10
BASES PSICOLÓGICAS DE LA JUSTIFICACIÓN DEL SISTEMA ECONÓMICO:
UN ANÁLISIS DE CLASES LATENTES
Luis Carlos Jaume
1
, Jochay Ben Tovim
2
, Amber Schmitt
3
, Agustín Freiberg-Hoffmann
4
,
Hugo Simkin
5
, Susana Azzollini
6
(Recibido en marzo 2022, aceptado en febrero 2023)
1
PhD Psicología social, Universidad de Buenos Aires y Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas DOI:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3700-5812.
2
Licenciado psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires, DOI: https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-2477-4022.
3
Master en Ciencias en Psicología aplicada, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas,
DOI: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5966-2779.
4
PhD en psicología. Universidad de Buenos Aires y Consejo Nacional de
Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, DOI: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8737-1186.
5
Doctor en Psicología, Universidad de
Buenos Aires y Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, DOI: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7162-146X.
6
Doctora en Psicología, Universidad de Buenos Aires y Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, DOI:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3192-5087
luiscarlosjaume@gmail.com; iojaiben@gmail.com; ambersch@usc.edu;
agustinfreiberg@gmail.com; hugosimkin@gmail.com; susana1060@yahoo.com.ar
Resumen: La teoría de la justificación del sistema (ESJ) indica que los individuos poseen una motivación
para justificar los sistemas sociales a los que pertenecen. La aproximación a este fenómeno permite investigar
características de personalidad asociadas a la ESJ. Diferencias individuales como la orientación a la dominación
social (SDO) y el autoritarismo de derechas (RWA) pueden constituir la base de la justificación. Aunque se han
producido numerosos avances en el estudio del ESJ, la investigación sobre este tipo de relación no tiene
precedentes en el contexto Argentino. El objetivo fue analizar si el SDO y el RWA se relacionan con el ESJ. El
estudio contó con una muestra de 843 participantes (51,8 % mujeres; 48,2 % hombres), con un rango de edad
de 18 a 88 años (M = 46,03; DE = 15,88). Los resultados indican que RWA y SDO se asocian positivamente con
ESJ a través del Análisis de Clases Latentes. Por lo tanto, el RWA y el SDO pueden presentarse como la base
psicológica sobre la que se sustenta el ESJ.
Palabras Clave: Justificación del sistema económico; Orientación de dominancia social; Autoritarismo de
ala derecha; Bases psicológicas; Análisis de clases latentes.
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL BASES OF ECONOMIC SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION:
A LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS
Abstract: The theory of the system justification (ESJ) indicates that individuals possess a motivation to justify
the social systems to which they belong. The approach to this phenomenon enables to investigate personality
characteristics associated with the ESJ. Individual differences such as social dominance orientation (SDO) and
right wing authoritarianism (RWA) can constitute the basis of justification. Although there have been numerous
advances in the study of the ESJ, research on this type of relationship is unprecedented in the Argentinian
context. The objective was to analyze whether SDO and RWA relates to ESJ. The study has a sample of 843
participants (51.8% female; 48.2% male), with an age range of 18 to 88 years (M = 46.03; SD = 15.88). Results
indicate that RWA and SDO are positively associated with ESJ through Latent Class Analysis. Therefore, RWA
and SDO may be presented as the psychological basis on which ESJ is sustained.
Keyword: Economic system justification; Social dominance orientation; Right-Wing Authoritarianism;
Psychological bases; Latent Class Analysis.
REVISTA PSICOLOGÍA UNEMI
Volumen 8, N° 014, enero a junio 2024. pp. 10 - 18.
https://doi.org/10.29076/issn.2602-8379vol8iss14.2023pp10-18p
Luis Jaume, bases psicológicas de la justicación
11
INTRODUCTION
Currently in the Western world, economic gaps
between the rich and poor are becoming more
pronounced. Similarly, throughout history, populations
have conformed to hierarchical structures and roles
in which a few individuals hold most of the resources
and power, while the rest of the population possesses
very little of both. Despite this, a large portion of the
population in developed countries still believes that
the possibility of social mobility and acquiring power
and wealth is largely due to factors such as ambition
and hard work, more so than being born into more
privileged social groups (Luttig, 2013; McCall, 2013;
Mijs, 2017). This notion is supported by the lack of
social responses to counteract such socioeconomic
gaps. Even in societies where such inequality is highly
notable (e.g., apartheid, the caste system in India),
there have been few signs of widespread disapproval
of these systems, except in certain cases that are
clearly exceptions to the rule (Zinn, 2002). This
apparent paradox has various explanations related
to how society and individuals legitimize and justify
certain aspects of reality. Therefore, it is of utmost
importance to evaluate the impact of both legitimation
and justication when analyzing the relationships that
develop between individuals and their social, political,
and economic realities.
From these phenomena, Jost and Banaji (1994) dene
the justication of the system (hereafter referred to
as ESJ) as the psychological process through which
individuals justify and defend the system in which they
are immersed, thereby supporting the maintenance of
the status quo. This phenomenon of system justication
differs from other phenomena like group justication,
self-justication, or ego justication, as often the
operation of the current system harms the well-being
of the individuals who justify it (Jost & Hunyady, 2003).
On the other hand, studies such as that by Jost and
Hunyady (2003), focus on accounting for why the
motivational structure encourages individuals to
justify the status quo. These authors postulate that
the orientation towards social dominance (hereinafter,
SDO) and the authoritarianism of the right wing
(hereinafter, RWA) inuence whether there is a higher
or lower level of ESJ on the part of the individual.
According to SDO theory, social inequality is
sustained by structures that are reinforced by
individual predispositions toward hierarchical
intergroup relationships (Pratto et al., 1994). RWA,
on the other hand, involves three attitudinal clusters:
authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression,
and conventionalism (Altemeyer, 1981). The rst
cluster reects a tendency to submit to authorities
perceived as legitimate in society. The second involves
a predisposition towards hostility against individuals
and groups perceived as potential threats to the social
order. Finally, the third cluster pertains to a strong
adherence to social conventions.
Both SDO and RWA can be understood as attitudinal
dimensions that drive individuals towards political
conservatism, thus justifying the system (Duckitt &
Sibley, 2009). These psychological variables provide
individuals with rigid, less threatening, and orderly
frameworks for understanding societal organization,
generating a sense of an orderly and manageable
world. Duckitt and Sibley (2009) developed a theoretical
model of a dual cognitive and motivational process
in the formation of ideologies and prejudices. This
model proposes that two main phenomena underlie
the moral and ideological attitudes and beliefs held by
individuals. These phenomena are dened as goals
arising from motivational needs. The rst involves
the need for order, structure, and stability, leading to
a salience in maintaining social reality’s order. The
second involves motivational bases like the need for
power, dominance, and competitiveness, relating to
individuals’ subjective perspectives on social hierarchy
(Duckitt, 2001).
Duckitt and Sibley (2009), found that the dimensions of
the dual process motivational model coincide directly
with the RWA and SDO measurement instruments.
The RWA scale corresponds to the dimension related
to the need for stability, cohesion and order of social
reality. This dimension is prominent in those subjects
who evaluate the world as inherently dangerous and
highly threatening, as opposed to those individuals
who value the world as a safe and quiet place. Instead,
the SDO scale corresponds to the dimension of power
and dominance between social groups and stands out
in those people who understand their reality as highly
competitive, in which only the strong survive (Duckitt &
Sibley, 2009).
Volumen 8, N° 014, enero a junio 2024. pp. 10 - 18.
12
Finally, various studies (eg, Jost et al., 2003; Sibley &
Duckitt, 2008) found that both the RWA and the SDO
are signicantly related to various personality variables
that in turn are related to attitudes of justication of
the system (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). Likewise, both
were found to be excellent predictors of the economic
system justication, in addition to positively correlating
with conservatism (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). In recent
decades, there have been various empirical studies on
the justication of the system both with RWA (Osborne
& Sibley, 2014; Zmigrod et al., 2018) and with SDO
(Hoffarth et al., 2019; Jylhä & Akrami, 2015), which
demonstrate a positive association between these
variables (Azevedo et al., 2019; Jost et al., 2017;
Vargas-Salfate et al., 2018).
Although in recent years, personality factors associated
with ESJ, RWA, and SDO have started to be studied,
no research has been conducted so far regarding
these factors associated with ESJ in the Argentine
context. Therefore, the objective of this study is to
examine the relationship between SDO, RWA, and
ESJ among university students in the Autonomous
City of Buenos Aires, contributing to the existing body
of knowledge about these phenomena and enhancing
understanding of their manifestation and impact on the
Argentine population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
The study was carried out through a non-probabilistic
sampling, for convenience, involving 843 subjects
comprised of Argentinian university students (51.8%
female; 48.2% male) between 16 and 88 years of age
(M = 46.03; SD = 15.88; Mdn = 48).
Data collection techniques
The data was collected through a self-administered
pencil and paper evaluation instrument, ensuring the
anonymity of the participants. It was composed of:
Economic System Justication Scale (ESJ; Jost &
Thompson, 2000). The scale, adapted to the Argentine
context [BLINDED] was used (NNFI = .90; IFI = .93;
CFI = .93; RMSEA = .041; α = .80), consisting of 7
items with 5 response anchors with Likert-type format,
ranging from 1 = Totally agree to 5 = Totally disagree.
The internal structure has been tested on the sample
of the present study and has proved to be adequate in
adjusting to the model (CFI = .990; RMSEA = .063; α
= .87).
Social Dominance Orientation Scale (SDO;
Pratto et al., 1994). The version, adapted to the
Argentine context was used [BLINDED](NNFI = .92;
IFI = .94; CFI = .94; RMSEA = .064;α =. 84). This
scale is made up of 14 items grouped into the Group
dominance dimensions (eg, “To get ahead in life,
sometimes it is necessary to step over other groups
of people”; “Higher groups should dominate lower
groups”) and Opposition to equality (eg, “There would
be fewer problems if we treated different groups more
equally”; “Equality between groups of people should be
our ideal”), which together make up the SDO construct
(α =. 84). The response format is Likert type with ve
anchors, depending on the degree of agreement of
the participants, with 1 = Completely disagree and 5 =
Completely agree.
Right wing authoritarianism Scale (RWA;
Altemeyer, 1981). To evaluate the construct, a reduced
version of the RWA scale composed of six items was
used (eg “Our country needs a powerful leader
who can confront the extremists and immoral
that currently prevail in our society”; “Our
ancestors should have been more honored by
the way in who built this society, therefore, it is
necessary to put an end to the forces that are
destroying it”; “The facts show that we must
be tougher on crime and sexual immorality in
order to maintain law and order”), adapted and
validated to the local context (Etchezahar, Cervone,
Biglieri, Quattrocchi & Prado-Gascó, 2011) (NFI = .97;
CFI = .98; AGFI = .98; SRMR = .022; RMSEA = .038; α
= .745). The response format for this is Likert type with
ve anchors depending on the degree of agreement or
disagreement with each statement, with 1 = Totally
disagree and 5 = Totally agree.
Sociodemographic variables: An ad hoc
questionnaire was developed to collect this type of
information; Among the variables considered were:
sex, age and place of residence of the participants.
Luis Jaume, bases psicológicas de la justicación
13
Ethical handling of information
University students who were part of this research
participated voluntarily and anonymously after
providing their consent. Likewise, they were informed
that the disclosed data would be used exclusively for
academic-scientic purposes, under National Law
25,326 on the protection of personal data.
Statistical processing
The statistical analysis of the data was carried out
using the SPSS (version 20) and MPLUS (version 7)
statistical packages. To respond to the objectives, a
multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), a
multiple linear regression analysis, and a latent class
analysis were applied.
RESULTS
Before calculating the MANCOVA, we proceeded
to analyze the accuracy of a few assumptions that
enable its execution. The homogeneity of covariances
was rst checked, which was not veried (Box’s M =
.026; p = .000) (Huberty & Petroskey, 2000). Then,
the homogeneity of variances was examined, which
was veried for two of the three dependent variables
(pRWA = .559; pESJ = .607; pSDO = .000), and
the fulllment of the assumption of multicollinearity
between dependent variables could not be veried (r>
.50) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Due to the breach
of these assumptions, it was decided to interpret the
Hotelling Trace statistic, considered robust for these
cases (Finch & French, 2013).
The MANCOVA analysis took dependent variables
RWA, ESJ and SDO, with the variable Gender and
Age as a covariate. The results showed signicant
multivariate effects for the Gender variable (F(3,
1157) = 11.269; p < .001; η2 = .028) and Age (F(3,
1157) = 22026; p < .001; η2 = .054) on the dependent
variables. The value of the Hotelling Trace statistic
of both independent variables (.029 for Gender and
.057 for Age) accounts for a greater effect of the Age
variable on the dependent variables. When examining
the means, differences were observed in the Gender
variable for RWA (Males = 17.62; DE = 6.48; Females
= 16.34; DE = 6.43; p < .05, η2 = .006) and SDO (Males
= 18.75; DE = 7.51; Females = 16.92; DE = 6.15; p <
.001, η2 = .023) both in favor of men. Regarding the
variable, Age, a positive effect was observed on RWA
(B = .053; p < .001) and a positive effect on SDO (B =
-.050; p < .001).
In looking at the multiple linear regression analysis,
the parameters were calculated using the least
squares method and the enter procedure. ESJ was
adopted as the dependent variable and RWA and
SDO as independent. The dependent variable (ESJ)
was explored in search of extreme cases that could
harm the results, and no cases were found to remove.
Then the best t model was examined, for which the
R
2
was taken as an indicator of the effect size, and
the corrected R
2
as an indicator of the total variance
explained by the model (Gil Pascual, 2011). The R2
reading that indicated a high effect size (R
2
= .371) (Gil
Pascual, 2011), while the corrected R2showed that the
estimated model explained 37% of the variability of the
ESJ through the SDO and RWA variables. Continuing
with the evaluation of the best t model, the statistics
produced by the analysis of variance (ANOVA) were
interpreted, which inform about the joint signicance of
the estimated parameters, to determine the existence
of a linear relationship between the dependent variable
and the set of the independents. Thus, the existence of
a strong linear relationship between the independent
and the dependent variables (p< .001) was veried.
On the other hand, the assumptions of non-
autocorrelation, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity
were veried, in order to verify the t of the estimated
model to the empirical data (Xin & Xiao Gang, 2009).
In this sense, appropriate values were found in
the Durbin-Watson statistics (.324) that allow us to
assume the independence of the residuals. However,
the condition indices and the variance ination factors
(VIF) used to verify the assumption of multicollinearity
yielded adequate values lower than 7 and 1
respectively. Finally, homoscedasticity was studied by
means of the scatter graph of the residuals, accounting
for its compliance.
Focusing on the interpretation of the coefcients, it
was rst observed that both independent variables,
RWA and SDO, signicantly inuence the dependent,
ESJ. According to the Beta statistic, it is possible to
afrm that the RWA variable (45.4) makes a greater
Volumen 8, N° 014, enero a junio 2024. pp. 10 - 18.
14
Model B IC 95% Error Typical Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 6.362 [5.317, 7.406] .532 11.949 .000
RWA .472 [.422, .521] .025 .454 18.686 .000
SDO .292 [.245, .399] .024 .297 12.217 .000
Model Probabillity of response
Class 1 Class 2
Class probability .543 .456
Gender Female .458 .412
Male .542 .588
Age
Youth
.507 .534
Seniors .493 .466
RWA Low .263 .816
High .737 .184
SDO Low .310 .776
High .690 .224
Table 1. Regression analysis between RWA, SDO and ESJ
Table 2. Latent class analysis
Note: RWA= Right Wing Authoritarianism; SDO= Social Dominance Orientation
contribution of its variability to the explanation of the
ESJ variable than the SDO variable (29.7%). In turn,
the reading of the B statistic reports that for each point
in which RWA and SDO increase, the ESJ variable
increases by .472 and .292 respectively. Likewise,
these parameters can be considered highly signicant
given that the B values maintain a difference greater
than double with respect to their errors.
Moving to the analysis of latent classes, the variables
Gender, Age, SWA, SDO, and ESJ were included,
grouping the values of the last four into two categories
(high and low) taking the 50th percentile as the cut-
off point. The estimation method, maximum likelihood,
was used. After testing several models with different
number of classes, it was decided to keep the two-
class model since it yielded statistically signifcant
values (p<.001) in the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin test
and in the bootstrapped parametric likelihood ratio
test. In turn, this model is coherent from a theoretical
point of view.
As can be seen in Table 1, the size of class 1
(54.3%) is greater than that of class 2 (45.6%). In
relation to the analysis of response probabilities,
it can be seen that class 1 comprises people who
are characterized by being mostly male (probability
[P] = .542) without age differentiation (P
youth
= .507;
P
seniors
= .493), mostly authoritarian (P = .737) and
oriented to Social Dominance (P = .690) that in turn
present a high economic system justication (.809).
Class 2, on the other hand, is characteristic of male
individuals (P = .588) Young people (.534) with low
Authoritarianism (.816), low social dominance (P =
.776) and low economic system justication (P =.
941). As can be seen in table 2, in terms of gender
distribution, Class 1 had a higher likelihood of male
membership (54.2%) compared to female membership
(45.8%), while Class 2 showed a higher probability of
male membership (58.8%) than female membership
(41.2%). Furthermore, age distribution within Class 1
revealed a greater probability of youth membership
(50.7%) compared to seniors (49.3%), whereas Class
2 exhibited a higher probability of youth membership
(53.4%) than seniors (46.6%). Regarding ideological
orientations, Class 1 displayed elevated probabilities of
high Right Wing Authoritarianism (73.7%), high Social
Dominance Orientation (69.0%), and high Economic
System Justication (80.9%), whereas Class 2 had
higher probabilities of low Right Wing Authoritarianism
(81.6%), low Social Dominance Orientation (77.6%),
and low Economic System Justication (94.1 %).
Luis Jaume, bases psicológicas de la justicación
15
Note: RWA= Right Wing Authoritarianism; SDO= Social Dominance Orientation;
ESJ= Economic Sys-tem Justication
DISCUSSION
The main objective of this study was to investigate the
correlation between ESJ and SDO and RWA. According
to Jost and Thompson (2000), the correlation between
ESJ, SDO, and RWA is attributed to their varying
degrees of involvement in justifying the system. This
alignment can be observed in the current study, where
a linear regression analysis indicated that when both
predictor variables (SDO and RWA) were examined
concurrently, they provided better prediction for the
dependent variable (ESJ). Additionally, this study
is the rst to apply latent class analysis to explore
relationships between SDO, RWA, ESJ, age, and
gender. This approach enables us to identify two distinct
classes. The rst class consists mostly of men with no
age differentiation, predominantly authoritarian, and
inclined toward Social Dominance, displaying a high
degree of economic system justication. The second
class is characterized by young male individuals with
low levels of authoritarianism, social dominance, and
economic system justication. In contrast to previous
studies that relied on correlational analysis, the
latent class analysis enhances our understanding of
how SDO, RWA, ESJ, gender, and age intersect and
interact.
This alignment is illuminated by social dominance
theory (SDT), which posits a tendency to hierarchize
intergroup relationships, closely related to ESJ in its
meritocratic form. Jost, Banaji, and Nosek (2004)
propose that within the two dimensions constituting
SDO, the Group Dominance factor reects intergroup
justication, while the Opposition to Equality factor
reects system justication. Consequently, social
dominance theory offers a psychological framework
upon which ESJ is constructed, stemming from an
individual’s predisposition towards hierarchical and
non-egalitarian intergroup relations (Jost et al., 2004).
In this context, SDO emerges as a critical component
for comprehending the phenomenon of system
justication, as it underpins the legitimate myths that
either validate or challenge the system (Pratto et
ESJ Low .191 .941
High .809 .059
al., 1994; Jost & Thompson, 2000). These proposed
legitimate myths are socialism, multiculturalism,
human rights, the Protestant ethic, universalism,
nationalism, sexism, classism, and racism (Sidanius &
Pratto, 1999). Their inuence on the justication of the
equality-inequality system will vary from one individual
to another, regardless of their social group.
On the other hand, for RWA, it refers to authoritarian
submission, authoritarian aggression and
conventionalism. Authoritarian submission refers to
the general acceptance of the speeches and actions
promoted by the authorities perceived as legitimate,
together with the willingness to comply with their
instructions without the need to be induced to do so
(Altemeyer, 1996). Thus, authoritarian people think
that respect and obedience are essential virtues for
social order. Along these lines, they tend to believe that
those in positions of authority know what is best for the
citizens and punish those who question it. In turn, any
criticism made of authority is seen as destabilizing,
destructive and motivated by sinister and hidden goals
based on a fervent desire to cause trouble. Instead,
authoritarian aggression involves harm or the intention
to cause it) be it psychological or physical (Altemeyer,
1996). This intention is accompanied by the belief
that the authorities perceived as legitimate approve
it or that such action will favor its maintenance. He
who is the object of aggression is usually considered
a deviant because they threaten the social order
(Altemeyer, 1981). Finally, conventionalism refers to a
strong acceptance and commitment to the traditional
norms of a society in general or a group in particular.
These three attitudes strongly contribute to ESJ, since
for authoritarian people, all those who criticize what is
established, such as the economic system, represent a
deviation from the norm, and are therefore considered
deviant. For this reason, they tend to reject not only
discursively but also physically any type of criticism of
the system and because they tend to obey the orders
of those representatives of the economic system
Volumen 8, N° 014, enero a junio 2024. pp. 10 - 18.
16
instituted from their messages and political platforms
that continue the prevailing socioeconomic order.
In regards to comparisons with different contexts,
it was observed that the nding produced by this
analysis follows the tendencies of results obtained
in other socio-geographical contexts. The ndings
made in these studies regarding RWA, SDO and ESJ
and gender shows that males are potentially more
likelyto score higher than females in SDO, RWA and
ESJ(Mirisola, Sibley, Boca & Duckitt, 2007). In a
similar the results of this study concur with existent
literature that age shows a positive correlation to
the variables measured in this study (Zubielevitch,
Osborne, Milojev& Sibley, 2022).
In conclusion, while the hypotheses put forth in this
study have been substantiated, there are limitations
that could be addressed in future research. First
and foremost, it’s important to acknowledge that the
sampling methodology employed in this study was
chosen to achieve the required number of participants
for hypothesis testing, given the applied statistical
techniques (Hair et al., 2006). However, this sampling
approach doesn’t facilitate the generalization of
results to the entire population due to the absence
of randomness in sample selection. The study was
conducted within a relatively homogenous population
of university students, a group that has been
extensively used in prior research on this subject. This
homogeneity aids in result comparison. To broaden the
scope of ndings, future studies should incorporate
individuals from diverse social backgrounds. Secondly,
both authoritarianism and social dominance, as well as
economic system justication, may uctuate based on
sample characteristics and contextual circumstances.
In this context, non-experimental studies like the
present work do not provide a clear distinction of the
roles of authoritarianism and social dominance in
economic system justication within specic situations.
This aspect could be elucidated through experimental
research designs, which are capable of manipulating
variables such as authoritarianism and social
dominance. Future studies should venture in this
direction to investigate how authoritarianism and social
dominance inuence economic system justication
from a situational perspective. The potential of these
variables to be manipulated and their effects in real-
world scenarios remain topics for exploration in
forthcoming research endeavours.
REFERENCES
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Spectre.
Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, R. A. (1981). Right-wing
authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press
Azevedo, F., Jost, J. T., Rothmund, T., & Sterling, J.
(2019). Neoliberal ideology and the justication of
inequality in capitalist societies: Why social and
economic dimensions of ideology are intertwined.
Journal of Social Issues, 75(1), 49-88. https://
doi.org/10.1111/josi.12310
Caricati, L. (2008). Development and validation of a scale
for measuring the economic system justication
(ESJ). Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata,
254, 53–58.
Cichocka, A., & Jost, J. T. (2014). Stripped of illusions?
Exploring system justication processes in capitalist
and post-communist societies. International
Journal of Psychology, 49, 6-29. https://doi.
org/10.1002/ijop.12011
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational
theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–
113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(01)80004-
6
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process
motivational model of ideology, politics, and
prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 98-
109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028540
Etchezahar, E., Cervone, N., Biglieri, J., Quattrocchi, P.,
& Prado-Gascó, V. (2011). Adaptación y validación
de la versión reducida de la escala de autoritarismo
de derechas (RWA) al contexto argentino. Anuario
de investigaciones, 18, 237-242.
Finch, H. & French, B. (2013). A Monte Carlo comparison
of robust MANOVA test statistics. Journal of
Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 12(2), 35-81.
Gambara, H. (2002). Métodos de Investigación
en Psicología y Educación. Cuaderno de
Prácticas. Madrid: McGrawHill/Interamericana de
España.
Gil Pascual, J.A. (2011). Metodología cuantitativa
Luis Jaume, bases psicológicas de la justicación
17
en educación. Madrid: UNED.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson,
R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006) Multivariate data
analysis (Sixth Edition). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall
International.
Hoffarth, M. R., Azevedo, F., & Jost, J. T. (2019).
Political conservatism and the exploitation of
nonhuman animals: An application of system
justication theory. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 22(6), 858-878. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1368430219843183
Huberty, C. & Petroskey, M. (2000). Multivariate analysis
of variance and covariance. En Howard Tinsley
and Steven Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied
multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling
(pp. 183-208). New York: Academic Press.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of
stereotyping in system-justication and the
production of false consciousness. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based
dominance and opposition to equality as independent
predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social
policy attitudes among African Americans and
European Americans. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 36(3), 209-232.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade
of system justication theory: Accumulated evidence
of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the
status quo. Political psychology, 25(6), 881-919.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
Jost, J. T., Kivetz, Y., Rubini, M., Guermandi, G., &
Mosso, C. (2005). System-justifying functions of
complementary regional and ethnic stereotypes:
Cross-national evidence. Social justice
research, 18(3), 305-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11211-005-6827-z
Jost, J. T., Langer, M., Badaan, V., Azevedo, F.,
Etchezahar, E., Ungaretti, J., & Hennes, E. P.
(2017). Ideology and the limits of self-interest:
System justication motivation and conservative
advantages in mass politics. Translational Issues
in Psychological Science, 3(3), e1-e26. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000127
Jost, J., & Hunyady, O. (2003). The psychology of
system justication and the palliative function
of ideology. European review of social
psychology, 13(1), 111-153. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10463280240000046
Jost, J.T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.W., & Sulloway, F.
(2003). Political conservatism as motivated social
cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–
375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
Jylhä, K. M., & Akrami, N. (2015). Social dominance
orientation and climate change denial: The role of
dominance and system justication. Personality
and Individual Differences, 86, 108-111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.041
Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary Justice:
Effects of “Poor but Happy” and “Poor but Honest”
Stereotype Exemplars on System Justication and
Implicit Activation of the Justice Motive. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,
85(5), 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.85.5.823
Laurin, K., Shepherd, S., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Restricted
emigration, system inescapability, and defense of
the status quo: System-justifying consequences
of restricted exit opportunities. Psychological
Science, 21(8), 1075-1082. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0956797610375448
Luttig, M. (2013). The structure of inequality and
Americans’ attitudes toward redistribution. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 77(3), 811-821. https://doi.
org/10.1093/poq/nft025
McCall, L. (2013). The undeserving rich: American
beliefs about inequality, opportunity, and
redistribution. Cambridge University Press.
Mijs, J. J. (2017). Institutions as Inferential
Spaces: How People Learn About
Inequality (Doctoral dissertation).
Mirisola, A., Sibley, C. G., Boca, S., & Duckitt, J. (2007).
On the ideological consistency between right-wing
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation.
Personality and Individual Differences,
43(7), 1851-1862.
Montero, I., & León, O. G. (2007). A guide for naming
research studies in Psychology. International
Journal of clinical and Health psychology,
7(3), 847-862.
Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). Endorsement
of system-justifying beliefs strengthens the
relationship between church attendance and Right-
Volumen 8, N° 014, enero a junio 2024. pp. 10 - 18.
18
Wing Authoritarianism. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 542–551. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1368430213507322
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle,
B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political
attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and
Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical
Review. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 12(3), 248–279. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1088868308319226
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. An
intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tabachnick, B. & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate
statistics. Boston: Pearson.
Ullrich, J., & Cohrs, J. C. (2007). Terrorism salience
increases system justication: Experimental
evidence. Social Justice Research, 20(2),
117-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0035-y
van der Toorn, J., Berkics, M., & Jost, J. T. (2010).
System justication, satisfaction, and perceptions
of fairness and typicality at work: A cross-system
comparison involving the US and Hungary. Social
Justice Research, 23(2-3), 189-210. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11211-010-0116-1
Vargas-Salfate, S., Paez, D., Liu, J. H., Pratto, F., &
Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2018). A comparison of social
dominance theory and system justication: The role
of social status in 19 nations. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 1060-1076.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218757455
Zinn, H. (2002). Disobedience and democracy:
Nine fallacies on law and order (Vol. 4).
Cambridge, MA: South End Press. (Original work
published 1968)
Zmigrod, L., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W.
(2018). Cognitive underpinnings of nationalistic
ideology in the context of Brexit. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences,
115(19), E4532-E4540. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1708960115
Zubielevitch, E., Osborne, D., Milojev, P., & Sibley, C.
G. (2022). Social dominance orientation and right-
wing authoritarianism across the adult lifespan: An
examination of aging and cohort effects. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
