Relation of Belief in Justice to the Typicality of Complementary Stereotypes of the Rich and the Poor

Objective. Analysis of the contribution of complementary and non-complementary stereotypes and assessing their typicality in the level of belief in a just world (BJW) among employees of commercial and non-profit organizations.Background. Increasing economic inequality makes it relevant to study the relationship between the assessment of the world as just and the relationship to the rich and poor. According to the theory of system justification by J. Jost, people are motivated to support the status quo, including by relying on complementary stereotypes that combine desirable and undesirable qualities in one image. Research by A. Kay and J. Jost (2003) has shown that actualizing complementary stereotypes of the unhappy rich and the happy poor increases the level of the acquitting of systems. However, the nature of the impact of complementary stereotypes and non-complementary stereotypes on the belief in justice, depending on the initial just-world belief level, and the contribution of subjective assessment of the typicality of complementary stereotypes and non-complementary stereotypes to the just-world belief level remains poorly studied.Study design. A two-factor plan was used to analyze the contributions of the actualization of stereotypes and the place of work to the level of the just-world belief scales. The paper studied the dependence of the level of the just-world belief scales on the place of work of the respondents, the conditions of filling the questionnaire (after actualization of complementary stereotypes, non-complementary stereotypes, and without reading the texts), and the relative contribution to the level of the just-world belief scales of the conditions of filling the questionnaire and assessing the typicality. The method of analysis of variance was used to compare the just-world belief level in groups of employees of commercial and non-profit organizations under different filling conditions. Regression analysis was used to assess the contribution of gender, age, place of work, and the assessment of the typicality of complementary stereotypes and non-complementary stereotypes to the just-world belief level.Participants. 260 people, including 130 employees of non-profit organizations, 130 employees of commercial organizations, the average age was 36 years.Measurements. Vignettes with descriptions of complementary stereotypes and non-complementary stereotypes, the just-world belief questionnaire (S.K. Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2013).Results. For non-profit organizations employees, the level of both just-world belief scales decreases at non-complementary stereotypes actualization; for commercial organizations employees, it increases slightly at complementary stereotypes actualization in relation to the background. The level of BJW-others is determined only by the assessment of the typicality of complementary stereotypes. None of the considered predictors contributes to the BJW-self.Conclusions. The BJW-others is determined by a subjective assessment of the typicality of complementary stereotypes. The low level of BJW increases at complementary stereotypes actualization, and the high level of BJW decreases at non-complementary stereotypes actualization.

1. Grigor’ev D.S. Model’ soderzhaniya stereotipov i etnicheskie stereotipy v Rossii [The stereotype content model and ethnic stereotypes in Russia]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noi antropologii = The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2020. Vol. 23, no. 2, рр. 215—244. DOI:10.31119/ jssa.2020.23.2.9 (In Russ.).
2. Gulevich O.A., Sarieva I.R. Sotsial’nye verovaniya, politicheskoe doverie i gotovnost’ k politicheskomu povedeniyu: sravnenie Rossii i Ukrainy [Social beliefs, political trust and readiness to participate in political actions: comparison of Russia and Ukraine]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2020. Vol. 11, no. 2, рр. 74—92. DOI:10.17759/ sps.2020110205 (In Russ.).
3. Ivanova T.N. Motivatsionnaya osnova blagotvoritel’nosti naseleniya: kogortnye razlichiya [Motivational basis of population charity: cogort differences]. Azimut nauchnykh issledovanii: ekonomika i upravlenie = Azimuth of scientific research: economics and administration, 2019. Vol. 8, no. 1(26), pp. 156—160. (In Russ.).
4. Kudrinskaya L.A. Dobrovol’cheskii trud: sushchnost’, funktsii, spetsifika [Volunteers’ labor: essence, functions, specifics political sociology]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya = Sociological Studies, 2006, no. 5, рр. 15—22. (In Russ.).
5. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Podlipnyak M.B., Khokhlova A.Yu. Vera v spravedlivyi mir i psikhologicheskoe blagopoluchie u glukhikh i slyshashchikh podrostkov i vzroslykh [Belief in a just world and mental well-being in deaf and hearing youth and adults]. Klinicheskaya i spetsial’naya psikhologiya = Clinical Psychology and Special Education, 2013, no. 3, рр. 1—14. (In Russ.).
6. Nestik T.A., Deineka O.S., Maksimenko A.A. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskie predposylki very v konspirologicheskie teorii proiskhozhdeniya COVID-19 i vovlechennost’ v setevye kommunikatsii [Socio-Psychological Predictors of Belief in Conspiracy Theories of the Origin of COVID-19 and Involvement in Social Media]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2020. Vol. 11, no. 4, рр. 87—104. DOI:10.17759/sps.2020110407 (In Russ.).
7. Tokareva A.A., Nikolaeva A.A. Spetsifika motivatsii personala v sisteme gosudarstvennoi sluzhby i nekommercheskoi organizatsii [The specifics of staff motivation in the civil service and non-profit organization]. Nauchnyi zhurnal diskurs = Discourse, 2018, no. 7, рр. 191—206. (In Russ.).
8. Ulybina E.V., Abbasova S.E. Gendernye razlichiya v atributsii viny uchastnikam tipichnogo i netipichnogo supruzheskogo nasiliya [Gender differences in attribution of guilt to the participants of typical and atypical marital violence scenarios]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2020. Vol. 11, no. 3, рр. 51—69. DOI:10.17759/ sps.2020110304 (In Russ.).
9. Bartholomaeus J., Strelan P. The adaptive, approach-oriented correlates of belief in a just world for the self: A review of the research. Personality and Individual Differences, 2019. Vol. 151, рр. 109485. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.028
10. Bègue L. Beliefs in justice and faith in people: Just world, religiosity and interpersonal trust. Personality and Individual Differences, 2002. Vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 375—382. DOI:10.1016/S0191- 8869(00)00224-5
11. Bègue L. Do just-world believers practice private charity? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2014. Vol. 44, no. 1, рр. 71—76. DOI:10.1111/jasp.12201
12. Bègue L., Charmoillaux M., Cochet J., Cury C., De Suremain F. Altruistic behavior and the bidimensional just world belief. The American journal of psychology, 2008. Vol. 121, no. 1, рр. 47—56. DOI:10.2307/20445443
13. Bierhoff H.W., Klein R., Kramp P. Evidence for the altruistic personality from data on accident research. Journal of personality, 1991. Vol. 59, no. 2, рр. 263—280. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991. tb00776.x
14. Cichocka A., Jost J.T. Stripped of illusions? Exploring system justification processes in capitalist and post-communist societies. International Journal of Psychology, 2014. Vol. 49, no. 1, рр. 6—29. DOI:10.1002/ijop.12011
15. Cuddy A.J., Fiske S.T., Kwan V.S., Glick P., Demoulin S., Leyens J.P. ... & Htun T.T. Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2009. Vol. 48, no. 1, рр. 1—33. DOI:10.1348/014466608X314935
16. Dalbert C. The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 1999. Vol. 12, no. 2, рр. 79—98. DOI:10.1023/A:1022091609047
17. DePalma M., Madey S.F., Tillman T.C., Wheeler J. Perceived patient responsibility and belief in a just world affect helping. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1999. Vol. 21, no. 2, рр. 131—137. DOI:10.1207/S15324834BA210205
18. Durante F., Fiske S.T. How social-class stereotypes maintain inequality. Current opinion in psychology, 2017. Vol. 18, рр. 43—48. DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.033
19. Durante F., Tablante C.B., Fiske S.T. Poor but warm, rich but cold (and competent): Social classes in the stereotype content model. Journal of Social Issues, 2017. Vol. 73, no. 1, рр. 138—157. DOI:10.1111/josi.12208
20. Durante F., Fiske S.T., Gelfand M.J., Crippa F., Suttora C., Stillwell A. ... & Teymoori A. Ambivalent stereotypes link to peace, conflict, and inequality across 38 nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2017. Vol. 114, no. 4, рр. 669—674.
21. Fiske S.T., Durante F. Mutual status stereotypes maintain inequality. The Social Psychology of Inequality. Springer, Cham, 2019, рр. 335—348.
22. Fiske S.T., Cuddy A., Glick P., Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2002. Vol. 82, no. 6, рр. 878—902. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
23. Hafer C.L., Sutton R. Belief in a just world. Handbook of social justice theory and research. Springer, New York, NY, 2016, рр. 145—160. DOI:10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_8
24. Jost J.T. A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2019. Vol. 58, no. 2, рр. 263—314. DOI:10.1111/bjso.12297
25. Kay A.C., Jost J.T. 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, 2003. Vol. 85, no. 5, рр. 823—837. DOI:10.1037/0022- 3514.85.5.823
26. Kay A.C., Jost J.T., Young S. Victim derogation and victim enhancement as alternate routes to system justification. Psychological Science, 2005. Vol. 16, no. 3, рр. 240—246. DOI:10.1111/j.0956- 7976.2005.00810.x
27. Lerner M.J. The belief in a just world. The Belief in a just World. Springer, Boston, MA, 1980, рр. 9—30.
28. Lerner M.J. The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of personality, 1977. Vol. 45, no. 1, рр. 1—52. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1977.tb00591.x
29. Lerner M.J., Clayton S. Justice and self-interest: Two fundamental motives. Cambridge University Press, 2011. 280 p.
30. Lipkusa I.M., Dalbert C., Siegler I.C. The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1996. Vol. 22, no. 7, рр. 666—677. DOI:10.1177/0146167296227002
31. Nartova-Bochaver S., Donat M., Rüprich C. Subjective well-being from a just-world perspective: A multi-dimensional approach in a student sample. Frontiers in psychology, 2019. Vol. 10, р. 1739. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01739
32. Nartova-Bochaver S., Donat M., Astanina N., Rüprich C. Russian adaptations of General and Personal Belief in a Just World Scales: Validation and psychometric properties. Social Justice Research, 2018. Vol. 31, no. 1, рр. 61—84. DOI:10.1007/s11211-017-0302-5
33. Nudelman G., Otto K. Personal Belief in a Just World and Conscientiousness: A meta-analysis, facet-level examination, an. 1d mediation model. British Journal of Psychology, 2021. Vol. 112, no. 1, рр. 92—119. DOI:10.1111/bjop.12438
34. Rubin Z., Peplau A. Belief in a Just World and Reactions to Another’s Lot: A Study of Participants in the National Draft Lottery 1. Journal of Social Issues, 1973. Vol. 29, no. 4, рр. 73—93. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00104.x
35. Schindler S., Wenzel K., Dobiosch S., Reinhard M.A. The role of belief in a just world for (dis) honest behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 2019. Vol. 142, рр. 72—78. DOI:10.1016/j. paid.2019.01.037
36. Strelan P., Callisto J. Good outcomes are more likely for me than you — Especially in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences, 2020. Vol. 163, р. 110033. DOI:10.1016/j. paid.2020.110033
37. Wu S.J., Bai X., Fiske S.T. Admired rich or resented rich? How two cultures vary in envy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2018. Vol. 49, no. 7, рр. 1114—1143. DOI:10.1177/0022022118774943