ORCID Profile
0000-0001-8219-7975
Current Organisations
Keele University
,
University of Kent
,
Reed College Department of Psychology
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 28-03-2017
DOI: 10.1111/JASP.12444
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 17-11-0017
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 09-09-2016
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 16-06-2016
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 20-06-2016
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 15-06-2021
DOI: 10.1002/EJSP.2754
Abstract: Why do women support social and economic arrangements that disadvantage them? System justification theory (SJT) proposes that an autonomous system‐level motive is responsible for this tendency, beyond any group‐interested considerations (e.g., hope of future group advancement). The social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) disputes the existence of a unique system‐level motive and instead argues that hope of future group advancement can explain women's system‐justifying attitudes. Meta‐analyzed results from three experiments (Studies 1, N = 200 2, N = 200 & 3, N = 700 women) revealed, consistent with SIMSA's social identity‐based explanation, that strongly identified women supported socio‐economic systems that historically favor men over women, mostly when they were hopeful about future gender equity. Contrary to SJT's system motive explanation, we did not find consistent evidence across the studies represented in our meta‐analysis that women were more supportive of socio‐economic realities that undercuts their group's interests when group motives were nonsalient.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 15-11-2023
DOI: 10.1111/BJSO.12323
Abstract: The debate between the proponents of SIMSA and SJT does not pivot on whether system justification occurs - we all agree that system justification does occur. The issue is why it occurs? System justification theory (SJT Jost & Banaji, 1994, British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1) assumes that system justification is motivated by a special system justification motive. In contrast, the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, , Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 2) argues that there is insufficient conclusive evidence for this special system motive, and that system justification can be explained in terms of social identity motives, including the motivation to accurately reflect social reality and the search for a positive social identity. Here, we respond to criticisms of SIMSA, including criticisms of its social reality, ingroup bias, and hope for future ingroup status explanations of system justification. We conclude that SJT theorists should decide whether system justification is oppositional to, or compatible with social identity motives, and that this dilemma could be resolved by relinquishing the theoretically problematic notion of a system justification motivation.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 03-2017
DOI: 10.1111/JOSI.12205
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-10-2018
DOI: 10.1111/BJSO.12285
Abstract: Do the disadvantaged have an autonomous system justification motivation that operates against their personal and group interests? System justification theory (SJT Jost & Banaji, 1994, Br. J. Soc. Psychol, 33, 1) proposes that they do and that this motivation helps to (1) reduce cognitive dissonance and associated uncertainties and (2) soothe the pain that is associated with knowing that one's group is subject to social inequality. However, 25 years of research on this system justification motivation has given rise to several theoretical and empirical inconsistencies. The present article argues that these inconsistencies can be resolved by a social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA Owuamalam, Rubin, & Spears, 2018, Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci, 27, 91). SIMSA assumes that instances of system justification are often in alignment with (rather than opposed to) the interests of the disadvantaged. According to SIMSA, the disadvantaged may support social systems (1) in order to acknowledge social reality, (2) when they perceive the wider social system to constitute a superordinate ingroup, and (3) because they hope to improve their ingroup's status through existing channels in the long run. These propositions are corroborated by existing and emerging evidence. We conclude that SIMSA offers a more coherent and parsimonious explanation for system justification than does SJT.
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 26-05-2022
DOI: 10.3389/FPSYG.2022.797139
Abstract: Why do voters seek to change the political landscape or to retain it? System justification theory (SJT) proposes that a separate system motive to preserve the existing order drives support for the status-quo, and that this motivation operates independently from personal and collective interests. But how does this explanation apply to recent populist shifts in the political order such as Brexit and the emergence of Donald Trump? While the system motive may seem useful in understanding why the usual progressives (Remain/Clinton voters) may want to stick with an established order, it seems insufficient to explain why the more conservative voters (Brexit/Trump voters) would want to upend the establishment. Thus, we compared SJT’s system motive explanation for the system attitudes of voters on both sides of the political ide to an alternative explanation drawn from the newer social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA). According to SIMSA, the difficulty in explaining the system attitudes of Brexit/Trump and Remain/Clinton voters from SJT’s system motive standpoint can be resolved by focusing instead on the collective interests that both c s seek to satisfy with their votes. We examined these explanations in two studies conducted soon after Brexit ( N = 313) and Trump’s election ( N = 289) in 2016, with results providing more support for SIMSA than for SJT.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 12-09-2017
DOI: 10.1111/SJOP.12388
Abstract: Owuamalam, Weerabangsa, Karunagharan and Rubin found that Malaysians associate people in low status groups with anger more than their higher status counterparts: the hunchback heuristic. But is this belief accurate? Here, we propose the alternative possibility that members of low-status groups might deliberately suppress anger to counter this stigma, while members of high-status groups might disinhibit their anger to assert their superiority. To test these propositions, we manipulated undergraduate students' relative group status by leading them to believe that provocative comments about their undergraduate social identity came from a professor (low-status condition) or a junior foundation year student (high-status condition). Using eye-tracking, we then measured their gaze durations on the comments, which we used as a physiological signal of anger: dwelling (Experiment 1). Results revealed that dwelling was significantly greater in the high-status condition than in the low-status condition. Experiment 2 conceptually replicated this pattern using a self-report method and found that the suppression-disinhibition effect occurred only when reputational concerns were strong.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 08-03-2023
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 28-09-2018
DOI: 10.1111/SPC3.12419
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 30-06-2020
DOI: 10.1002/EJSP.2694
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 23-02-2018
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 30-11-2016
Publisher: Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID)
Date: 27-11-2014
DOI: 10.5964/JSPP.V2I1.33
Abstract: Previous research has demonstrated that, when negative metastereotypes are made salient, members of low status groups help members of high status groups in order to improve the reputation of their low status group and its associated social identity. The present research investigated three potential moderators of low status groups’ outgroup helping: ingroup identification, audience group membership, and perceived reputational benefit. In Study 1 (N = 112) we found that members of a low status group (Keele University students) were most likely to offer to help raise funds for a high status group (University of Birmingham students) when they were high identifiers who had considered a negative metastereotype and believed that their responses would be viewed by an outgroup member. In Study 2 (N = 100) we found a similar effect in an intergroup context that referred to psychology students (low status ingroup) and junior doctors (high status outgroup), showing that the effect was limited to people who perceived reputational benefit in helping the outgroup. The practical and social implications of these findings are discussed in relation to intergroup contact and international relations.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United States of America
No related grants have been discovered for Chuma Kevin Owuamalam.