The Role of Needs in Maintaining Attitudes That Legitimize the Socio-Political Status Quo in Russia

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

In recent years, researchers have been focusing on a wide range of different constructs to study legitimizing grounds in socio-political relations. Political system justification, social dominance orientation (dominance and anti-egalitarianism) and political conservatism are considered as attitudes containing various grounds for legitimizing the currently existing socio-political relations (status quo). Maintaining these attitudes is associated with satisfying a number of psychological needs, including epistemic (e.g., the need for cognitive closure), existential (e.g., the need for security), and relational ones. The purpose of this research work was to study the contribution of needs in the maintenance of different attitudes legitimizing the socio-political status quo in the Russian context. With this in mind, we empirically examined the model, which considered needs as predictors, legitimizing attitudes as dependent variables, and sociodemographic characteristics associated with the maintenance of legitimizing attitudes (income, subjective social status, age, and gender) as control variables. The online study involved 387 Russian residents aged 18 to 73 who filled out questionnaires to assess the need for cognitive closure and fear of death as well as the relational need, social dominance orientation, political system justification and political conservatism. The data obtained were processed using structural equation modeling. The results of the study have shown that the most significant and consistent contribution in the maintenance of legitimizing attitudes is made by the epistemic needs (in particular, the need for cognitive closure). At the same time, the presence in everyday notions of a system of legitimizing attitudes makes it possible, depending on the context (e.g., the presence or absence of threats) or the socio-demographic characteristics of the individual (e.g., age and socio-economic status), to realize different needs, which ensures the flexibility of the process of social cognition.

About the authors

Irina S. Prusova

HSE University

Author for correspondence.
Email: iprusova95@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9298-2408

Researcher, Laboratory for Psychology of Social Inequality

20 Myasnitskaya St, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation

Natalia I. Bogatyreva

HSE University

Email: bogatireva.natacha@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6024-2322

Research Intern, Laboratory for Psychology of Social Inequality

20 Myasnitskaya St, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation

Elena R. Agadullina

HSE University

Email: eagadullina@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1505-1412

PhD in Psychology, is Associate Professor

20 Myasnitskaya St, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation

References

  1. Adler, N.E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M.A., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn, R.L., & Syme, S.L. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist, 49(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.1.15
  2. Agadullina, E., Ivanov, A., & Sarieva, I. (2021). How do Russians perceive and justify the status quo: Insights from adapting the system justification scales. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 717838. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717838
  3. Agadullina, E.R., Ivanov, A.A., Sarieva, I.R., & Prusova, I.S. (2021). System justification theory: A new perspective on the problem of inequality. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 10(1), 132–141. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2021100113
  4. Azevedo, F., Jost, J.T., & Rothmund, T. (2017). “Making America great again:” System justification in the U.S. presidential election of 2016. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000122
  5. Brandt, M.J., & Reyna, C. (2012). Social dominance or system justification? The acceptance of inequality and resistance to social change as unique system-relevant motivations. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2165690
  6. Chistopolskaya, K.A., Mitina, O.V., Enikolopov, S.N., Nikolaev, E.L., Semikin, G.I., Ozol, S.N., & Chubina, S.A. (2017). Construction of short Russian versions of death attitude profile-revised and fear of personal death scale. Suicidology, 8(4), 43–55. (In Russ.)
  7. Cichocka, A., & Jost, J.T. (2014). Stripped of illusions? Exploring system justification processes in capitalist and post-Communist societies. International Journal of Psychology, 49(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12011
  8. De Zavala, A.G., Cislak, A., & Wesolowska, E. (2010). Political conservatism, need for cognitive closure, and intergroup hostility. Political Psychology, 31(4), 521–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00767.x
  9. Federico, C.M., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. (2014). Opposition to equality and support for tradition as mediators of the relationship between epistemic motivation and system-justifying identifications. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 524–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213517273
  10. Golec, A. (2002). Need for cognitive closure and political conservatism: Studies on the nature of the relationship. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 33(4), 5–12.
  11. Gulevich, O.A., Agadullina, E.R., & Khukhlaev, O.E. (2018). Approval of group hierarchy: Russian version of social dominance orientation scale. Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics, 15(3), 407–426. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2018-3-407-426
  12. Hennes, E.P., Nam, H.H., Stern, C., & Jost, J.T. (2012). Not all ideologies are created equal: Epistemic, existential, and relational needs predict system-justifying attitudes. Social Cognition, 30(6), 669–688. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669
  13. Ho, A.K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211432765
  14. Jost, J.T. (2020). A theory of system justification. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674247192
  15. Jost, J.T., & Banaji, M.R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
  16. Jost, J.T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.W., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
  17. Jost, J.T., Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C.D. (2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00056.x
  18. Jost, J.T., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B.A. (2010). System justification: How do we know it's motivated? In D.R. Bobocel, A.C. Kay, M.P. Zanna & J.M. Olson (Eds.), The Psychology of Justice and Legitimacy (pp. 173–203). New York: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837658
  19. Jost, J.T., Sterling, J., & Stern, C. (2017a). Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In C.E. Koptez & A. Fishbach (Eds.), The Motivation-Cognition Interface: From the Lab to the Real World: A Festschrift in Honor of Arie W. Kruglanski (pp. 56–87). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315171388-4
  20. Jost, J.T., Stern, C., Rule, N.O., & Sterling, J. (2017b). The politics of fear: Is there an ideological asymmetry in existential motivation? Social Cognition, 35(4), 324–353. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.324
  21. Kay, A.C., Laurin, K., Fitzsimons, G.M., & Landau, M.J. (2014). A functional basis for structure-seeking: Exposure to structure promotes willingness to engage in motivated action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 486–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034462
  22. Kossowska, M., & Van Hiel, A. (2003). The relationship between need for closure and conservative beliefs in Western and Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 24(3), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00338
  23. Kroh, M. (2007). Measuring left-right political orientation: The choice of response format. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm009
  24. Ksiazkiewicz, A., Ludeke, S., & Krueger, R. (2016). The role of cognitive style in the link between genes and political ideology. Political Psychology, 37(6), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12318
  25. Morrison, K.R., & Ybarra, O. (2008). The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.006
  26. Nail, P.R., & McGregor, I. (2009). Conservative shift among liberals and conservatives following 9/11/01. Social Justice Research, 22(2–3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-009-0098-z
  27. Napier, J.L., & Jost, J.T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science, 19(6), 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x
  28. 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
  29. Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004
  30. Roets, A., Kruglanski, A.W., Kossowska, M., Pierro, A., & Hong, Y.yi. (2015). The motivated gatekeeper of our minds: New directions in need for closure theory and research. In J.M. Olson & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 52, pp. 221–283). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.01.001
  31. Schreiber, J.B., Nora, A., Stage, F.K., Barlow, E.A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
  32. Stern, C., West, T.V., Jost, J.T., & Rule, N.O. (2014). “Ditto heads”: Do conservatives perceive greater consensus within their ranks than liberals? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(9), 1162–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214537834
  33. Tam, K.P., Leung, A.K.Y., & Chiu, C.Y. (2008). On being a mindful authoritarian: Is need for cognition always associated with less punitiveness? Political Psychology, 29(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00613.x
  34. Tavits, M., & Letki, N. (2009). When left is right: Party ideology and policy in post-communist Europe. American Political Science Review, 103(4), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990220
  35. Vargas-Salfate, S., Paez, D., Liu, J.H., Pratto, F., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2018). A comparison of social dominance theory and system justification: The role of social status in 19 nations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 1060–1076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218757455
  36. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin.
  37. Wilson, S.M., & Sibley, C.G. (2013). Social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 34(2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00929.x
  38. Wong, P.T.P., Reker, G.T., & Gesser, G. (1994). Death Attitude Profile – Revised: A multidimensional measure of attitudes toward death. In R.A. Neimeyer (Ed.), Death Anxiety Handbook: Research, Instrumentation, and Application (pp. 121–148). New York: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315800813

Copyright (c) 2022 Prusova I.S., Bogatyreva N.I., Agadullina E.R.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies