Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups John T. Jost, a, * Brett W. Pelham, b and Mauricio R. Carvallo b a Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA b Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Buffalo, USA Received 6 November 2000; received in revised form 5 February 2002 Abstract According to system justification theory, people internalize and perpetuate systemic forms of inequality, even though it some- times means harboring preferences for members of higher status outgroups. In Study 1, students from a high status (but not a low status) university exhibited significant ingroup favoritism on the IAT, an automatic evaluative measure. Furthermore, for students at the high status university, implicit ingroup bias was positively correlated with implicit self-esteem. For students at the low status university, implicit acceptance of consensual stereotypes concerning academic and extracurricular characteristics was associated with implicit outgroup favoritism. In Study 2, Latinos and Asian Americans exhibited significant outgroup favoritism on an un- obtrusive behavioral measure by choosing White interaction partners over members of their own groups. In Study 3, parents named newborn children disproportionately after their fathers (compared with their mothers) and published birth announcements for boys slightly more often than for girls. Thus, we observed evidence of system justification on implicit or unobtrusive measures in three different socially disadvantaged groups. Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. Research trends, it has been said, swing like a pen- dulum from one set of theoretical assumptions to the opposite (e.g., McGuire, 1973). This insight applies particularly well to the case of intergroup relations. In the early days of research on group dynamics and in- tergroup relations, studies focused largely on ‘‘group self-hatred’’ and the internalization of inferiority among members of stigmatized groups (e.g., Allport, 1954; Clark & Clark, 1947; Lewin, 1941; Sarnoff, 1951). From approximately 1935–1965, when racial and ethnic pre- judice were openly expressed in Europe and North America, it was assumed that societal hostility plagued members of disadvantaged groups to the point at which, as Allport (1954) put it, ‘‘some degree of in-group hate seems almost inevitable’’ (p. 152). In the 1960s and 1970s, new hope emerged as mem- bers of disadvantaged groups made rapid gains in terms of their civil rights and social standing. Groups that had long been oppressed now seemed proud and even con- frontational. Social psychologists were quick to revise their theories to accommodate these developments. Theories of ‘‘realistic conflict,’’ ‘‘ethnocentrism,’’ and ‘‘social identification’’ stressed that members of low status groups (like virtually all other groups) compete with outgroup members over symbolic and material resources (e.g., Brewer, 1979; Campbell, 1965; Sherif, 1967; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). The most influential of these theories focused on motivations to achieve positive group distinctiveness and favorable social identities. To feel good about themselves, members of low status groups were said to reject (or redefine) unfavorable stereotypes of their groups (e.g., Brewer, 1979; Crocker & Major, 1989; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; van Knippenberg, 1978). Theories of ‘‘similarity’’ and ‘‘homophily’’ further contributed to the widespread notion that everyone (including members of low status groups) preferred their own kind relative to others (e.g., Allen & Wilder, 1975; Byrne, 1971). By the 1990s, however, social observers were again forced to admit that sexism, racism, and classism were enduring and even collaborative institutions. While critics and social scientists were attempting to under- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38 (2002) 586–602 www.academicpress.com Journal of Experimental Social Psychology * Corresponding author. E-mail address: John_Jost@gsb.stanford.edu (J.T. Jost). 0022-1031/02/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. PII:S0022-1031(02)00505-X