Editorial: Current research on the palliative effect of ideology

Like a soothing balm that offers temporary relief, but leaves the underlying condition untouched, legitimizing ideologies possess a remarkable capacity to alleviate psychological discomfort derived from inequality without addressing its fundamental sources. According to system justification theory (Jost and Banaji, 1994; Jost, 2020), widely shared beliefs that make the status quo (and its attendant degree of inequality) seem fair and legitimate help satisfy epistemic (uncertainty reduction), existential (threat reduction), and relational (shared reality and interpersonal harmony) needs. Thus, system-justifying beliefs could offer solace from the negative psychological consequences of inequality by shifting the blame away from its systemic root causes (Jost and Hunyady, 2003).

The palliative effect of ideology has accumulated substantial empirical support (e.g., Vargas-Salfate et al., 2024). However, several questions remained unanswered. For instance, to what extent this effect generalizes across developmental stages, social groups, and domains of inequality? Through which mechanisms does it operate? Are system justifying beliefs always palliative, or are there certain conditions where they will actually be detrimental to wellbeing? The four contributions to this Research Topic, spanning a systematic review of evidence on youth, two empirical investigations of marginalized groups in the Americas, and a cross-cultural analysis of 22 countries, engage directly with these questions. Together, they refine our understanding of when and how system-justifying ideologies confer palliative effects by documenting the moderating and mediating mechanisms that shape their complex psychological consequences.

System justification among youth

In “A systematic review of motivated system justification among youth,” Biedron et al. address an enduring gap in the literature: whether the predictions of System Justification Theory, developed and tested predominantly with adults, also apply to children and adolescents. Following PRISMA guidelines¹, the authors thoroughly and rigorously report the results from a synthesis of findings from 17 manuscripts (containing 20 studies) which cover both the demographic antecedents and the psychological consequences of system-justifying tendencies in youth populations. Their review reveals that minors (including those from disadvantaged racial, gender, and socioeconomic backgrounds) do engage in system justification, and that, as in adult samples, such tendencies are associated with palliative outcomes, including higher self-esteem, fewer internalizing and externalizing problems, and stronger perceptions of societal fairness. Importantly, Biedron et al. also document developmental nuances, including evidence that the benefits of system justification may shift across stages of childhood. Further, they identify several gaps in the extant research, including a dearth of studies employing economic system justification measures or attending to intersectional identities. Their work establishes a foundation for the systematic investigation of palliative ideology earlier in the life course and suggests that the formative years are a critical period for the crystallization of legitimizing beliefs.

Heteronormative system justification among sexual minorities in Brazil

In their empirical work, “Heteronormative system justification and wellbeing among sexual minorities in Brazil: the role of internalized homophobia and in-group identification”, Lima et al. examine how beliefs that are system-justifying but also group-derogating affect the subjective wellbeing among a discriminated population—namely, lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people. Drawing on a sample of 777 Brazilian cisgender LGB participants, the authors test a moderated mediation model integrating heteronormative system justification, internalized homophobia, LGB in-group identification, and subjective wellbeing. Consistent with the palliative hypothesis, heteronormative system justification directly predicted higher subjective wellbeing. However, among gay men, there was an indirect negative pathway through internalized homophobia. Furthermore, in-group identification acted as a moderator, such that the palliative effect was weaker among those who identified most strongly with the LGB community. The study underscores the group-system conflict elicited by the palliative effect among disadvantaged groups, namely, that justifying the system may relieve individual distress while simultaneously reinforcing the internalization of stigma. In line with previous warnings about the importance of addressing dimension-specific systems (Sengupta et al., 2015). These findings by Lima et al. illustrate the value of measuring system justification at the level of the specific heteronormative system (rather than the system as a whole) and of attending to the complex interplay of group-level relevant variables.

Racial system justification among White and Black participants in the USA

In their work “The palliative and pernicious effects of racial system justification for the racially privileged and the racially oppressed,” Bertin et al. introduce a novel measure of racial system justification and test whether ethnic-racial identity attitudes, specifically, racial salience (i.e., the degree to which an individual considers race in daily life) and racial self-hatred (i.e., the extent to which individuals dislike their racial group), mediate its association with psychological wellbeing. Across two studies among White (N = 371) and Black (N = 414) participants in the USA, the authors show that racial system justification was indirectly linked to better mental health through decreased ethnic-racial salience and decreased ethnic-racial self-hatred among White participants, with evidence of a serial pathway in which lower salience further reduced self-hatred. As expected, the process was more nuanced among Black participants. Specifically, racial system justification was indirectly linked to greater psychological distress through increased racial self-hatred, while a tentative second pathway suggested a simultaneous palliative association via decreased racial salience. This contribution by Bertin et al. extends the palliative-pernicious tension previously documented among sexual minorities (Bahamondes, 2016; Suppes et al., 2019) into the domain of race, and proposes that this tension may be best understood by examining how legitimizing beliefs intersect with ethnic-racial identity.

Divergent palliative effects of system justification and prejudice across 22 countries

Finally, in “Hate the sin, not the sinner: The differential effects of prejudice and system-justifying beliefs on subjective wellbeing,” Suppes et al. extend the inquiry on the palliative effect of ideology to a large set of cross-national general samples (N = 13,973 across 22 countries). Their analytical approach disentangles two related yet conceptually distinct constructs: prejudice toward gender and sexual minorities (anti-GSM prejudice) and system-legitimizing beliefs that frame those minorities as a threat or a moral transgression (anti-GSM system justification). Although, the two constructs were positively correlated, they were differently associated with subjective wellbeing. Specifically, anti-GSM system-justifying beliefs predicted greater happiness and health, while anti-GSM prejudice predicted the opposite. Furthermore, social conservatism partially mediated the association between system-legitimizing beliefs and wellbeing, but not the association between prejudice and wellbeing, suggesting that the palliative function of anti-GSM ideology operates through a broader tendency to endorse the status quo, whereas the wellbeing cost of prejudice operates through a separate mechanism. Importantly, Suppes et al. emphasize that the palliative benefit of ideology operates as a Band-Aid rather than a remedy—that is, the structural inequalities that legitimizing beliefs rationalize continue to harm the targets of prejudice and, ultimately, the wellbeing of all involved.

Conclusions

Taken together, these four contributions reaffirm that the palliative effect of ideology is a robust but conditional phenomenon. It generalizes across age groups (Biedron et al.), persists across studies of marginalized identities in different parts of the Americas (Lima et al.; Bertin et al.), and replicates across diverse national contexts (Suppes et al.). Yet, the picture that emerges from this Research Topic is one of greater complexity than a simple “ideology soothes” account would suggest. The ideological palliation mechanism coexists with other pernicious pathways, through which internalized stigma, ethnic-racial self-hatred, and the dampening of critical awareness may erode disadvantaged group members' wellbeing and weaken mobilization for social change. Notably, it suggests distinct consequences of system-legitimizing beliefs different from those of raw prejudice. Future research should continue to examine the boundary conditions of these effects, attending especially to (a) palliative system-justifying mechanisms that are unique to certain developmental stages, (b) the cultural and political contexts in which palliative ideologies are differently expressed, and (c) the intersection of multiple stratification systems. As Suppes et al. remind us, the goal cannot be to legitimize unjust arrangements for the sake of individual relief but to transform the conditions that make ideology palliative in the first place.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used Claude (Sonnet 4.6) in order to conduct general grammatical and syntactical checks upon the completed manuscript. The entirety of the content of this manuscript was created by the author(s).

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited and reviewed by: Richard P. Eibach, University of Waterloo, Canada

Footnotes

PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.