No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Correction to Shepherd and Kay (2011).
Abstract
Reports an error in "On the perpetuation of ignorance: System dependence, system justification, and the motivated avoidance of sociopolitical information" by Steven Shepherd and Aaron C. Kay ( Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Advanced Online Publication, Nov 7, 2011, np). Due to a production error, the article was published with the images omitted from Appendix A. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2011-25736-001 .) How do people cope when they feel uninformed or unable to understand important social issues, such as the environment, energy concerns, or the economy? Do they seek out information, or do they simply ignore the threatening issue at hand? One would intuitively expect that a lack of knowledge would motivate an increased, unbiased search for information, thereby facilitating participation and engagement in these issues—especially when they are consequential, pressing, and self-relevant. However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the importance/self-relevance of social issues and people's willingness to engage with and learn about them. Leveraging the literature on system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), the authors hypothesized that, rather than motivating an increased search for information, a lack of knowledge about a specific sociopolitical issue will (a) foster feelings of dependence on the government, which will (b) increase system justification and government trust, which will (c) increase desires to avoid learning about the relevant issue when information is negative or when information valence is unknown. In other words, the authors suggest that ignorance—as a function of the system justifying tendencies it may activate—may, ironically, breed more ignorance. In the contexts of energy, environmental, and economic issues, the authors present 5 studies that (a) provide evidence for this specific psychological chain (i.e., ignorance about an issue → dependence → government trust → avoidance of information about that issue); (b) shed light on the role of threat and motivation in driving the second and third links in this chain; and (c) illustrate the unfortunate consequences of this process for individual action in those contexts that may need it most. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
Definitions of privacy change, as do norms for protecting it. Why, then, are privacy scholars and activists currently worried about “normalization”? This essay explains what normalization means in the context of surveillance concerns and clarifies why normalization has significant governance consequences. We emphasize two things. First, the present is a transitional moment in history. AI-infused surveillance tools offer a window into the unprecedented dangers of automated real-time monitoring and analysis. Second, privacy scholars and activists can better integrate supporting evidence to counter skepticism about their most disturbing and speculative claims about normalization. Empirical results in moral psychology support the assertion that widespread surveillance typically will lead people to become favorably disposed toward it. If this causal dynamic is pervasive, it can diminish autonomy and contribute to a slippery slope trajectory that diminishes privacy and civil liberties.
This article outlines the concept of system justification proposed by J. Jost and M. Banaji. Motivational basis of system justification as well as the core assumption that low-status individuals tend to justify the existing system more than high-status individuals are described thoroughly. The factors that enhance system justification motivation as well as the relations between system justification and behavioral patterns that preserve social inequality are described in specific paragraphs.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.