Ingroup favoritism and Hope for Future Advancement Predict Gender and National System justification amongst Women

System justification theory (SJT) proposes that justifications of social system arises from a special (system) motivation that is theorized to work against the interests of the disadvantaged. Unlike SJT, the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA) propose that system justification can be explained without recourse to a special and independent system motivation. SIMSA assumes that members of disadvantaged groups can justify their societal systems when (a) they perceive the system as an ingroup (i.e. ingroup favoritism), and (b) they are hopeful that advancement within the system in possible for their ingroup. We conducted an experiment (N = 311 American women) in which the salience of women’s national vs. gender identity was made salient (testing ingroup favoritism account), while also manipulating their hope for future advancement of women as a group. General system justification, gender system justification and economic system justification were the dependent variables. We also measured women’s gender and feminist identification as control measures. Results showed that women were more likely to engage in system justification when their gender identity was salient, but only if they were hopeful that their gender group’s outcome will improve in the future (consistent with the hope explanation). In contrast, system justification was strongest amongst women when their national identity was salient, but only when their gender group’s future advancement was de-emphasised (consistent with the ingroup favoritism explanation). These results are supportive of SIMSA and demonstrate that system justification can be explained by social identity motives without need for a special system motivation.