Social Justice Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2–3, pp 189–210 | Cite as

System Justification, Satisfaction, and Perceptions of Fairness and Typicality at Work: A Cross-System Comparison Involving the U.S. and Hungary

  • Jojanneke van der ToornEmail author
  • Mihály Berkics
  • John T. Jost


This research addresses system justification tendencies in the United States and Hungary and their potential to shape reactions to equity–equality tradeoffs in the workplace. Participants in both nations were asked to rate the fairness of, their satisfaction with, and the typicality of four hypothetical work situations. These scenarios differed in terms of which distributive justice principle was violated (equity or equality) and whether the violation favored the participant or the co-worker (self or other). While the mean level of system justification was lower in Hungary than in the U.S., multilevel models revealed that in both societal contexts the motivation to justify the system was associated with participants’ perceptions of justice in the workplace. Based on the characteristics of the two social systems, however, these tendencies played out differently. Specifically, for the U.S. participants system justification was associated with more favorable views of work situations that emphasized equity over equality and that rewarded the self over others, whereas for Hungarian participants system justification was associated with more favorable views of work situations that emphasized equality over equity and that rewarded others over the self. Results also revealed that Americans (but not Hungarians) who scored higher on system justification perceived as fairer that which they perceived as more typical of their society. Taken as a whole, the evidence suggests that the psychological transfer of legitimacy from socialism to capitalism in Hungary remains incomplete.


System justification Distributive justice Equity Equality Eastern Europe Workplace 


  1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alwin, D. F., Gornev, G., & Khakhulina, L. (1995). Comparative referential structures, system legitimacy, and justice sentiments: An international comparison. In J. R. Kluegel, Mason, S. David, & B. Wegener (Eds.), Social justice and political change: Public opinion in capitalist and post-communist states (pp. 109–130). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Anderson, B., & Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status value formulation. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch, & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (Vol. 2, pp. 1119–1146). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  5. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2008). Old faces, new places: Equity theory in cross-cultural contexts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boll, Th., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S.-H. (2005). Effects of parental differential treatment on relationship quality with siblings and parents: Justice evaluations as mediators. Social Justice Research, 18, 155–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brosnan, S. F. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Social Justice Research, 19, 153–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Csepeli, G., & Örkény, A. (1992). Ideology and political beliefs in Hungary: The twilight of state socialism. London, New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
  11. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., & Pattershall, J. (2009). The existence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 765–775.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the prospect of “system-sanctioned” change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 326–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Folger, R., Sheppard, B. H., & Buttram, R. T. (1995). Equity, equality, and need: Three faces of social justice. In B. Bunker & J. Z. Zucker (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, and justice (pp. 261–289). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Gelfand, M. J., Higgins, M., Nishii, L. H., Raver, J. L., Dominquez, A., Murakami, F., et al. (2002). Culture and egocentric perceptions of fairness in conflict and negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 833–845.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruen, C., & Klasen, S. (2001). Growth, income distribution, and well-being in transition countries. Economics of Transition, 9, 359–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haines, E. L., & Jost, J. T. (2000). Placating the powerless: Effects of legitimate and illegitimate explanation on affect, memory, and stereotyping. Social Justice Research, 13, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Headey, B., Andorka, R., & Krause, P. (1995). Political legitimacy versus economic imperatives in system transformation: Hungary and East Germany, 1990–93. Social Indicators Research, 36, 247–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hochschild, J. (1981). What’s fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  24. Hunyady, Gy. (2005). A kontraszelekció pszichológiája [The psychology of contraselection]. Budapest: MTA.Google Scholar
  25. Ivanova, M. (2007). Inequality and government policies in Central and Eastern Europe. East European Quarterly, 41, 167–204.Google Scholar
  26. Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: An experimental paradigm for investigating the effects of socio-economic success on stereotype content. In G. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, Gy. (2003a). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jost, J. T., Burgess, D., & Mosso, C. (2001). Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and system: The integrative potential of system justification theory. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 363–388). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2010). Social justice: History, theory, and research. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1122–1165). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Jost, J. T., Kivetz, Y., Rubini, M., Guermandi, G., & Mosso, C. (2005). System-justifying functions of complementary regional and ethnic stereotypes: Cross-national evidence. Social Justice Research, 18, 305–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jost, J. T., Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C. D. (2008a). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. N. (2003b). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jost, J. T., Wakslak, C., & Tyler, T. R. (2008b). System justification theory and the alleviation of emotional distress: Palliative effects of ideology in an arbitrary social hierarchy and in society. In K. Hegtvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Justice: Advances in group processes (Vol. 25, pp. 181–211). Bingley: JAI/Emerald.Google Scholar
  38. Kay, A. C., Czaplinski, S., & Jost, J. T. (2009a). System justifying effects of victim-enhancement and victim-derogation: The moderating role of political ideology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Friesen, J., Laurin, K., Zanna, M. P., et al. (2009b). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to view what is as what should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–434.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Kay, A., Jimenez, M. C., & Jost, J. T. (2002). Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1300–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., Mandisodza, A. N., Sherman, S. J., Petrocelli, J. V., & Johnson, A. L. (2007). Panglossian ideology in the service of system justification: How complementary stereotypes help us to rationalize inequality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 305–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kay, A. C., Jost, J. T., & Young, S. (2005). Victim-derogation and victim-enhancement as alternate routes to system-justification. Psychological Science, 16, 240–246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kluegel, J. R., Mason, D. S., & Wegener, B. (1995). Social justice and political change: Public opinion in capitalist and post-communist states. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  45. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  46. Kreidl, M. (2000). Perceptions of poverty and wealth in Western and post-communist countries. Social Justice Research, 13, 151–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lerner, M. J. (1974). The justice motive: “Equity” and “parity” among children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 539–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 388–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leung, K. (2004). How generalizable are justice effects across cultures? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 555–586). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  50. Leung, K., & Park, H. J. (1986). Effects of interactional goal on choice of allocation rules: A cross-national study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leung, K., & Stephan, W. G. (2001). Social justice from a cultural perspective. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 375–410). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Loewenstein, G., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group memberships. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 293–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Manchin, R. (2000). Assessment of the status of corruption. Discovering a hidden society phenomenon. In 5th European conference of specialized services in the fight against corruption, Istanbul, November 15–17, 2000.Google Scholar
  55. Mandisodza, A. N., Jost, J. T., & Unzueta, M. M. (2006). “Tall Poppies” and “American Dreams”: Reactions to rich and poor in Australia and the U.S.A. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 659–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marshall, G., Swift, A., Routh, D., & Burgoyne, C. (1999). What is and what ought to be: Popular beliefs about distributive justice in thirteen countries. European Sociological Review, 15, 349–367.Google Scholar
  57. Martin, J. (1986). The tolerance of injustice. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 217–242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Mason, D. S., & Kluegel, J. R. (2000). Marketing democracy: Changing opinion about inequality and politics in East Central Europe. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Newman, D. G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). Experiments behind the veil: Structural influences on judgments of social justice. Political Psychology, 24, 519–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reis, H. T. (1984). The multidimensionality of justice. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 25–61). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  61. Sallay, H. & Krotos, H. (2004). Az igazságos világba vetett hit fejlődése: Japán–magyar kultúrközi összehasonlítás’ [The development of just world beliefs: A cross-cultural comparison between Japan and Hungary]. Pszichológia, 24, 233–252.Google Scholar
  62. Stephenson, S. (2000). Public beliefs in the causes of wealth and poverty and legitimization of inequalities in Russia and Estonia. Social Justice Research, 13, 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. The Gallup Organization Hungary. (1998). A siker magyar útja. A Gallup vizsgálata arról, hogy az emberek szerint mitől függ a boldogulás Magyarországon. [The Hungarian way to success. Gallup’s study on what people think it takes to be successful in Hungary]. Accessed July 26, 2006.
  65. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. G. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 595–629). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  67. Ullrich, J., & Cohrs, J. C. (2007). Terrorism salience increases system justification: Experimental evidence. Social Justice Research, 20, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  69. Váriné Szilágyi, I. & Solymosi, Zs. (1999). A siker lélektana [The psychology of success]. Budapest: Új Mandátum Kiadó.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  72. Wojciszke, B., Baryla, W., & Mikiewicz, A. (2008). Delegitimization of material wealth. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jojanneke van der Toorn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mihály Berkics
    • 2
  • John T. Jost
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Princeton Institute for International and Regional StudiesPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations