvantaged and advantaged groups // Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2020. Vol. 46. № 6. P. 823—838.
15. Travaglino G.A. Support for anonymous as vicarious dissent: Testing the social banditry framework // Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2019. Vol. 22. № 2. P. 163—181.
16. Travaglino G., Moon C. Power distance orientation as an antecedent of individuals’ intentions to engage in radical political action // Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2020. Vol. 23. № 8. P. 1283—1308.
17. Tyler T.R. The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities // Personality and Social Psychology Review. 1997. Vol. 1. № 4. P. 323—345.
18. Tyler T.R., Blader S.L. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior // Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2003. Vol. 7. № 4. P. 349—361.
19. van Zomeren M., Postmes T., Spears R. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives // Psychological Bulletin. 2008. Vol. 134. № 4. P. 504.
20. van Zomeren M., Leach C.W., Spears R. Protesters as “passionate economists”: A Dynamic Dual Pathway Model of approach coping with collective disadvantage // Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2012. Vol. 16. № 2. P. 180—199.