A longitudinal study evaluated the success of a contact-based nation-building intervention (the Malaysian National Service Programme) in promoting various facets of national unity. The study assessed how post-test measures of quality of intergroup contact, outgroup evaluations, and levels of identification changed compared to their respective pre-test levels, for both National Service and control group participants. The intervention did not lead to a worsening of any of the constructs related to intergroup relations, which is noteworthy given the novelty for many participants of mixing in a multi-ethnic setting. Furthermore, all rater groups (Malays, Chinese, and Indians) maintained their ethnic identity, even in the presence of high levels of national identity, which we discuss with respect to past research on the effects of positive intergroup contact on minority group identification. However, the changes associated with the intervention yielded only small effect sizes, and, on the whole, National Service participants did not show significantly greater improvement than that experienced by control participants. We discuss the value of intergroup contact in this novel setting, considering various features of this programme that may have limited its effectiveness and discuss how such interventions can more successfully meet their goals.
Social movements pushing for social change are often met with reactionary counter-movements that defend the status quo. The present research examined this interplay by focusing on the role of racial majority group members claiming collective psychological ownership. We examined collective ownership that stems from being native to the land and from being founders of the nation. Study 1 found that in Malaysia, the Malay majority group endorsed more native ownership than Chinese and Indian minorities, which in turn predicted greater threat in response to protests demanding electoral reforms and subsequently greater support for a reactionary pro-government movement. Situated in the United States, Study 2 found that the more that White Americans endorsed founder ownership beliefs, the more they reported negative attitudes towards the Black Lives Matter protests, which in turn predicted more support for White nationalistic counter-protests. This effect was stronger among White people compared to people of colour. Study 3 examined both founder and native ownership in Australia. Founder (but not native) ownership beliefs predicted more negative attitudes towards Invasion Day protests, which subsequently predicted more support for counter-protests defending Australia Day celebrations. Implications of culture-specific beliefs about collective ownership for social movement research are discussed.
While public health crises such as the coronavirus pandemic transcend national borders, practical efforts to combat them are often instantiated at the national level. Thus, national group identities may play key roles in shaping compliance with and support for preventative measures (e.g., hygiene and lockdowns). Using data from 25,159 participants across representative samples from 21 nations, we investigated how different modalities of ingroup identification (attachment and glorification) are linked with reactions to the coronavirus pandemic (compliance and support for lockdown restrictions). We also examined the extent to which the associations of attachment and glorification with responses to the coronavirus pandemic are mediated through trust in information about the coronavirus pandemic from scientific and government sources. Multilevel models suggested that attachment, but not glorification, was associated with increased trust in science and compliance with federal COVID-19 guidelines. However, while both attachment and glorification were associated with trust in government and support for lockdown restrictions, glorification was more strongly associated with trust in government information than attachment. These results suggest that both attachment and glorification can be useful for promoting public health, although glorification's role, while potentially stronger, is restricted to pathways through trust in government information.
Do the disadvantaged have an autonomous system justification motivation that operates against their personal and group interests? System justification theory (SJT; Jost & Banaji, 1994, Br. J. Soc. Psychol, 33, 1) proposes that they do and that this motivation helps to (1) reduce cognitive dissonance and associated uncertainties and (2) soothe the pain that is associated with knowing that one's group is subject to social inequality. However, 25 years of research on this system justification motivation has given rise to several theoretical and empirical inconsistencies. The present article argues that these inconsistencies can be resolved by a social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, 2018, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci, 27, 91). SIMSA assumes that instances of system justification are often in alignment with (rather than opposed to) the interests of the disadvantaged. According to SIMSA, the disadvantaged may support social systems (1) in order to acknowledge social reality, (2) when they perceive the wider social system to constitute a superordinate ingroup, and (3) because they hope to improve their ingroup's status through existing channels in the long run. These propositions are corroborated by existing and emerging evidence. We conclude that SIMSA offers a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for system justification than does SJT.
The debate between the proponents of SIMSA and SJT does not pivot on whether system justification occurs - we all agree that system justification does occur. The issue is why it occurs? System justification theory (SJT; Jost & Banaji, 1994, British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1) assumes that system justification is motivated by a special system justification motive. In contrast, the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, , Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 2) argues that there is insufficient conclusive evidence for this special system motive, and that system justification can be explained in terms of social identity motives, including the motivation to accurately reflect social reality and the search for a positive social identity. Here, we respond to criticisms of SIMSA, including criticisms of its social reality, ingroup bias, and hope for future ingroup status explanations of system justification. We conclude that SJT theorists should decide whether system justification is oppositional to, or compatible with social identity motives, and that this dilemma could be resolved by relinquishing the theoretically problematic notion of a system justification motivation.