Social Justice Research

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 219–236 | Cite as

Placating the Powerless: Effects of Legitimate and Illegitimate Explanation on Affect, Memory, and Stereotyping

  • Elizabeth L. Haines
  • John T. Jost


In an experimental study involving power differences between groups, the effects of legitimate and illegitimate explanations for power were investigated on measures of affect, stereotyping, and memory. We found that powerless groups reported more positive affect (relative to negative affect) when explanations were provided for their powerlessness, whether these explanations were classified a priori as either legitimate or illegitimate. Members of powerless groups also attributed greater intelligence and responsibility to the outgroup when it was in a position of high power rather than equal power, and these effects on stereotyping were enhanced when explanations for the power differences were provided. Finally, research participants tended to misremember the reasons given for the power differences as more legitimate than they actually were. These results support a system justification theory of intergroup behavior (Jost and Banaji [1994] Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33:1–27) in that people seem to imbue placebic explanations with legitimacy, use stereotypes to rationalize power differences, and exhibit biases in memory such that the status quo is increasingly legitimized over time.

power legitimacy explanation system justification intergroup relations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allison, S. T., Mackie, D. M., and Messick, D. M. (1996). Outcome biases in social perception: Implications for dispositional inference, attitude change, stereotyping, and social behavior. Advan. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 28: 53–93.Google Scholar
  2. Bies, R. J., and Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Explanation as legitimation: Excuse-making in organizations. In McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., and Read, S. J. (eds.), Explaining One's Self to Others: Reason-giving in a Social Context, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Carson, P., Carson., K., and Roe, D. (1993). Social power bases: A meta-analytic examination of inter-relationships and outcomes. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23: 1150–1169.Google Scholar
  4. Christie, R., and Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, J., and Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advan. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 17: 229–266.Google Scholar
  6. Copeland, J. T. (1994). Prophecies of power: Motivational implications of social power for behavioral confirmation. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 67: 264–277.Google Scholar
  7. Doob, L.W. (1983).Personality,Power and Authority: A View from the Behavioral Sciences, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
  8. Eagly, A., and Steffen, V. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 46: 735–754.Google Scholar
  9. Elsbach, K. D., and Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Acad. Manag. J. 35: 699–738.Google Scholar
  10. French, J. R. P. Jr., and Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Power, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 150–167.Google Scholar
  11. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. J. Appl. Psychol. 75: 561–568.Google Scholar
  12. Hoffman, C., and Hurst, N. (1989). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 58: 197–208.Google Scholar
  13. Jackman, M. R., and Senter, M. S. (1983). Different, therefore unequal: Beliefs about trait differences between groups of unequal status. Res. Soc. Strat. Mobil. 2: 309–335.Google Scholar
  14. Jost, J. T. (1995). Negative illusions: Conceptual clarification and psychological evidence concerning false consciousness. Polit. Psychol. 16: 397–424.Google Scholar
  15. Jost, J. T. (in press). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: An experimental paradigm for investigating the effects of socio-economic success on stereotype content. In Moskowitz, G. (ed.), Cognitive Social Psychology, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  16. Jost, J. T., and Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33: 1–27.Google Scholar
  17. Jost, J. T., and Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Person. and Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26: 293–305.Google Scholar
  18. Jost, J. T., and Major, B. (eds.) (in press). The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Konovsky, M. A., and Folger, R. (1991). The effects of procedures, social accounts, and benefits-level on victims' layoff reactions. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21: 630–650.Google Scholar
  20. Langer, E. J., Blank, A., and Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 36: 635–642.Google Scholar
  21. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group memberships. Advan. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 26: 293–355.Google Scholar
  24. Martin, J., Brickman, P., and Murray, A. (1984). Moral outrage and pragmatism: Explanations for collective action. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 20: 484–496.Google Scholar
  25. McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey, G., and Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Random House, New York, pp. 233–346.Google Scholar
  26. Rasinski, K., Tyler, T. R., and Fridkin, K. (1985). Exploring the function of legitimacy: Meditating effects of personal and institutional legitimacy on leadership endorsement and system support. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 49: 395–407.Google Scholar
  27. [Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. J. Soc. Issues 49: 227–251.Google Scholar
  28. Rex, J. (1961). Key Problems of Sociological Theory, Routledge and Keagan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  29. Ridgeway, C. (in press). The emergence of status beliefs: From structural inequality to legitimizing ideology. In Jost, J. T., and Major, B. (eds.), The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Ross, L., Lepper, M., and Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 32: 880–892.Google Scholar
  31. Sachdev, I., and Bourhis, R. Y. (1985). Social categorization and power differentials in group relations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 15: 415–434.Google Scholar
  32. Sachdev, I., and Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 21: 1–24.Google Scholar
  33. Samuelson, W., and Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncert. 1: 7–59.Google Scholar
  34. Schmitt, B. H., Dubé, L., and Leclerc, F. (1992). Intrusions intowaiting lines: Does the queue constitute a social system? J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 63: 806–815.Google Scholar
  35. Shapiro, D. L. (1991). The effects of explanations on negative reactions to deceit. Admin. Sci. Q. 36: 614–630.Google Scholar
  36. Shneidman, E. S., and Farberow, N. L. (1957). Clues to Suicide, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S., and Austin, W. G. (eds.), The Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall Publishers, Chicago, pp. 7–24.Google Scholar
  38. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  39. Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative affect: Their relation to health complaints, perceived stress and daily activities. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 6: 1020–1034.Google Scholar
  40. Weatherford, M. S. (1992). Measuring political legitimacy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 86: 149–166.Google Scholar
  41. Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Henderson, A. M., and Parsons, T., trans.), Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  43. Yukl, G., and Falbe, C. M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 76: 416–423.Google Scholar
  44. Zelditch, M. (in press). Theories of legitimacy. In Jost, J. T., and Major, B. (eds.), The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth L. Haines
    • 1
  • John T. Jost
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattle
  2. 2.Graduate School of BusinessStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations