Rejoinder to Rubin, Owuamalam, Spears, and Caricati (2023): Ideology is not accuracy; identity is not everything; and the social identity model of social attitudes does not explain system justification, it presupposes it

This article rebuts arguments made by proponents of the Social Identity Model of Social Attitudes (SIMSA), especially the claim that needs for accuracy and a positively distinct social identity are sufficient to explain system justification by members of disadvantaged groups. There are many serious conceptual and empirical problems with SIMSA: (1) It treats system justification as the outcome of neutral, non-ideological processes, adopting a relativistic position about social injustice; (2) It conflates completely different concepts, such as (a) holding beliefs that favour an out-group vs. believing that one is a member of that group, and (b) recognising that status differences exist vs. believing that those differences are legitimate; (3) It is fatalistic, implying that it would be “socially inaccurate and maladaptive” for the disadvantaged to challenge “social reality” by protesting against the status quo; (4) It fails to explain individual differences and within-group variability in system justification tendencies; (5) Most SIMSA hypotheses presuppose the existence of system justification by assuming that the social system is already perceived as legitimate and stable; and (6) Existing evidence is based on experiments that are subject to numerous interpretational ambiguities. We call for an integrative model of social attitudes that incorporates ideological factors – such as whether one is motivated to defend vs. challenge the status quo – alongside needs for self-esteem and positive group distinctiveness.