Advertisement

Everything in Its Right Place: Tradition, Order, and the Legitimation of Long-Standing Inequality

  • John C. BlancharEmail author
  • Scott Eidelman
Chapter

Abstract

The social mind has a psychological affinity for tradition that translates into favorable perceptions of existing and longer-standing states. In the context of inequality, the longer prevailing social arrangements are in place, the more fairness and legitimacy they are afforded. In this chapter, we present a model of existence and longevity biases that imbues social inequality with legitimacy. People tolerate and find goodness in long-standing socio-political systems by invoking internal qualities and reasons that vindicate their continued existence. We connect these phenomena to psychological processes that rationalize the status quo and prevent social change. Finally, we consider factors that limit the influence of longevity of existence on the legitimation of inequality and how longevity bias may instead be harnessed for the purposes of creating social change.

Keywords

Inequality Tradition Longevity bias Existence bias Status quo maintenance Heuristics Naturalistic fallacy Social stability System justification 

References

  1. Allison, S. T., Mackie, D. M., & Messick, D. M. (1996). Outcome biases in social perception: Implications for dispositional inference, attitude change, stereotyping, and social behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 53–93). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. (2003). The psychology of doing nothing: Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 139–167.Google Scholar
  3. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., & Chapleau, K. M. (2004). The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science, 15, 674–679.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanchar, J. C., & Eidelman, S. (2012). Time in existence confers legitimacy upon miracles, norms, and pseudoscience. Poster presented the political psychology pre-conference at the 13th annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Blanchar, J. C., & Eidelman, S. (2013). Perceived system longevity increases system justification and the legitimization of inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanchar, J. C., & Eidelman, S. (2019). Longevity bias and its implications for explaining, evaluating, and responding to social inequality. Unpublished manuscript. Swarthmore, PA: Swarthmore College.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, E. (1789/1987). In J. G. A. Pocock (Ed.), Reflections on the revolution in France. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Baron, J. (2014). Heuristics and biases. In E. Zamir & D. Teichman (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of behavioral economics and the law, pp. 3–27. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin 106, 265–289.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, M. J., & Gladstone, N. (2012). Development of a short version of the gender role beliefs scale. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 154–158.Google Scholar
  11. Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 461–480.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research and Politics, 2, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1986). Morality items on the 1985 pilot study, ANES pilot study report, no. nes002251. Retrieved from the American National Election Studies’ webpage: http://www.electionstudies.org/Library/papers/documents/nes002251.pdf
  14. Crandall, C. S., Eidelman, S., Skitka, L., & Morgan, G. S. (2009). Status quo framing increases support for torture. Social Influence, 4, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2014). The intuitive traditionalist: How biases for existence and longevity promote the status quo. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 53–104). Burlington: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., & Pattershall, J. (2009). The existence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 765–775.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Eidelman, S., Pattershall, J., & Crandall, C. S. (2010). Longer is better. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 993–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(223–241), 263–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 44, 118–123.Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Personality, 54, 733–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grusky, D. B., & Hill, J. (2018). Inequality in the 21st century. New York: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hussak, L. J., & Cimpian, A. (2015). An early-emerging explanatory heuristic promotes support for the status quo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 739–752.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hussak, L. J., & Cimpian, A. (2018a). Investigating the origins of political views: Biases in explanation predict conservative attitudes in children and adults. Developmental Science, 21, e12567.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hussak, L. J., & Cimpian, A. (2018b). Memory accessibility shapes explanation: Testing key claims of the inherence heuristic account. Memory & Cognition, 46, 68–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Hume, D. (1992). A treatise of human nature. New York: Prometheus. (Original work published 1739)Google Scholar
  29. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jost, J. T., Becker, J., Osborne, D., & Badaan, V. (2017). Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of protest behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (Eds.). (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 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, 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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, 1–27.Google Scholar
  35. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status-quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–210). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kay, A., Gaucher, D., Peach, J., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M., et al. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–434.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of "poor but happy" and "poor but honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 264–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. King, M. L. Jr. (1968). I see the promised land [Transcript]. Retrieved from http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/i-see-the-promised-land/
  41. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. S. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151–174). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lerner, M. J. (1980). Belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leslie, S. J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347, 262–265.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laurin, K., Gaucher, D., & Kay, A. (2013). Stability and the justification of social inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 246–254.Google Scholar
  47. Maglio, S. J., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2015). From time perspective to psychological distance (and back). In M. Stolarski, N. Fieulaine, & W. van Beek (Eds.), Time perspective theory; review, research and application (pp. 143–154). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. McKelvie, S. J. (2013). The existence bias: A systematic replication. Comprehensive Psychology, 2, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Medvec, V. H., Madey, S. F., & Gilovich, T. (1995). When less is more: Counterfactual thinking and satisfaction among Olympic medalists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 603–610.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mill, J. S. (1859/2009). On liberty. Portland, OR: The Floating Press.Google Scholar
  51. Moshinsky, A., & Bar-Hillel, M. (2010). Loss aversion and status quo label bias. Social Cognition, 28, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  54. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sani, F., Bowe, M., Herrera, M., Manna, C., Cossa, T., Miao, X., et al. (2007). Perceived collective continuity: Seeing groups as entities that move through time. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1118–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., Gonsalkorale, K., Hugenberg, K., Allen, T. J., & Groom, C. J. (2008). The self-regulation of automatic associations and behavioral impulses. Psychological Review, 115, 314–335.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Shockley, E., Rosen, R. K., & Rios, K. (2016). Change resistance moderates existence and longevity biases. Social Influence, 11, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, A. (1776/1993). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. Schwartz, B., Ben-Haim, Y., & Dacso, C. (2011). What makes a good decision? Robust satisficing as a normative standard of rational decision making. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 41, 209–227.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1975). Point of view and perception so causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 439–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson, V. A., Turner, J. P., & Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, reason and metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63, 107–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 211–279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  64. Van Boven, L., & Ashworth, L. (2007). Looking forward, looking back: Anticipation is more evocative than retrospection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van der Toorn, J., Tyler, T. R., & Jost, J. T. (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Van Zomeren, M. (2013). Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 378–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wakslak, C. J., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. S. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267–274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Warner, R. H., Kent, A. H., & Kiddoo, K. L. (2016). Perceived collective continuity and attitudes toward outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Warner, R. H., & Kiddoo, K. L. (2014). Are the latter-day saints too later day? Perceived age of the Mormon Church and attitudes toward Mormons. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wohl, M. J. A., & McGrath, A. L. (2007). The perception of time heals all wounds: Temporal distance affects willingness to forgive following an interpersonal transgression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1023–1035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (2, Pt. 2), 1–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologySwarthmore CollegeSwarthmoreUSA
  2. 2.University of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations