Project info
Work package
- Inclusion
Sustainability threat
- Feedback Cycles
Challenge
- Dealing with diversity
Study info
Description of Study
Existing theories highlight diverse predictors of hierarchy legitimization, such as justice beliefs, hierarchy characteristics, and group interest, but these are rarely integrated. Across two cross-sectional studies, we adopt an integrative approach by examining predictors across three categories: individual-focused variables (e.g., SDO, belief in meritocracy), hierarchy-focused variables (e.g., permeability, stability), and group position (e.g., low vs. high status). In Study 1 (N = 279), each participant evaluated 3 out of 6 hierarchies (837 responses total) and 3 out of 8 hierarchies in Study 2 (N = 468; 1404 total responses). Using cross-classified multilevel models, we disentangled individual- and hierarchy-level effects to identify both general and context-sensitive predictors of legitimization. SDO was the strongest individual-focused predictor in both studies, followed by belief in a just world (Study 1) and belief in meritocracy (Study 2). Hierarchies perceived as merit-based (Study 1) and permeable (Study 2) were judged as more legitimate. While low-status group members viewed hierarchies as less legitimate, they were more likely to legitimize them when boundaries were seen as stable (Study 2). This research addresses broader debates about why, and by whom inequalities are legitimized and offers a framework for future research on generalizability and context-dependence of predictors of inequality legitimization.
Study research question
1- What predicts legitimization of social hierarchies?
2- When do low-status group members accept or reject social inequality?
3- Do people hold different hierarchy legitimizing and hierarchy challenging attitudes toward different social hierarchies.
Collection provenance
- Collected during project
Collection methods
- Questionaire
Personal data
Yes
External Source
Source description
File formats
- .xlsx
Data types
- Structured
Languages
- English
Coverage start
Coverage end
17/11/2022
03/01/2026
26/06/2023
17/08/2023
Spatial coverage
Netherlands
Collection period start
—
Collection period end
—
Variables
Unit
Unit description
Sample size
Sampling method
Individuals
Students
279
—
Individuals
Online Sample of Dutch Citizens (Panel Inzicht)
468
Survey
Hypothesis
Theory
Study 1 explores the effects of individual and hierarchy-focused variables on perceived legitimacy across six social hierarchies
—
Study 2 Pre-registration link: https://aspredicted.org/wmb9-v2wd.pdf
—
Variable type
Variable name
Variable description
Dependent variable
Study 1: Perceived Legitimacy of Social Status Inequality
A three-item scale adapted from Russo & Mosso (2018) assessed the perceived legitimacy of social status differences between low and high-status groups within each hierarchy. For the education-based hierarchy, items included: “Please indicate to what extent you think that the difference in status between the less educated and the higher educated is (1) Fair, (2) Legitimate, and (3) Justified”. Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (to a very large extent), with Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.88 to 0.94.
Independent variable
Study 1: Perceived Stability of Social Status inequality
Two items adapted from Owuamalam et al. (2021) (item correlations ranged from r = 0.68 to 0.75), e.g., "In the next twenty years, it is unlikely that the differences in status between the less educated and higher educated will change dramatically in the Netherlands."
Independent variable
Study 1: Perceived Permeability of Social Status inequality
A three-item scale adapted from Verkuyten & Reijerse (2008) (α ranged from 0.36 to 0.72) measures perceived permeability. An example item within the weight-based hierarchy included: "It is not difficult for obese people to become non-obese."
Independent variable
Study 1: Perceived role of Merit
A 2-item scale adapted from ISSP Research Group (2017) measured the perceived importance of hard work and ambition in determining one's position in the hierarchy (item correlations ranged from r = 0.63 to 0.93). The items were measured using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 5 (essential). A sample item from the citizenship-based hierarchy includes: “Indicate to what extent you think each of the following factors is important in determining if someone is an EU-citizen or a non-EU-citizen: How important is hard work?”
Independent variable
Study 1: Perceived biological influence
Similar to the way Merit was measured, biological influence was assessed using two items (Pearson’s r ranged from r = 0.71 to 0.88), inquiring about the perceived importance of genetic factors and biological makeup.
Independent variable
Study 1: Responsibility
Two items adapted from Weiner et al. (1988) measured the perceived responsibility and control (Pearson’s r ranged from r = 0.60 to 0.79), with responses ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Completely). Within the economic-status hierarchy, a sample item included: "To what extent is an individual responsible for being poor or rich in the Netherlands?".
Independent variable
Study 1: Essentialism
. A 22-item scale from Bastian & Haslam (2006) was used (α = 0.77). Items included: "The kind of person someone is can be largely attributed to their genetic inheritance" and "A person's basic qualities exist in varying degrees and are never easily categorized” (reverse-coded).
Independent variable
Study 1: Social Dominance Orientation
An 8-item scale from Ho et al. (2015) (α = 0.81) measures SDO. Sample items included: "An ideal society requires some groups to be on top and others to be on the bottom," and "Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups."
Independent variable
Study 1: System Justification
An 8-item scale adopted from Kay and Jost (2003) (α = 0.71) measured system justification. Sample items included “In general, I find society to be fair”, “In general, the Dutch political system operates as it should.”, and “Everyone has a fair shot at wealth and happiness.”
Independent variable
Study 1: Belief in Just World
An 8-item scale adapted from Lipkus et al. (1996) measured BJW. Sample items included “I feel that the world treats people fairly” and “I feel that people earn the rewards and punishments they get” (α = 0.86).
Independent variable
Study 1: Protestant Work Ethic
A 5-item scale adapted from Quinn & Crocker (1999) measured PWE. Sample items include “If you want to be successful, all you need to do is work hard and improve yourself” and “People are responsible for their own situation in life” (α =0.76).
Independent variable
Study 1: Belief in Individual Mobility
A 3-item scale adapted from (McCoy & Major, 2007) measures BIM. Items included “Individual members of certain groups are often unable to advance in Dutch society” (α = 0.63).
Dependent variable
Study 2: Perceived Legitimacy
In the education-based hierarchy, a sample item was: “The difference in social status between people with and without higher education is…” with response options ranging from 1 (very illegitimate) to 9 (very legitimate), and a midpoint of 5 (neither legitimate nor illegitimate). The other two items measured whether status differences were perceived as fair and justified, with α ranging from 0.88 to 0.94 across the eight scales.
Independent variable
Study 2: Perceived Stability
As in Study 1, but with a slight change in wording and reverse coding the first item for better interpretability: “In the next twenty years, the differences in status between people with low and high income will change dramatically in the Netherlands.” Pearson’s correlations between the two items ranged from r = 0.06 to 0.53.
Independent variable
Study 2: Perceived Permeability
Perceived permeability of group boundaries was measured using two items adapted from Verkuyten & Reijerse (2008) (r ranged between 0.14 and 0.68). For education-based hierarchy items included: “It is easy for people without higher education to become higher educated” and “Despite their best efforts, it would still be difficult for people without higher education to become higher educated (reverse coded).” Only in the weight-based hierarchy, the first item was reverse-coded due to an error in translation: “It is difficult for people with obesity to reach the weight of people without Obesity.”
Independent variable
Study 2: Perceived role of Merit
As in Study 1, but with an additional item related to talent. For the income-based hierarchy, we asked participants to: “Indicate to what extent you think each of the following factors is important in determining a person’s income level” (1) Hard work, (2) Talent, (3) Ambition. Response options ranged from 1 (Unimportant) to 7 (Very important), and α ranged from 0.70 to 0.93.
Independent variable
Study 2: Perceived Biological Influence
Similar to the way "Merit" was measured, two items assessed the perceived biological influence (1) Biological factors and (2) Genetic makeup (r ranged from 0.60 to 0.79)
Independent variable
Study 2: Responsibility
Similar measure as in Study 1. Sample item for the residence-based hierarchy included: “To what extent is an individual responsible for being a resident of the Randstad or the provinces in the Netherlands?”. Responses ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Entirely) and r ranged between 0.65 and 0.79.
Independent variable
Study 2: Essentialism (biological factors subscale)
3 items from the biological factors subscale of Bastian and Haslam’s (2006) essentialism scale (α = 0.85), e.g., “The kind of person someone is can be largely attributed to their genetic inheritance”.
Independent variable
Study 2: Belief in Meritocracy
Seven-item scale adapted from Zimmerman & Reyna (2013) (α = 0.88). Sample items included: “People who work hard do achieve success”, “If people work hard, they do get what they want”, and “Advancement in Dutch society is equally possible for all individuals.”
Discipline-specific operationalizations
Conflict of interest
no
Data packages
Publications
Documents
Filename
Description
Date
Ethics
Ethical assessment
Yes
Ethical committee
Ethics committee at the faculty of social and behavioral sciences, University of Groningen