ABSTRACT

In this article, we reply to Jost et al.'s (Citation2023Jost, J. T., Bertin, J. A., Javeed, A., Liaquat, U., & Rivera-Pichardo, E. J. (2023). Rejoinder to Rubin, Owuamalam, Spears, and Caricati (2023): Ideology is not accuracy; identity is not everything; and the social identity model of social attitudes does not explain system justification, it presupposes it. European Review of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2122319 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]) rejoinder to our article reviewing evidence for the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Rubin et al., Citation2023Rubin, M., Owuamalam, C. K., Spears, R., & Caricati, L. (2023). A social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system justification by the disadvantaged that do not depend on a separate system justification motive. European Review of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]). 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.

摘要

在本文中，我们回复 Jost 等人的 ( Citation 2023Jost, JT、Bertin, JA、Javeed, A.、Liaquat, U.和Rivera-Pichardo, EJ ( 2023 )。对 Rubin、Owuamalam、Spears 和 Caricati (2023) 的反驳：意识形态不是准确性；而是意识形态。身份不是一切；社会态度的社会认同模型并不能解释制度正当性，而是以制度正当性为前提。欧洲社会心理学评论。https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2122319 [Taylor & Francis Online]、[Web of Science®] 、[Google Scholar] ）反驳我们审查系统态度社会认同模型证据的文章（SIMSA；Rubin 等人，引文2023Rubin, M.、Owuamalam, CK、Spears, R.和Caricati, L. ( 2023 )。系统态度的社会认同模型（SIMSA）：弱势群体对系统正当性的多种解释，不依赖于单独的系统正当性动机。欧洲社会心理学评论。https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422 [Taylor & Francis Online]、[Web of Science®] 、[Google Scholar] ）。我们认为：（1）SIMSA将制度正当化视为一般社会心理过程与特定历史、政治、文化和意识形态环境相互作用的结果；（2）它没有将感知到的群体间地位差异与感知到的这些差异的稳定性和合法性混为一谈，（3）它不是宿命论，因为它假设人们在感知到有机会参与社会变革时可能会参与社会变革；（4）对制度正当性采用非还原论的社会心理学解释，而不是基于个体差异的个人主义解释；(5)它以“现有的社会安排”为前提，包括其现有的合法性和稳定性，并假设这些社会安排要么被被动承认，要么被积极支持；(6)它的证据基础不依赖最小群体实验。