1. Social Justice and the Human–Environment
Relationship: Common Systemic, Ideological,
and Psychological Roots and Processes
Irina Feygina
Published online: 25 August 2013
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Historical analyses and contemporary social psychological research
demonstrate that prevailing systems, institutions, and practices espouse an ideology
of conflict between humans and the natural world. The established paradigm of
society espouses domination of and separation from the natural environment, and
manifests in environmentally detrimental attitudes and practices. Ecological
exploitation appears to stem from the same root socioeconomic processes as social
injustice—the hierarchical arrangement of power which places some groups and the
environment in a position devoid of power or rights. Accordingly, endorsement of
social and environmental injustice is exacerbated by tendencies toward domination
and hierarchy, such as social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarian-
ism. Moreover, injustice is perpetuated by motivation to uphold and justify social
structures and the dominant paradigm, which stifles societal change toward inter-
group fairness and equality and motivates denial and neglect in the face of envi-
ronmental problems. Ideological tendencies in service of the system, including
political conservatism, belief in a just world, and free market ideology, contribute
toward perpetuating injustice as well as anti-environmental sentiment and behavior.
Considering the shared psychological and ideological underpinnings of social and
environmental injustice point to important interventions, such as cultivating inter-
dependence through contact, fostering inclusive representations, and harnessing
ideological motives toward overcoming resistance to change, and carry implications
for expanding the scope of justice theory, research, and practice.
Keywords Social justice Á Environmental attitudes and behaviors Á
Climate change Á Ideology Á Societal hierarchy Á System justification
I. Feygina (&)
American Psychological Association Congressional Fellow, Washington, DC, USA
e-mail: irina.feygina@gmail.com
123
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
DOI 10.1007/s11211-013-0189-8

2. Introduction
Environmental problems pose, arguably, the greatest challenge of the current era,
and require profound changes in economic and social institutions and practices in
order to prevent ecological destruction and human misery on a global scale. Despite
the direct threat that environmental destruction poses for human health and well-
being, it has been met with apathy, complacency, and indifference (Begley, 2007;
Carroll, 2006; Gallup Poll, 2007; Pew Report, 2006; Saad, 2007). In the United
States, thirty years of warnings and activism to raise awareness and increase pro-
environmental behavior have had limited impact, and concern about the environ-
ment remains remarkably low (Saad, 2012). The world continues to steadfastly
pursue an unsustainable course of industrial production and development that is
changing the climate of the planet and polluting every resource on which all life
depends. How can the profound disconnect between our needs and the consequences
of our actions be understood?
I propose that the disconnect between people’s dependence on and neglect of the
environment has deeply rooted societal and ideological underpinnings that manifest
at the psychological level, and share common dynamics with intergroup processes.
Specifically, attitudinal and motivational responses to social systems and hierarchies
that underlie the perpetuation of social injustice appear to also account for ongoing
environmental destruction and resistance to pro-environmental change. This article
explores the intersection of societal and psychological processes in giving rise to the
human–environment conflict by (1) outlining the historical development of
ideologies that underlie contemporary beliefs toward the environment, (2) reviewing
research on the negative environmental implications of such ideologies, (3) offering
evidence for the common ideological and motivational roots of environmental
destruction and social injustice, and (4) exploring implication for theory, research,
and application of the shared underpinning of social and environmental justice.
Social and Ideological Roots of the Human Relationship to the Environment
Scholars have argued that people’s relationship with the environment developed
side by side with the evolution of social structures and rules, and is a direct
reflection and consequence of the ideologies espoused by these systems. Below, a
brief review of literature outlines this argument, and provides examples of how
social practices and needs dictate beliefs and behavior toward the environment.
Historical Development of Contemporary Ideologies and Structures
Agriculture, Technology, and the Subjugation of Nature
Anthropologists and philosophers have suggested that the development of large-
scale civilization was accompanied by a separation from, domination of, and
exploitation of the natural world (Zarzan, 2005). Subsistence through hunting and
gathering was directly dependent on close observation, intimate personal knowledge
364 Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
123

3. of, and symbiotic coexistence with environmental cycles, ecosystems, and other
animals. This interdependence was reflected in the pronounced presence of nature in
symbolic representation and in cultural and spiritual practices (Shepard, 1993).
Agricultural development and the creation of permanent settlements gave rise to a
gradual shift toward perceiving the natural as subject to cultivation, alteration,
control, and at times exploitation (Zarzan, 1988), a trend that increased with the rise
of more complex cultural, intellectual, and technological systems which permitted
people to exert more influence over the environment.
Human Distinction from and Superiority to Nature
The philosophies of Plato, and subsequently Aristotle, posited that people’s
intellectual superiority over other animals and capacity for reason and rationality
placed human beings in the center of the world and closest to God in the hierarchy
of nature, with other animals in subservient positions. Christianity adopted the
Platonic philosophy, and placed an additional association of sin, dirt, and disgust
onto the material and the animal (Vining, 2003). Finally, the Enlightenment codified
human separation from and domination of nature into the roots of the modern
Western worldview via urbanization, technological development, and industriali-
zation (Cronon, 1991).
Human Domination of Nature
Furthering the argument, Horkheimer (1947) proposed that in the process of
mastering nature for the sake of establishing an industrial society we have come to
dominate it, and this hierarchy of power and subjugation of external forces is echoed
at the personal level. We have ‘‘internalized’’ domination as a means of existence
for the sake of establishing and maintaining society. Because our relationship with
nature has been directed toward serving industrial society, we have not developed a
meaningful relationship with it, nor engaged with our reactions to it, but rather have
come to suppress and repress it. This process of repression has been carried over
from the human relationship with nature to the relationship between individuals and
groups within society, giving rise to resistance in the form of social rebellions.
Horkheimer argues that civilization has learned to turn such revolt, both from
people and from nature, into a means of perpetuating the very problems that caused
it, with dreadful results: ‘‘On the one hand, nature has been stripped of all intrinsic
value or meaning. On the other, man has been stripped of all aims except self-
preservation’’ (Horkheimer, 1947). Nature and the human spirit have come to be
seen in purely practical terms, as means to production and wealth, not as ends in and
of themselves that deserve care and respect. Horkheimer traces this mentality of
domination to the foundations of Christian doctrine, which is inextricably integrated
into contemporary worldviews, that proclaims people’s souls can be saved, while
animals have no means of salvation from the suffering of existence. Therefore,
people have no obligation to animals or to nature, and are justified in dominating
them as a means to their own ends.
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381 365
123

4. Perpetuation of a Hierarchical and Consumption-Oriented System
Civilization is also marked by the codification of the spiritual and the creation of
religious doctrine, which separates and detaches people from their spiritual
experience. Landau (1998) argues that social control has been exercised through
religion, which has tethered the deep human experience of connectedness and
openness to societal regulation and morality, thus dominating and suppressing it,
often making it inaccessible. According to Landau, the social and economic order
has rearranged people’s priorities, such that the profound experience of being alive
and of being interconnected and interdependent with other beings, and with the
Earth, has been replaced with banality, alienation, and materialism. In other words,
society has enforced a stratification and separation of the material and spiritual
realms, compromising people’s ability to experience awe, profound spiritual
experience, and connection, and simultaneously rationalizing the domination of the
environment as a means to uphold a system based on production and consumption.
Modern Conceptions of Separation Between People and Nature
The sense of human separation from the natural environment became so pronounced
that modern definitions often envision nature as that devoid of or untouched by
people or society. John Muir considered natural environments that are free of
people’s presence or influence as the only remaining places of spirituality and
liberation (Muir, 1916). Similarly, Henry David Thoreau sought to cultivate a life
embedded in nature, and subsistence via dependence on surrounding ecosystems, as
a heretical challenge to American society of his time, and felt that personal growth
could take place only by removing oneself from civilization and by living off the
land (Thoreau, 1854). Current thinkers echo this sentiment—Bill McKibben has
famously referred to human alteration of the atmosphere through greenhouse gas
emissions and its pervasive impact on every part of the planet as the ‘‘end of nature’’
(McKibben, 1989).
Modern Practices of Domination of Nature
American resource use and planning offer insight into modern manifestations of the
historical developments described above. European settlers of the American
continent instituted a notion of land ownership that included everything on and in
the land, and perceived it in terms of the commodities it offered. In developing
agriculture, settlers rejected seasonal migration which allows the land to regenerate,
and applied the notion of ‘‘improving the land’’ by clearing forests and drastically
altering ecosystems, resulting in the creation of swamps, spread of disease, and loss
of the carrying capacity of the land (Cronon, 1983/2003). The settlers considered
Native Americans to be part of the natural environment, rather than people, because
they did not alter the environment in a drastic manner, and cultivated food
production according to ecological cycles. After the removal of Native Americans
from their land traces of their civilization faded, and the land was perceived as
‘‘pristine,’’ with the history of its inhabitants erased and forgotten. Thus a profound
366 Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
123

5. violation of human rights was embedded into the modern conception of nature
(Cronon, 1996).
As the settlers took over increasing portions of the continent under the mandate
of Manifest Destiny—a hubris-driven sense of entitlement and ownership, they
spread the notion of reclaiming the land by turning it from its natural state to a
‘‘useful’’ state. Unused and unconsumed land or water were considered wasted, and
this gave rise to several strikingly unsustainable enterprises, including the extensive
damming and redirection of rivers and exhaustion of underwater reservoirs in the
Southwest for the creation of agriculture in the desert (Reisner, 1986). After
immense financial and resource investment into this conquest of nature, the cities
and agricultural areas of the Southwest depend on rivers which have almost run dry,
whose water has become so rich in salt and sediment that it is destructive to
agriculture, and which are unlikely to withstand the impacts of climate change and
population growth (Sabo et al., 2010).
Summing up these arguments and examples suggests that established contem-
porary worldviews are rooted in a perceived disconnect between human beings and
the environment, and a stance of domination and exploitation. Such beliefs, in the
context of society’s continuing technological advancement, industrial production,
and population growth are likely to carry increasingly unsustainable and harmful
consequences (Axelrod & Suedfeld, 1995).
Contemporary Socioeconomic Systems, Environmental Beliefs, and Social
Justice
The preceding overview of philosophical and cultural analyses suggests that
contemporary institutions and worldviews promulgate a dominating and discon-
nected relationship between human beings and the natural environment. If this
analysis is correct, then a psychological approach is likely to find a relationship
between endorsement of established socioeconomic hierarchies and practices and
beliefs that are exploitative of the environment and indifferent to environmental
harm. Social psychological and sociological findings provide evidence that this is
indeed the case.
The Dominant Social Paradigm and Environmental Attitudes
How do the ideologies described above manifest in the mind of contemporary
individuals? Research exploring contemporary worldviews points to the presence
and prevalence of the Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP), a foundational set of
ideologies underpinning the extant worldview espoused by current society, which is
comprised of beliefs, attitudes, values, habits, and institutions that shape how we
perceive and interpret our social and natural worlds (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978,
1984; Milbrath, 1984; Pirages, 1977; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). There appear to
be eight key attitudes underlying DSP: support for economic growth; faith in the
efficacy of science and technology; devotion to private property rights; fear of
planning and support for the status quo; emphasis on individualism; support for free
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381 367
123

6. enterprise; commitment to limited government; and faith in future abundance
(Dunlap & Van Liere, 1984). In line with historical and cultural analyses, DSP
researchers point to the interdependent development of these socioeconomic
ideologies and attitudes toward the environment. They argue that the DSP likely
arose during the Enlightenment period and has deeply influenced the developmental
trajectory of society and of science up to the present (Kilbourne, Beckmann, &
Thelen, 2002), and continues to be perpetuated through socialization and
participation in social institutions and practices.
In line with the argument outlined above, endorsement of the DSP is
accompanied by a stance of domination and exploitation toward the environment,
a disregard for the need to protect resources, and a belief that technological and
economic forces can solve all problems, including ecological ones. Underlying the
DSP is a belief in the abundance and inexhaustibility of environmental resources
and in the human right to their exploitation and use toward furthering socioeco-
nomic causes. Empirical studies, conducted among multinational Western samples,
provide evidence that holding attitudes in support of political, economic, and
technological aspects of the DSP is related to increased anti-environmental attitudes
and behaviors, lowered perceptions of environmental problems, less concern for the
environment, unwillingness to trade off economic for environmental interests, and
less belief that social change is necessary to address environmental problems
(Cotgrove, 1982; Kilbourne et al., 2002; Kilbourne, Beckmann, Lewis, & van Dam,
2001; Kilbourne & Polonsky, 2005; Milbrath, 1984). The eight factors of the DSP
are a consistent negative predictor of attitudinal support for population control,
resource conservation, pollution prevention and amelioration, provision of funding
and support for environmental initiatives, and environmental regulation. DSP
endorsement accounts for up to forty percent of variance in these environmental
attitudes (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1984). Cross-national comparisons within Western
countries indicate that DSP endorsement is high in the U.S., Denmark, England, and
Austria, while somewhat lower (though still prominent) in the Netherlands, Spain,
and Australia, and this variability accounts for differences in the extent to which
countries endorse environmentalism: the more residents of a country report
subscribing to the DSP the lower the country’s overall score on environmental
attitudes (Kilbourne et al., 2002).
In sum, research on the DSP provides evidence of the inseparable connection
between endorsement of established socioeconomic practices and environmentally
harmful attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, and underlines the need to address these in
tandem.
The Link Between Social Injustice and Environmental Maltreatment
The argument offered here suggests that at the root of environmental harm and
irresponsibility is a psychological stance of domination, superiority, and separation
from nature embedded in the DSP. This approach points to an important
implication: taking a larger perspective on the detrimental relationship between
established systems and the environment may reveal it as a manifestation of a
broader process of injustice and subjugation perpetuated by the rigid and steep
368 Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
123

7. hierarchies that structure contemporary society and are represented in our dominant
ideologies. Indeed, in parallel to the predictors of environmental harm, research
indicates that societal hierarchy underlies social injustice, wherein some individuals
and groups hold positions of dominance, while others are subject to unfair treatment
and disadvantage (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). This analysis points
to domination, support for hierarchy, and harmful assertion of power as the primary
mechanisms by which established systems bring about harm: Both low-status group
members and the environment are placed in positions of powerlessness within the
system, and as such are accorded limited rights, or are entirely excluded from the
domain of justice (Opotow, 1990).
Power Hierarchy, Dominance, and Subjugation
Research offers support for the proposal that social injustice and environmental
harm stem from societal hierarchy, and the ideological and psychological processes
that maintain and exacerbate it.
Social Dominance Orientation
Evidence that domination is a key ideology underlying social and environmental
injustice is offered by research on social dominance orientation (SDO), a tendency
marked by a preference for social stratification and intergroup inequality, and a
motivation to assert domination and superiority over outgroups (Pratto et al., 1994).
Individuals with a strong SDO hold attitudes aligned with established group-based
hierarchies, including ethnic prejudice, nationalism, sexism, and meritocracy, and
support institutions and policies that perpetuate hierarchy while opposing attempts
to alleviate inequality (Pratto, 1999; Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).
In line with the current argument, the desire for group-based dominance is paired
with perceived anthropogenic mastery over the natural world and of non-human
animals and nature as inferior on the hierarchical ladder leading to the rational,
enlightened, and superior human being. High SDOs oppose policies designed to
protect the environment, and take a nationalistic view of environmental problems
(Pratto et al., 1994).
Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Similar findings are offered by research on the right-wing authoritarianism construct
(RWA), a tendency to uncritically submit to authorities and prevailing ideologies.
RWA is associated with endorsement of traditional and established social norms,
submissiveness to authorities who represent the social order, and aggression toward
persons who do not directly conform to the established order, deviate from the
norms, belong to outgroups, or are looked down upon by the established authorities
(Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Altemeyer, 1981).
Authoritarianism appears to reflect grasping onto the social order and its authorities,
driven in part by a weary view of human nature and the need for defense against
pervasive threat (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). RWA tendencies
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381 369
123

8. affect not only preferences and behaviors, but also the processing and storage of
information through motivated cognition that distorts factual information to bring it
in line with ideological beliefs, especially when these beliefs are salient (Mirels &
Dean, 2006).
In the justice domain, authoritarianism is associated with support for social and
economic inequality, resistance to social change, racial prejudice, homophobia,
victim blaming, and opposition to women’s rights and to free speech (Altemeyer,
1981; Jost, Glaser, et al., 2003). With respect to environmental attitudes,
authoritarianism is associated with increased support for the growth of the
industrial complex and the market system, espousal of anti-environmental attitudes,
and dismissal of the necessity to protect the environment. RWAs believe in
exercising dominion over nature and in relying on ‘‘our scientific authorities’’ for
solutions, and are unwilling to protect the local environment, to endorse the
environmentally sustainable approaches and beliefs, and to oppose industrial
developments that lead to environmental destruction (Dunlap & van Liere, 1978;
Schultz and Stone, 1994). RWAs believe that environmental problems are
exaggerated by sentimental people and special interest groups, and that environ-
mentalism poses a direct threat to the power and status of the country. RWAs
support punishing environmentalists in order to protect the economy, but not high
power corporations that harm the environment (Peterson, Doty, & Winter, 1993). In
a striking demonstration, Altemeyer (2003) engaged students in a Global Change
Game, a dynamic simulation of public administration and international relations.
The Earth ruled by high RWAs was rapidly brought to destruction through nuclear
war. Given a second chance at running the world high RWAs created a globe
plagued by war, overpopulation, famine, and disease, causing the death of five times
as many people as on the globe run by the low RWAs (Altemeyer, 2003).
Bringing together individuals who seek to exert dominance (high SDO) and those
who seek to submit to it (high RWA) appears to have especially detrimental
environmental consequences (Altemeyer, 1998). Son Hing, Bobocel, Zanna, and
McBride (2007) found that placing a high SDO individual in a position of leadership
over a high RWA follower gave rise to unethical and environmentally damaging
decisions, such as increased willing to pollute the environment and to seek
economic profit at the price of ecological harm. In the Global Change Game
discussed above, Altemeyer (2003) found that a small number of high SDOs placed
among a large group of high RWAs quickly came to a position of power, resorting
to extreme means if necessary, and created a world marked by a lack of mutual help,
militarization and violence, competition, and a failure to generate cooperative
solutions, which are often vital for environmental resource management (Altemey-
er, 2003).
Additional evidence for the link between social and environmental injustice is
offered by Wang (1999), who demonstrated that SDO and RWA predicted
positioning both women and nature as inferior and subservient, resulting in
decreased endorsement of equal rights and liberties for women and of environ-
mentally sustainable attitudes, and increased support for the oppression of women as
well as for ecological destruction.
370 Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
123

9. In sum, it appears that support for societal hierarchy and psychological
tendencies toward domination and subjugation contribute toward intergroup
inequality and injustice as well as to environmental neglect and destruction. This
connection offers an important starting point for considering environmental and
social justice issues in tandem, as well as exploring mechanisms that contribute
toward their perpetuation.
Perpetuation of Environmentally Harmful Worldviews and Practices
Bringing about change in socially and environmentally unjust practices will require
addressing and transforming people’s endorsement of and investment in the DSP,
and improvement may be unlikely unless the DSP itself is changed (Kilbourne &
Polonsky, 2005). It is important, therefore, to understand why and how these
ideologies continue to be perpetuated at a time of increasing evidence of their
detrimental consequences for social groups and individuals, as well as in giving rise
to extensive pollution and exhaustion of the Earth’s resources and the onset of
climate change.
While the DSP developed at a time when the ability of science, technology, and
industry to control and impact the environment was novel and its pervasive impacts
yet unknown, contemporary environmental challenges point to the dire need to alter
established industrial practices and ideologies of exploitation and domination in
favor of sustainability and coexistence. Yet such change may be impeded by
psychological needs to defend and bolster established systems and hierarchies.
Extensive research demonstrates that motivation in service of dominant institutions
and ideologies is an important and powerful means for the perpetuation of extant,
possibly harmful, systems (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Sullivan, 2003; Wakslak, Jost,
Tyler, & Chen, 2007). Understanding the role of motivation in the ongoing impact
of societal ideologies on social and environmental justice may be pivotal to bringing
about change.
Motivation to Justify Established Systems
Research demonstrates that people experience a profound motivation to uphold and
bolster existing social, economic, and political systems which lie at the core of the
extant socioeconomic structure, in order to feel secure and protected; to avoid
uncertainty, doubt, and fear (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Hunyady, 2005);
and to feel connected to other people and to society (Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin,
2008). People persist in rationalizing the system even if they are disadvantaged by
it, to the detriment of their personal and group interests, because of the deep
psychologically palliative function of system justification (Jost & Hunyady, 2002;
Jost, Pelham, et al., 2003; Wakslak et al., 2007).
Motivations to uphold established systems and hierarchies contribute toward the
perpetuation of unfair treatment of low-status groups, and ideologies in service of
the system maintain faith in its fairness and justice despite the hierarchical
distribution of resources and rights by placing blame on those in positions of low
power through stereotyping and devaluing beliefs (Jost et al., 2004; Pratto et al.,
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381 371
123

10. 1994). As a result, they alleviate guilt and negative affect in the face of injustice
(Jost, Wakslak, & Tyler, 2008), prevent restorative change from taking place
(Wakslak et al., 2007), and ensure the perpetuation of unequal distribution of power
and rights.
Justification processes also appear to be implicated in environmental injustice.
Because current systems of capitalism, industrial production, technological
exploitation, and ideological indifference and domination of nature are deeply
anti-environmental, greater investment in the current system, and stronger
motivation to defend and uphold it, gives rise to less concern for the
environment, and less willingness to protect or defend it (Feygina, Jost, &
Goldsmith, 2010). Challenging the established ideology of dominance over
nature, acknowledging its detrimental outcomes, and making evident the need for
sustainable social and economic practices poses a direct challenge to the ideology
of the system currently in power—the industrial complex and the political system
which it funds, and results in resistance to acknowledging and confronting
environmental realities. Empirical findings reveal that system justification is
related to denial of the possibility of an ecological crisis, of limits to growth, of
the need to abide by the constraints of nature, and of the danger of disrupting
balance in nature, as well as less willingness to take responsible actions to stem
the environmental crisis (Feygina et al., 2010). These motivational processes
manifest at the deepest psychological levels of cognition and perception: the
denial of environmental problems is facilitated by information processing
distortions with respect to evaluation, recall, and even tactile perception (Hennes,
Jost, & Ruisch, 2013).
In sum, it appears that environmental destruction is perpetuated by motivated
support for established systems, and unwillingness to acknowledge their role in
bringing about environmental destruction. The desire to protect core social,
economic, and ideological foundations contributes toward denial of their negative
impacts. Thus, the psychological need to uphold the status quo and maintain faith in
the DSP justifies ongoing engagement in unsustainable practices toward social
groups as well as the environment.
Antecedents of System-Justifying Motivations: Belief in a Just World
The motivation to justify established systems stems, in part, from a need to believe
that the world is a fair, stable, and secure place, where the innocent do not suffer,
and people are rewarded for their efforts (Furnham, 2003; Lerner and Miller, 1978).
This belief in a just world (BJW) underpins people’s ability to pursue goals and
approach the world with a sense of trust. Maintaining BJW is an important means to
rationalize the established order (Jost, Blount, Pfeffer, & Hunyady, 2003; Jost &
Burgess, 2000; Jost & Hunyady, 2005), and threats to BJW give rise to motivated
defensive responses.
Societal consequences of BJW include blaming, derogating, and devaluing
victims of crimes and traumatic events, such as abuse or rape, and those who have
contracted an illness, such as AIDs (Furnham, 2003). And, in line with the argument
372 Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
123

11. advanced here, BJW also poses a barrier to environmentalism. Feinberg and Willer
(2011) argue that because climate change entails the possibility of random and
chaotic destructive consequences for innocent people it threatens just world beliefs,
leading to rationalization through indifference. Exposure to information about
environmental problems gives rise to skepticism about global warming among high
BJW participants, while experimentally priming BJW increases skepticism and
decreases willingness to reduce carbon emissions. Skepticism mediates the
relationship between endorsement of BJW and the willingness to take palliative
pro-environmental action (Feinberg & Willer, 2011). In line with prior findings,
threats to BJW negatively impact environmentalism through the mechanism of
denial (see Feygina et al., 2010).
Consequences of System-Justifying Motivations: Ideologies in Service of the System
Political Conservatism Research links motivations to justify established systems
to the endorsement of conservative and right-wing political orientations (Jost,
Glaser, et al., 2003). Conservatism has been associated with support for ideologies,
policies, and institutions that uphold the societal status quo and inequality, for
established traditions and authorities, and in particular for the capitalist system and
its leaders (Jost, Glaser, et al., 2003; Jost, Nosek, & Gosling, 2008). The foregoing
analysis suggests that conservatism is likely to be a contributor to both social and
environmental injustice.
In the justice domain, correlates of conservatism include a preference for social
hierarchy, group-based dominance, and unequal distribution of rights and
resources, opposition to civil rights and to social welfare policies, as well as
limits to social innovation and change (Jost, Glaser, et al., 2003). In the
environmental domain, conservatism upholds the ideology of domination and
subjugation of the environment, of indifference to the harm caused in pursuit of
economic growth, and of support for established harmful practices. Holding
conservative beliefs, especially in the fiscal domain, as well as supporting right-
wing groups, is associated with less concern for or sense of duty toward the
environment, preference for interfering with and dominating nature, less
willingness to commit to pro-environmental action, and less support for pro-
environmental groups and policies (Allen, Castano, & Allen, 2007; Cottrell, 2003;
Sabbagh, 2005). Conversely, liberal, as compared to conservative, political views
are associated with greater willingness to sacrifice for environmental quality, more
pro-environmental consumer practices and collective behavior, and greater
awareness and willingness to admit environmental harm caused by human
activities (Dietz, Stern, & Guagnano, 1998). Pro-regulatory liberalism (the belief
that the government has a right to pass regulatory laws that individuals and
institutions should obey) predicts greater acknowledgment of environmental
problems, stronger support for environmental regulation, and more personal
ecological behavior (Samdahl & Robertson, 1989).
The negative relationship between conservatism and environmentalism has been
corroborated among a broad range of samples (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1984; Feygina
et al., 2010; Hodgkinson & Innes, 2000; Thompson & Gasteiger, 1985; Van Hiel &
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381 373
123

12. Kossowska, 2007; Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980). Moreover, public opinion surveys
have consistently demonstrated that people with a right-wing political orientation
are less concerned about global warming and environmental destruction in the form
of pollution, species extinction, and resource and ozone depletion, are less willing
to admit human contribution to these problems, and are less likely to take palliative
action (Begley, 2007; Carroll, 2006; Gallup Poll, 2007; Pew Report, 2006; Saad,
2007). Importantly, research suggests that the relationship between conservatism
and environmental harm is explained, in part, by system justification tendencies
(Feygina et al., 2010). In other words, motivations to support the DSP contribute
toward the link between espousing a politically conservative ideology and
environmental neglect.
Free Market Ideology A similar relationship is observed for free market ideology
(FMI), another motivated tendency in service of the system which manifests as
fervent endorsement of and faith in the capitalist system and an open unregulated
market, and support for growth and development. FMI posits that everything can
be reduced to economic costs, including ecological destruction, that the costs do
not warrant dampening of growth, and that an ‘‘invisible hand’’ of the market will
resolve all problems and balance out all disequilibria (Axelrod & Suedfeld, 1995;
Shrivastava, 1995). The perception of the market system as fair and legitimate
serves a system justifying function, and stems from a tendency toward self-
deception (e.g., denial of corporate ethical violations) in the service of maintaining
a positive view of the system (Jost, Blount, et al., 2003).
Endorsing FMI is associated with lowered ecocentrism (the belief that nature
has intrinsic value and should be protected), reluctance to believe that global
climate change is occurring and will have negative consequences, and decreased
willingness to admit that it has human causes (Heath & Gifford, 2006). These
relationships are mediated by apathy toward the environment, in line with prior
findings of the role of denial in explaining the relationship between system
justification and environmental neglect (Feygina et al., 2010). FMI gives rise to
overconfidence in the market system, faith that it cannot be interrupted or
diverted, and is guaranteed to succeed irrespective of the state of the environment
(on which it actually depends). Subscribing to FMI creates a sense of protection
and security, and fosters disconnection from the natural environment and its needs
(Heath & Gifford, 2006). As with political conservatism, research indicates that
system justification tendencies underlie the relationship between FMI and
environmental neglect (Feygina, 2012). In sum, FMI, to the extent that is it
motivated by needs to justify established systems, encourages disregard and
indifference toward the environment, and contributes to ecological overexploita-
tion and degradation.
Bringing together evidence offered above suggests that ideological and
motivational processes which contribute to the perpetuation of dominance and
inequality are implicated in continuing social injustice as well as environmental
degradation, underlines the ideological and psychological link between these
domains, and points to important theoretical and practical implications.
374 Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
123

13. Implications of the Current Framework
Theoretical Implications
The psychological and ideological links between social and environmental justice
outlined above draw attention to the need to expand the scope of social justice
research to include not only the societal but also the environmental domains (see
also Frantz & Mayer, 2013). Current approaches to social justice, and social
psychological investigations more broadly, focus primarily on relationships and
conflicts between individuals and groups, but neglect to take into consideration the
larger ecological context in which human activity is embedded, as well as the ways
in which social ideologies impact people’s relationship to that context. This is an
unfortunate shortcoming, possibly reflecting the tendency to exclude nature from
consideration, as discussed here. Including human–environment interactions in the
scope of social justice research is likely to raise novel questions about and offer
insight into both the immediate dynamics and long-term implications of dominant
ideologies and practices. One important example is the need to clarify the
relationships of dominant worldviews in non-Western settings, as well as alternative
arrangements of power, to social and environmental justice, as well as intercon-
nected impacts on these domains. Moreover, misinterpreting these entwined process
as disparate offers an incomplete psychological picture, and misses important
opportunities for multidisciplinary research and the testing of well-established
theories of social justice.
Application of Social Justice Research to the Environmental Domain
The current framework also points to important implications for intervention. A half
century of social psychological research has focused on developing approaches to
fostering social justice, much of it in the area of intergroup relations, and uncovered
important interventions that may be applicable in the environmental domain.
Injustice toward individuals and groups in society, which often takes the form of
exclusion from rights and discriminatory treatment, manifests in cognitive and
affective processes of stereotyping and prejudice. Categorization plays a key role in
the development of distinctions between ingroups and outgroups, and this
delineation creates the foundation for experiencing evaluative biases favoring the
ingroup, and prejudice against outgroups, especially those of lower status (Allport
1954; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Through stereotyping and biases toward
outgroups motivational needs for power and ideological needs to justify the status
quo give rise to unfair treatment (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).
While categorization cannot be done away with completely, prejudice can be
reduced by reshaping the lines of group belonging through recategorization of group
boundaries in a more inclusive way (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005). This can be
accomplished through contact between group members, especially when contact is
based on equality and fairness, and entails cooperative interactions and the
development of shared overarching goals (Allport, 1954; Sherif, Harvey, White,
Hood, & Sherif, 1961). Contact increases perceived connectedness, a sense of
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381 375
123

14. shared identity, and belonging to one inclusive category with people who had
previously been perceived as members of an outgroup (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005).
The sense of interdependence and connection, and of including the outgroup in
one’s identity, is key to the shift from prejudicial to fair treatment of outgroup
members (Fiske, 2000).
Applying the argument of shared processes underlying social and environmental
injustice suggests that inclusiveness and connection should serve a similarly
ameliorative function in people’s relationship with the natural environment, and that
it may be fostered by contact with nature. Indeed, inclusion of nature in one’s
identity in an important predictor of concern for and respectful treatment of the
environment (Schultz, 2000). Expanding one’s identity and sense of self to include
nature fosters perception of the environment as valuable and precious, feelings of
interconnectedness with it, and an investment in its protection, beneficial treatment,
and well-being (Schultz, 2000). Moreover, the extent to which people experience an
affective sense of connectedness to nature and feel themselves to be part of the
natural world is strongly positively related to ecological concern, perspective-
taking, and protective behavior (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Importantly, in line with
finding in the intergroup context, inclusion and connection are fostered by contact
and interactions with nature. Spending more time in nature—both on an ongoing
basis and in experimental settings, and engaging in nature-related activities and
studies, increases cognitive and affective interdependence with and inclusion of the
environment in one’s identity (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Schultz & Tabanico, 2007).
Findings from intergroup contact research suggest the need to investigate how
different types of contact with nature impact environmental concern, and to
experiment with settings in which such contact can take place. Overall, these
parallels point to intergroup justice research as an important source of theoretical
and practical experience to draw on in tacking environmental mistreatment.
Application of Environmental Research to the Social Justice Domain
Environmental research may also offer novel perspectives and interventions for
social justice. For example, in response to evidence demonstrating that motivation
to defend the extant system is at the root of environmental denial, Feygina et al.
(2010) posited that it may be possible to harness this motivation to protect, rather
than destroy, the environment, on which the health of the system actually depends.
Indeed, reminding people that preserving their way of life depends on continued
reliance on a healthy ecology, and that it is patriotic to conserve the country’s
resources, increased intentions and behaviors to protect the environment among
those who are more motivated to protect the status quo. In other words, reframing
environmental protection as consistent with socioeconomic needs alleviated the
perceived system vs. environment conflict and increased environmental engage-
ment and protection. Applying this finding to social justice suggests that calls for
action in a variety of domains, including immigration, education, health care, and
economic equality, may benefit from explicitly addressing people’s need to uphold
and protect the status quo and framing change as sanctioned by the system.
376 Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
123

15. Research and Application at the Intersection of Social and Environmental
Justice
More broadly, these findings suggest that much can be gained from explicitly taking
into consideration the shared underlying psychological dynamics of social injustice
and environmental deterioration, and their amelioration. In particular, given
evidence that expanding the scope of one’s identity and boundaries is key to moral
inclusion of outgroup members and the environment, research is needed to directly
test whether the same psychological processes underlie these changes and,
importantly, whether engendering inclusiveness in one domain generalizes to the
other. Research suggests that inclusion of nature in the self manifests at implicit
levels of representation, suggesting the pervasiveness of its impacts (Schultz,
Schriver, Tabanico, & Khazian, 2004). Moreover, inclusion of and connection to
nature are related to espousing a biospheric orientation, which emphasizes the value
and importance of ecology as well as other people and living beings, and extends to
them an altruistic moral obligation (Schultz et al., 2004). Such expansion of the self
appears to encompass other people as well as the environment, and suggests these
processes may well be working in tandem. An important future research step,
therefore, is to examine whether and how inclusion in the domain of justice can be
cultivated simultaneously for social groups and the environment, both chronically
and situationally. A possible direction is to examine shared processes underlying the
reduction of dehumanization of low status group members and the cultivation of
anthropomorphism of natural phenomena (e.g., Haslam, 2006). And, importantly,
such frameworks for inclusion would do well to incorporate systemic and
ideological motives into their scope.
In the applied domain, attempts to ameliorate social injustices and environmental
problems are often championed by different organizations, which compete for
limited financial and psychological resources. Current findings suggest that, in
certain contexts, addressing these domains in tandem may offer support for, rather
than detract from, each cause. For example, educational approaches, which are
formative of worldviews as well as cognitive and affective frameworks that shape
interpretation of reality throughout one’s life, may do well to integrate consider-
ations of social and environmental justice, as well as sustainability, into the
curriculum.
Conclusion
Social and environmental justice appear to be linked by underlying structural,
ideological, and motivational processes. Characteristics of current systems which lie
at the root of social injustice, in particular hierarchy and dominance, also contribute
toward environmental exploitation, and their impacts are perpetuated by system-
justifying motivations. Moreover, improvements in intergroup relations as well as in
environmental protection are similarly fostered by expanding inclusiveness of the
self and fostering shared identity and connectedness through contact. These findings
open the door for addressing social and environmental justice processes
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381 377
123

16. simultaneously, enlarging the theoretical scope of justice research, and developing
novel perspectives on the society-environment link. Importantly, they suggest that
transitioning toward sustainability may not only benefit from bringing together
considerations of social and environmental dimensions of justice, but may be
unattainable without it.
Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Erin Godfrey for her very helpful feedback during
the writing process and John T. Jost for his comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Part of the
work was completed while the author was supported by a Henry Mitchell MacCracken Fellowship from
the New York University. Current research complies with ethical laws and standards accepted in the
U.S.A.
Conflict of interest The author has no financial relations with this funding source, and declares no
conflict of interest.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York: Harper.
Albrecht, D., Bultena, G., Hoiberg, E., & Nowak, P. (1982). The new environmental paradigm scale.
Journal of Environmental Education, 13, 39–43.
Allen, R. S., Castano, E., & Allen, P. D. (2007). Conservatism and concern for the environment.
Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 30, 1–25.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘‘authoritarian personality’’. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Altemeyer, B. (2003). What happens when authoritarians inherit the Earth? A simulation. Analyses of
Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 161–169.
Axelrod, L. J., & Suedfeld, P. (1995). Technology, capitalism, and Christianity: Are they really the three
horsemen of the eco-collapse? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 183–195.
Begley, S. (2007). The truth about denial. Newsweek. Retrieved on August 14, 2007 from http://www.
msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/-COVER.
Carroll, J. (2006). Water pollution tops American’s environmental concerns: Americans more worried
about global warming this year. Gallup Poll News Service.
Cotgrove, S. (1982). Catastrophe or cornucopia: The environment, politics, and the future. New York:
Wiley.
Cottrell, S. P. (2003). The influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general
responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environment and Behavior, 35,
347–375.
Cronon, W. (1983/2003). Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of New England. New
York: Hill and Wang.
Cronon, W. (1991). Nature’s metropolis. New York: W.W. Norton.
Cronon, W. (1996). The trouble with wilderness: Or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental
History, 1, 7–28.
Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structural and social psychological bases of
environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450–472.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of Environmental
Education, 9, 10–19.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the dominant social paradigm and concern for
environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 1013–1028.
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by
contradicting just world beliefs. Psychological Science, 22, 34–38.
378 Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
123

17. Feygina, I. (2012). The challenge of system justification for acknowledging and responding to
environmental dilemmas and climate change. Doctoral Dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI
Dissertations Publishing (3546399).
Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the
possibility of ‘‘system-sanctioned change’’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,
326–338.
Fiske, S. T. (2000). Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing
prejudice and discrimination (pp. 115–135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frantz, C., & Mayer, F. S. (2013). The meaning of ‘‘in context’’: Extending the boundaries (in
preparation).
Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 795–817.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model.
Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From
aversive racism to the Common Group Identity Model. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 615–639.
Gallup Poll. (2007). Environment. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from http://www.galluppoll.com/content/
default.aspx?ci=1615&pg=2.
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
10, 252–264.
Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief
in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38, 48–71.
Hennes, E. P., Jost, J. T., & Ruisch, B. C. (2013). System justification distorts recall and evaluation of
climate change information (in preparation).
Hodgkinson, S. P., & Innes, J. M. (2000). The prediction of ecological and environmental belief systems:
The differential contributions of social conservatism and beliefs about money. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 20, 285–294.
Horkheimer, M. (1947/2005). Eclipse of Reason. Continuum Press.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated
evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25,
881–919.
Jost, J. T., Blount, S., Pfeffer, J., & Hunyady, G. (2003). Fair market ideology: Its cognitive-motivational
underpinnings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 53–91.
Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system
justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293–305.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated
social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of
ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153.
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.
Jost, J. T., Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C. D. (2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational
basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 171–186.
Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: It’s resurgence in social, personality, and
political psychology. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 3, 126–136.
Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Sullivan, B. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of
ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among
the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36.
Jost, J. T., Wakslak, C., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). System justification theory and the alleviation of emotional
distress: Palliative effects of ideology in an arbitrary social hierarchy and in society. In K. Hegtvedt
& J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Justice: Advances in group processes (Vol. 25, pp. 181–211). Bingley,
UK: JAI/Emerald.
Kilbourne, W. E., Beckmann, S. C., Lewis, A., & van Dam, Y. (2001). A multinational examination of
the role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes of university students.
Environment and Behavior, 33, 209–228.
Kilbourne, W. E., Beckmann, S. C., & Thelen, E. (2002). The role of the dominant social paradigm in
environmental attitudes: A multinational examination. Journal of Business Research, 55, 193–204.
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381 379
123

18. Kilbourne, W. E., & Polonsky, M. J. (2005). Environmental attitudes and their relation to the dominant
social paradigm among university students in New Zealand and Australia. Australasian Marketing
Journal, 13, 37–48.
Landau, J. (1998). Wildflowers: A bouquet of theses. Los Angeles: Primal Revival Growth Center.
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and
ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in
community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
McKibben, B. (1989). The end of nature. New York: Anchor Press.
Milbrath, L. (1984). Environmentalists: Vanguards for a new society. Albany, NY: University of New
York Press.
Mirels, H. L., & Dean, J. B. (2006). Right-wing authoritarianism, attitude salience, and beliefs about
matter of fact. Political Psychology, 27, 839–856.
Muir, J. (1916). A thousand-mile walk to the gulf. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 1–20.
Peterson, B. E., Doty, R. M., & Winter, D. G. (1993). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward
contemporary social issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 174–184.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. (2006). Little consensus on global warming:
Partisanship drives opinion. Retrieved from http://people-press.org/reports/.
Pirages, D. C. (1977). Introduction: A social design for sustainable growth. In D. C. Pirages (Ed.), The
sustainable society. New York: Praeger.
Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality. Piecing together the psychological, social,
and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, 31 (pp. 191–263). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. (1994). Social Dominance Orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Reisner, M. (1986). Cadillac Desert: The American West and its disappearing water. New York: Penguin
Books.
Saad, L. (2007). To Americans, the risks of global warming are not imminent. Gallup Poll. Retrieved
April 9, 2007 from http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27100&pg=1.
Saad, L. (2012). In U.S., global warming views steady despite warm winter. Gallup Poll. Retrieved April
15, 2012 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/Global-Warming-Views-Steady-Despite-Warm-
Winter.aspx.
Sabbagh, C. (2005). Environmentalism, right-wing extremism, and social justice beliefs among East
German adolescents. International Journal of Psychology, 40, 118–131.
Sabo, J. L., Sinha, T., Bowling, L. C., Schoups, G. H. W., Wallender, W. W., et al. (2010). Reclaiming
freshwater sustainability in the Cadillac Desert. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
107, 21263–21270.
Samdahl, D. M., & Robertson, R. (1989). Social determinants of environmental concern. Environment
and Behavior, 21, 57–81.
Schultz, P. W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for
environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 391–406.
Schultz, P. W., Schriver, C., Tabanico, J. J., & Khazian, A. M. (2004). Implicit connections with nature.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 31–42.
Schultz, P. W., & Stone, W. F. (1994). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward the environment.
Environment and Behavior, 26, 25–37.
Schultz, P. W., & Tabanico, J. (2007). Self, identity, and the natural environment. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 37, 1219–1247.
Shepard, P. (1993). On animal friends. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis
(pp. 275–300). Washington: Island Press.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and
cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). Industrial/environmental crises and corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Socio-Economics, 24, 211–227.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
380 Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381
123

19. Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., & McBride, M. V. (2007). Authoritarian dynamics and
unethical decision making: High social dominance orientation leaders and high right wing
authoritarianism followers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 67–81.
Thompson, J. C., & Gasteiger, E. L. (1985). Environmental attitude survey of university students: 1971
vs. 1981. Journal of Environmental Education, 17, 13–22.
Thoreau, H. D. (1854/2008). Walden: (Or life in the woods). Wilder Publications.
Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2007). Contemporary attitudes and their ideological representation in
Flanders (Belgium), Poland, and the Ukraine. International Journal of Psychology, 42, 16–26.
Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of
hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44, 181–197.
Vining, J. (2003). The connection to other animals and caring for nature. Human Ecology Review, 10,
87–99.
Wakslak, C., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of
system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18,
267–274.
Wang, A. Y. (1999). Gender and nature: A psychological analysis of ecofeminist theory. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2410–2424.
Zarzan, J. (1988). Elements of refusal. Columbia, MO: C.A.L. Press.
Zarzan, J. (2005). Against civilization: Readings and reflections. Los Angeles, CA: Feral House.
Soc Just Res (2013) 26:363–381 381
123