The relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief: an examination from the compensatory control theory - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice BMC Psychol . 2026 Mar 6;14:529. doi: 10.1186/s40359-026-04310-1 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search The relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief: an examination from the compensatory control theory Peng Luo Peng Luo 1 School of Marxism, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001 China Find articles by Peng Luo 1 , Wenjing Jin Wenjing Jin 1 School of Marxism, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001 China Find articles by Wenjing Jin 1 , Yaoguo Geng Yaoguo Geng 1 School of Marxism, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001 China 2 School of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001 China Find articles by Yaoguo Geng 1, 2, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 School of Marxism, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001 China 2 School of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001 China ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Oct 25; Accepted 2026 Mar 3; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13081239 PMID: 41792772 Abstract Compensatory control theory suggests that lower sense of control is correlated with stronger system-justifying belief. Three studies ( N = 1843) were designed to test compensatory control theory in China. Study 1 showed that there was a positive correlation between sense of control and system-justifying belief, which contrary to compensatory control theory. Study 2 replicated the findings of positive correlation, and further found the moderating role of subjective socioeconomic status. However, study 3 demonstrated the causal negative relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief. In low sense of control conditions, the levels of system-justifying belief were significantly reduced for those suffering negative environments, indicating a “snow plus frost” effect. These findings deeply explored the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief. Keywords: Compensatory control theory, Environment, Sense of control, Socioeconomic status, System-justifying belief The tendency of individuals to maintain and support the current social system, considering it as fair, reasonable, and justifiable, is known as a system-justifying belief [ 1 , 2 ]. An important finding of the system-justifying theory is that even in clearly unreasonable systems, even when self-interests are compromised, individuals may still perceive their social system as fair, reasonable, and justifiable, and support the existing system [ 3 ]. This phenomenon is known as the status legitimacy effect. In recent years, the system-justifying theory has emerged as a prominent area of research in the field of social science, offering a valuable lens for understanding people’s social attitudes and behaviors [ 1 , 4 ]. Social consciousness is largely shaped by social existence. If people still show a tendency to support an obviously unreasonable system, how should this be interpreted? Clearly, this issue is crucial for the correct establishment of the system-justifying theory, and it also relates to people’s attitudes towards the existing social system and its causes, which has significant practical implications for social governance. Consequently, researchers have been engaged in the investigation of the psychological roots of the formation of system-justifying belief, and proposed three theories to explain this phenomenon: the cognitive dissonance theory, the social cognition theory and the compensatory control theory [ 5 ]. Among these three, compensatory control theory has received considerable attention. Sense of control and system-justifying belief The compensatory control theory suggests that the sense of control over the external world is a basic psychological need of human beings. Sense of control is defined as an individual’s cognition and belief of their ability to manage events and the extent to which they are constrained by external factors [ 6 , 7 ]. In a complex social environment, individuals frequently encounter situations that are beyond their control. Consequently, sense of control is not always achievable. To compensate for the “deficit” of sense of control, individuals unconsciously enhance their need for order, regularity, and certainty, demonstrating a strong need for structure [ 8 , 9 ]. In such cases, the social system, led by the government and existing in the form of the state, can provide individuals with a strong, stable, and predictable external support system, compensating for their control “deficit” and providing an alternative sense of control. Concurrently, individuals reciprocate by showing a tendency to maintain and support the current social system. This suggests that a reduction in sense of control can trigger an individual’s system-justifying belief. The hypothesis that a low sense of control can trigger individuals’ system-justifying belief has received empirical support. For instance, Kay et al. analyzed data from 93,122 participants across 67 countries and found that those with low sense of control tended to rely on the government and let it to play a significant role in social life [ 8 ], which reflecting trust in the government and social systems. Other researchers have demonstrated that a lack of sense of control leads individuals to adhere more strongly to mainstream societal values [ 10 , 11 ], social hierarchical structures [ 12 ], and support for domestic products [ 13 ]. These psychological and behavioral responses serve as means to compensate for sense of control and demonstrate a tendency to support and defend the existing social system. However, other researches have shown that low sense of control does not lead to system-justifying belief. For instance, Yang et al. conducted a study on Chinese university students and found a significant positive correlation between sense of control and system-justifying belief [ 7 ]. Even when sense of control was manipulated through a recall task, the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief remained positive. These results suggested that the effect of low sense of control leading to system-justifying belief was still not confirmed. Unfortunately, Yang et al. did not analyze or explain these results that contradict compensatory control theory [ 7 ]. Considering above findings, the current study aims to systematically investigate the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief among Chinese university students. According to compensatory control theory, we proposed that low sense of control can trigger system-justifying belief (H1). The moderating role of socioeconomic status The relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief is controversial, in part due to the influence of moderating variables. Research has shown that sense of control is an individual difference variable, also influenced by the environment [ 6 , 7 ]. Social class cognition theory posits that those with low socioeconomic status are more susceptible to changes in their level of sense of control, whereas those with high socioeconomic status are less affected. Moreover, empirical studies have demonstrated that individuals with low socioeconomic status expressed greater dissatisfaction with the system when they perceived an increase of environmental constraints and a decrease of sense of control [ 14 , 15 ]. These findings suggested that individuals with low socioeconomic status may have a certain dependence on sense of control, and there could be an interaction effect between the two, and jointly influencing system-justifying belief. Based on this, we further hypothesized that there is a moderation effect between sense of control and socioeconomic status (H2). Specifically, subjective SES moderates the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief, such that the positive association is stronger among lower socioeconomic status individuals [ 16 – 18 ]. Aims of the current study Based on the literature review, the current study aimed to examine the compensatory control theory of system-justifying belief within the Chinese cultural context. We proposed three studies to analysis the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief systematically, and providing a new observational perspective to the field. The conceptual model is shown in Fig. 1 . Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Hypothesis model Study 1 Method We report our sample size, data exclusions, and measures in the study. The study was not pre-registered. Materials, data, and analysis code can be accessed online: https://osf.io/xnrs6/?view_only=30dd63acdf534955a5493b53eb86c44b . Study 1 targeted to examine the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief to validated the compatibility of compensatory control theory within the Chinese cultural context. Participants The participants were recruited from a university in central China. A total of 251 valid questionnaires were collected, including 95 males (37.8%) and 156 females (62.2%) participants, aged between 18 and 30 years (M = 23.51, SD = 2.84). Participants received a gift (5¥) as compensation. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the first author’s university and implemented in accordance with the approved guidelines and regulations before data collection. Measures Sense of control The sense of control was measured by the Sense of Control Scale [ 18 ]. This scale has two dimensions: mastery and constraint, with a total of 12 items. Participants were asked to respond on a 7-point scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The scores for each item are summed to yield a total score, with higher scores representing higher level of sense of control. This scale has been widely used among Chinese sample and showed good reliability and validity [ 15 ]. In this study, the Cronbach’s α was 0.83. System-justifying belief The system-justifying belief was measured by the System Justifying Belief scale, which contains 8 items [ 7 , 19 ]. This scale included two reverse-scored items. Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The average score of all items is calculated and the higher score represented higher levels of system-justifying belief. In this study, the Cronbach’s α was 0.82. Data analysis All data were analyzed by SPSS 29.0. We conducted the descriptive statistics, Pearson’s r correlations and regression analysis to examine the associations among variables. Results As presented in Table 1 . The correlation analysis indicated that sense of control was significantly positively correlated with system-justifying belief. Regression analysis further indicated that, after controlling for gender and age, sense of control significantly positively predicted system-justifying belief (β = 0.24, p < 0.001). These findings indicated that individuals with higher level of sense of control tend to endorse the current social system to a greater extent, which is contrary to H1. Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis results of variables Variable M ± SD 1 2 3 4 1 Gender 1.62 ± 0.49 1 2 Age 23.51 ± 2.84 -0.10 1 3 Sense of control 52.90 ± 11.02 -0.02 0.17 ** 1 4 System-justifying belief 5.42 ± 1.10 0.12 0.02 0.24 ** 1 Open in a new tab N = 251. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 Discussion Study 1 revealed a positive correlation between sense of control and system-justifying belief, by an offline questionnaire survey. This finding is inconsistent with the tenets of compensatory control theory but consistent with the conclusions of Yang et al. [ 7 ]. This suggests that elevated levels of sense of control are associated with greater endorsement of the current social system, indicating that the compensatory control theory, which originated in Western culture, may not be corroborated in the Chinese cultural context. Study 2 Method Given the distinct advantages of offline and online survey data, which cannot be considered mutually exclusive. Study 2 aimed to test the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief by online questionnaire and employed a larger sample from different sources than study (1) Given the potential influence of moderating variables, we considered the subjective and objective socioeconomic status as moderating variables on the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief in Study (2) This will allow us to explore the interaction between sense of control and socioeconomic status, focusing particularly on whether the “low sense of control leads to system-justifying belief” effect predicted by compensatory control theory exists within groups of low socioeconomic status. We report our sample size, data exclusion, and measures in the study. The study was not pre-registered. Materials, data, and analysis code can be accessed online: https://osf.io/xnrs6/?view_only=30dd63acdf534955a5493b53eb86c44b . Participants 1386 volunteers were recruited via a marketing company to participate a voluntary basis, and an online questionnaire. After dropping incomplete and invalid data, 1277 respondents remained. The final sample consisted of 422 males (33.0%) and 855 females (67.0%), aged 16 to 32 (M = 19.50, SD = 2.35). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the first author’s university and implemented in accordance with the approved guidelines and regulations before data collection. Measurements Sense of control The Sense of Control Scale is the same as in study 1. In this sample, the Cronbach’s α was 0.85. System-justifying belief The System Justifying Belief scale is the same as in study 1. In this sample, the Cronbach’s α was 0.74. Subjective socioeconomic status The subjective socioeconomic status was measured by a ladder as shown in Fig. 2 [ 20 ]. Participants were asked to imagine that this ladder represented different socioeconomic levels of families in China and report their socioeconomic status on a scale from 1 to 10. Lower level (01) indicated lower socioeconomic status, while higher levels (10) indicated higher socioeconomic status. Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Ladder scale Objective socioeconomic status Objective socioeconomic status is calculated based on a complex index reflecting societal resources, such as family income, parental occupation, and educational level [ 20 ]. A higher score of the index indicated a higher level of objective socioeconomic status. Data analysis All data were analyzed by SPSS 29.0. First of all, we conducted the descriptive statistics, Pearson’s r correlations, and regression analysis to examine the associations among variables. Then, we constituted the moderation model to examine whether subjective and objective socioeconomic status moderated the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief. Results Descriptive statistics, correlation, and regression analysis As shown in Table 2 . Sense of control was positively related to system-justifying belief and objective socioeconomic status ( r = 0.33, 0.11, ps < 0.01). Both subjective and objective socioeconomic status were negatively correlated with system-justifying belief ( r = -0.08, p < 0.01; r = -0.07, p < 0.05). The correlation between sense of control and subjective socioeconomic status ( r = 0.03, p > 0.05) were insignificant. Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis results of variables Variable M ± SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Gender 1.67 ± 0.47 1 2 Age 19.50 ± 2.35 0.07 * 1 3 Sense of control 52.64 ± 10.28 0.08 ** 0.03 1 4 System-justifying belief 5.94 ± 0.80 0.07 * -0.21 ** 0.33 ** 1 5 Subjective socioeconomic status 4.45 ± 1.51 -0.02 0.14 ** 0.03 -0.08 ** 1 6 Objective socioeconomic status -0.02 ± 2.94 0.03 0.11 ** 0.11 ** -0.07 * 0.34 ** 1 Open in a new tab N = 1277. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 Moderation analysis Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to assess the moderating effects of subjective and objective socioeconomic status respectively. As shown in Table 3 , after controlling for gender and age, sense of control was positively related to system-justifying belief (β = 0.33, p < 0.001). Subjective socioeconomic status was negatively related to system-justifying belief (β = -0.06, p = 0.017). In addition, the interaction of subjective socioeconomic status and sense of control was associated with system-justifying belief (β = -0.08, p = 0.003, CI [-0.09, -0.05]). However, the moderating effect of objective socioeconomic status was not significant. Table 3. The interaction effect of subjective socioeconomic status between sense of control and system rationality belief System-justifying belief β t p 95%CI Step 1(ΔR 2 = 0.05) Gender 0.08 3.00 0.003 [0.01,0.18] Age -0.22 -7.91 < 0.001 [-0.09, -0.05] Step 2( ΔR 2 = 0.11) Sense of control 0.33 12.77 < 0.001 [0.02,0.03] Subjective socioeconomic status -0.06 -2.39 0.017 [-0.07, -0.01] Step 3( ΔR 2 = 0.01) Sense of control × Subjective socioeconomic status -0.08 -2.95 0.003 [-0.09, -0.05] Open in a new tab The simple slope analysis showed that the positive effect of sense of control on system-justifying belief was stronger for the low subjective socioeconomic status group (β = 0.31, p < 0.001) than the high subjective socioeconomic status group (β = 0.20, p < 0.001) (see Fig. 3 ). Fig. 3. Open in a new tab The interaction of subjective socioeconomic status and sense of control on system-justifying belief Discussion Study 2 replicated the finding that sense of control was positively correlated with system-justifying belief by an online survey, which was consistent with the research by Yang et al. [ 7 ] and further indicated that individuals with higher level of sense of control tended to endorse the current social system in the Chinese cultural context. This contrasts with compensatory control theory. Additionally, we also found that the subjective socioeconomic status moderated the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief, specifically, the positive effect of sense of control on system-justifying belief was stronger in the low subjective socioeconomic status group, which supporting to hypothesis 2. Study 3 Method While Study 1 and 2 employed cross-sectional surveys to examine the associations between sense of control and system-justifying belief in daily life, they were unable to reveal the causal relationships between variables. To enhance the robustness of the results, we conducted a 2 × 2 between-subject study design to elucidate the causal relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief, thereby complementing and corroborating the findings obtained from surveys. We report how we determined our sample size, manipulations and measures in the study. This study was not pre-registered. Materials, data, and analysis code can be accessed online: https://osf.io/xnrs6/?view_only=30dd63acdf534955a5493b53eb86c44b . Participants According to G*Power 3.1 [ 21 ], at the significance level α = 0.05 and the moderate effect size ( f = 0.30) [ 22 ], the total sample size to achieve 80% statistical test power is at least 128 and 32 participants per group. We ultimately recruited 206 college students aged 17 to 30 (M = 23.66, SD = 3.29), including 59 males and 147 females. Prior to the experiment, all participants were informed of the experiment procedure and also provided the informed consents. The participants were paid 10¥ after the experiment. This study received approval from the Ethics Committee of the first author’s university. Procedure Given that sense of control is influenced by both individual differences and environmental factors [ 6 , 7 ], we conducted a 2 (Sense of control: High vs. Low) × 2 (Environment: Harsh vs. Neutral) between-subject design. The environment and sense of control were the independent variables, and the system-justifying belief was the dependent variable. Before the main experiment began, we collected demographic information from the participants. Then participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: Harsh environment/High sense of control (44 participants), Harsh environment/Low sense of control (63 participants), Neutral environment/High sense of control (47 participants), and Neutral environment/Low sense of control (52 participants). There were no significant differences in age or gender distribution among the four groups. Environment manipulation First, we manipulated environment (harsh vs. neutral) as a situational cue, According to Griskevicius et al. [ 23 ], the changes of environment can represent individuals’ subjective socioeconomic status [ 24 , 25 ], which is distinct from personal sense of control. Participants in the Harsh Environment group read a series of internet news articles pertaining to social instability. The participants in the neutral environment group read a series of articles about the performance and usage of office supplies (such as staplers, printers, computers), which were formatted and of similar length to the news articles above. Sense of control manipulation After completing the first task, participants had 1 min break and then began the sense of control task. Participants in the high and low sense of control groups were instructed to recall and write down three situations from daily life that they could either completely control (e.g., brushing teeth and washing face) or completely uncontrol (e.g., an earthquake happening tomorrow) in order to temporarily prime high or low sense of control [ 7 , 12 ]. After completing these tasks, all participants were asked to complete the System-justifying Belief Scale (α = 0.78), using the same measurement in study 1 and 2. When completing all the tasks, participants received 10 ¥ for participating. Before the formal experiment, we recruited 45 college students and randomly divided them into either the Harsh Environment group or the Neutral Environment group, and 33 college students divided them into either the High Sense of Control group or the Low Sense of Control group respectively, to assess the experimental materials. After the prime experiment, the Environment groups were asked to report their feelings about the current environment by answering three questions: “The world is becoming less safe”, “Society is becoming more unstable” and “The pressure to survive is increasing” (α = 0.78) [ 26 ]. The Sense of Control groups were asked to complete the Sense of Control Scale to measure the individuals’ sense of control (α = 0.85). Results indicated that the scores of the Harsh Environment group were significantly higher than those of the Neutral Environment group ( t (43) = 3.05, p < 0.001, d = 0.79); the scores of the High Sense of Control group were significantly higher than those of the Low Sense of Control group ( t (31) = 2.68, p = 0.012, d = 0.76). These results suggested that the experiment was successful in activation different environment perception and sense of control for the participants. Data analysis The data were analyzed using SPSS 29.0. We conducted an independent samples t -test to evaluate the effects of the environmental and sense of control manipulations. In addition, we conducted a two-way ANOVA to test for main effects and interaction effects for the environmental and sense of control, and compare the scores of system-justifying belief among the four groups. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results ANOVA was conducted on the sample using environmental manipulation and sense of control as independent variables and system-justifying belief as the dependent variable. Results indicated that the main effects of sense of control [F (1, 202) = 1.87, p = 0.173, η² = 0.09] and environment [F (1, 202) = 1.69, p = 0.195, η² = 0.08] were non-significant. However, a significant interaction effect was observed between sense of control and environment [F (1, 202) = 6.40, p = 0.012, η² = 0.31]. The analysis of the interaction effect (as shown in Fig. 4 ) revealed that, in neutral environmental condition, the system-justifying belief of the low sense of control group were significantly higher than the high sense of control group [F(1, 202) = 7.42, p < 0.001]. In harsh environmental condition, there was non-significant difference between the high sense of control and low sense of control groups [F(1, 202) = 0.69, p = 0.407]. Conversely, in high sense of control condition, there was non-significant difference between the harsh and neutral environment groups [F(1, 202) = 0.68, p = 0.410]. In low sense of control condition, the system-justifying belief in the neutral environment group was higher than those in the harsh environment group [F(1, 202) = 8.26, p < 0.001]. Fig. 4. Open in a new tab Comparison of participants' system-justifying belief scores (M SE) under different environment and sense of control Discussion Study 3 further investigated the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief through behavioral experiments. Results indicated that under neutral environmental conditions, the system-justifying belief of the low sense of control group were significantly higher than those of the high sense of control group, which verified the compensatory control hypothesis of system-justifying belief [ 5 ]. This result suggested that sense of control operates differently as a stable trait vs. a transient state. In Study 3, we experimentally induced a temporary state of low control, which activates compensatory needs. On the other hand, in n low sense of control condition, the system-justifying belief of the neutral environment group were significantly higher than those of the harsh environment group. This result suggested that the system-justifying belief of participants in the low sense of control group were more sensitive of negative environmental cues and declined faster. General discussion Based on compensatory control theory for system justification, current study examined the relationship between the sense of control and system-justifying belief. In study 1 and 2, we found that the sense of control was positively correlated with system-justifying belief, suggesting the higher the sense of control, the more an individual endorsed the current social system. This displayed an " icing on the cake” effect. These finding were inconsistent with those of Kay et al. [ 8 ] and the tenets of compensatory control theory, but it consistent with the findings of Yang et al. [ 7 ] among Chinese university students. This suggested that theoretical points and research findings based on Western cultural backgrounds diverge significantly from those based on Chinese cultural backgrounds. Consequently, we must consider the unique experiences and perspectives of different ethnic groups and cultures of compensatory control theory. Research has shown that Chinese people have historically exhibited low level of sense of control [ 27 ]. Since the reform and opening-up policy, China has undergone a gradual transition from a developing country to become the world’s second-largest economy. This has resulted in the creation of an unprecedented development miracle in human history. In recent years, as the domestic economy has improved, development has innovated, and people’s livelihoods have become more secure, the living standards of the people have continued to rise. The subjective sense of control perception of Chinese participants has been generally improved with the development of society, and the subjective sense of control has a higher correlation with the social system. This has led to support for the current social system, thereby creating a trend of increasing contentment and unity. The characteristics of collectivism and system dependence in Chinese culture make participants more inclined to cope with adversity in coordination with the social system rather than question the role of the system, which further strengthens the positive effect of sense of control on system-justifying belief. Conversely, individuals in Western developed countries enjoy higher living standards and greater individual autonomy, which results in a lower reliance on the social system. Consequently, there is a relatively lower recognition and support for the state-represented social system [ 2 ], which is agree with the “post-materialist values” phenomenon described by Inglehart [ 28 ]. This indicates that different stages of economic and social development may be a contributing factor to the divergence between research results in China and Western countries. Furthermore, from the perspective of Chinese cultural traditions and social realities, Chinese people’s expectations and tendency to attribute responsibility to the state-represented social system are higher than in Western countries [ 29 ]. If living standards improve and individual autonomy increases, Chinese people tend to defend and support the social system, which can result in a win-win situation. Conversely, if living standards decline and individual autonomy decreases, Chinese people will show a tendency to attribute responsibility to the state, and the system-justifying belief will correspondingly decrease, which can result in a lose-lose situation. This may be another reason why findings in China did not accordance with the results from Western background. In study 2, we further examined the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief across different socioeconomic status groups. Results demonstrated that sense of control was positively correlated with system-justifying belief in both high and low subjective socioeconomic status groups, which is consistent with the results of study 1. Furthermore, study 2 found that subjective socioeconomic status moderated the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief. Specifically, the positive effect of sense of control on system-justifying belief was stronger in the low subjective socioeconomic status group. This displayed a “half the work with double results” effect. This consists with the perspective of social class cognition theory, which suggests that individuals with high socioeconomic status are less affected by sense of control, while those with low socioeconomic status are more affected. That is to say, increasing sense of control can significantly change the cognitive tendencies of those with low socioeconomic status [ 16 ]. Furthermore, individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds can shift to high socioeconomic cognitive mode if they experience a higher sense of control [ 5 , 30 ]. In light of the considerable number of individuals in China who are economically disadvantaged, the findings of this study suggest that efforts to enhance the sense of control among this group may be a more effective and meaningful way to promote social harmony and stability. Study 3 demonstrated that low sense of control group showed higher system-justifying belief in neutral environmental conditions, which suggested that low sense of control did trigger a tendency to support and defend the current social system. This provided corroborating evidence for the compensatory control hypothesis [ 5 , 8 ], indicating that reduction in sense of control increased individual’s need for order and structure and leaded them to seek a robust and stable external system for security, so it increased their reliance on and support for the social system. Therefore, the compensatory control theory has been verified across different cultures in certain conditions. It is notable that the result of the questionnaire survey was inconsistent with the experiment in current study. In the questionnaire survey, we found that individuals with higher sense of control were more inclined to support and defend the social system. However, the experiment results indicated that low sense of control led to a tendency to support and defend the social system. These results suggest that sense of control operates differently as a stable trait vs. a transient state. In Studies 1 and 2, we measured chronic, trait-like sense of control, sense of control is a stable individual difference variable [ 5 ]. The long-term high sense of control of individuals is derived from the support and guarantee of the social system, so it is positively correlated with system-justifying belief. In Study 3, we experimentally induced a temporary state of low control, sense of control is a short-term situational manipulated variable. Low sense of control is temporarily induced by recalling uncontrollable events. In the neutral environment, this situational low sense of control triggers the compensatory control effect, thus showing a negative correlation between sense of control and system-justifying belief. The two types of relationships reflect the different mechanisms of the sense of control under different attributes and different situations, which are complementary rather than contradictory, and this situation-dependent effect is one of the core findings of this study. This serves to remind us that a more comprehensive and detailed distinction should be made between the attributes of sense of control and its relationship with system-justifying belief. It is also important to avoid the generalization that low sense of control necessarily leads to system-justifying belief. This may serve as a starting point for further in-depth research of this issue in the future. In addition, study 3 revealed that when sense of control was low, the system-justifying belief in the neutral environment was higher than in the harsh environment. This indicated that the system-justifying belief of participants in the low sense of control group were significantly decreased by negative external environmental cues, resulting in a “adding insult to injury” effect. In other words, a reduction in sense of control can improve system-justifying belief, however, if this reduction in sense of control coincides with a negative environment, it can result in the opposite effect that individuals expressing greater dissatisfaction with the system. This is consistent with the findings of other researchers [ 14 , 15 ]. The results of this study are enlightening. Socioeconomic status has relative stability compared to sense of control, whereas sense of control is susceptible to environmental influences and exhibiting situational variability. Therefore, based on the “icing on the cake” effect, increasing the sense of control could be an important pathway to improve individual endorsement and trust in the social system. Individuals can also enhance their sense of control through self-adjustment, while social systems can create a safe and orderly living environment by providing public services and social welfare, and breaking down restrictive barriers, thereby enhancing the public’s adaptability to survive and gaining their trust and support for the social system. This could achieve social harmony and stability and may be a lasting and fundamental strategy to enhance trust in the government. Limitations This study systematically examined the compatibility of compensatory control theory in Chinese cultural context, and added some new insights to the theory. However, the study also had several limitations. First, the high mean scores on sense of control and system-justifying belief in current study suggest a potential ceiling effect, which may have restricted variance and attenuated the detection of negative relationships. Future studies should consider using more sensitive measures or experimental designs to capture a wider range of responses. Second, study 3 used G*power to doing power analysis, which is not particularly useful for powering factorial designs. Therefore, in the future, other power analysis methods can be explored, such as Lakens’ shiny app, to re-examine the statistical power of this study. Third, the relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief are not consistent, this could be due to methodological choices, small number of participants or other factors. In the future, it might be worth attempting to recruit more participants to examine the results. Conclusions (1) Under daily life conditions, the sense of control as an individual difference variable, is positively associated with system-justifying belief. The relationship between sense of control and system-justifying belief is moderated by individuals’ subjective socioeconomic status. Individuals with low subjective socioeconomic status are more influenced by their sense of control, and their sense of control has a stronger positive effect on system-justifying belief. (2) Under experimental conditions, the sense of control as a short-term situational manipulated variable, is negatively associated with system-justifying belief, which triggers the compensatory control effect. (3) The interaction effect between external environment and sense of control can influence system-justifying belief. In low sense of control conditions, the levels of system-justifying belief were significantly reduced for those suffering negative environments. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank all the participants in this study. Authors’ contributions Peng Luo : Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project administration; writing-original draft. Wenjing Jin : Data curation; investigation. Yaoguo Geng : Funding acquisition; methodology; project administration; writing-review and editing. Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by the Education Program of National Social Science Fund of China (BBA220194) to Yaoguo Geng. Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhengzhou University before the initiation of the project. Informed consent was obtained from the participants before the start of the program. We confirm that all the experiment is in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations such as the declaration of Helsinki. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Research materials availability statement The materials used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Footnotes Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Jost JT, Banaji MR. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. Br J Soc Psychol. 1994;33:1–27. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x. [ Google Scholar ] 2. Brandt MJ. Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status-legitimacy hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013;104:765–85. 10.1037/a0031751. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA. A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Polit Psychol. 2004;25:881–919. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x. [ Google Scholar ] 4. Jost JT, Hunyady O. Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Curr Dir Psychol. 2005;14:260–5. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x. [ Google Scholar ] 5. Yang SL, Guo YY, Yu F, Rao TT, Zhao L, Xu LY. Three explanatory perspectives on the root of system justification. Adv Psychol Sci. 2018;26(12):11. 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.02238. [ Google Scholar ] 6. Geng YG, Zhu XL, Shi LP, Yu JJ, Zhan TT, Yang MQ. Life-History Strategies and Hoarding: The Role of Sense of Control. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2019;27(6):1267–70. 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2019.06.039. [ Google Scholar ] 7. Yang SL, Guo YY, Hu XY, Shu SL, Li J. Do lower class individuals possess higher levels of system justification? An examination from the social cognitive perspectives. Acta Psychol Sin. 2016;48(11):1467–78. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.01467. [ Google Scholar ] 8. Kay AC, Gaucher D, Napier JL, Callan MJ, Laurin K. God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;95(1):18–35. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Landau MJ, Kay AC, Whitson JA. Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychol Bull. 2015;141(3):694–722. 10.1037/a0038703. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Kay AC, Shepherd S, Blatz CW, Chua SN, Galinsky AD. For God (or) country: the hydraulic relation between government instability and belief in religious sources of control. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;99(5):725–39. 10.1037/a0021140. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Rutjens BT, van Harreveld F, van der Pligt J, Kreemers LM, Noordewier MK. Steps, stages, and structure: Finding compensatory order in scientific theories. J Exp Psychol-Gen. 2013;142(2):313–8. 10.1037/a0028716. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Friesen JP, Kay AC, Eibach RP, Galinsky AD. Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014;106:590–609. 10.1037/a0035620. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Liu WM, Wang HZ, He L. When One Is Dying, Will H/She Buy Domestic Products? Exploring Whether, Why and When the Exposure to Death-related Information Will (Not) Increase Domestic Brand Choices. Acta Psychol Sin. 2014;46(11):1748–59. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.01748. [ Google Scholar ] 14. Jost JT, Burgess D. Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2000;26:293–305. 10.1177/0146167200265003. [ Google Scholar ] 15. Li J. Study on the tendency of attribution on the gap between the rich and the poor in different social classes. Guangzhou: World Publishing Corporation; 2014. [ Google Scholar ] 16. Kraus MW, Piff PK, Mendoza-Denton R, Rheinschmidt ML, Keltner D. Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychol Rev. 2012;119:546–72. 10.1037/a0028756. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Kraus MW, Piff PK, Keltner D. Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;97:992–1004. 10.1037/a0016357. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Lachman ME, Weaver SL. The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74:763–73. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.763. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Kay AC, Jost JT. Complementary justice: Effects of poor but happy and poor but honest stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85:823–37. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychol. 2000;19(6):586–92. 10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical Sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91. 10.3758/BF03193146. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,; 1988. [ Google Scholar ] 23. Griskevicius V, Ackerman JM, Cantú SM, Delton AW, Robertson TE, Simpson JA, Tybur JM. When the economy falters, do people spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity depend on childhood environments. Psychol Sci. 2013;24:197–205. 10.1177/0956797612451471. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Figueredo AJ, Vasquez G, Brumbach BH, Schneider SM, Sefcek JA, Tal I, Hill D, Wenner CJ, Jacobs WJ. Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Dev Rev. 2006;26:243–75. 10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002. [ Google Scholar ] 25. Reznick B, Bryant MJ, Bashey F. R -and K -selection revisited: The role of population regulation in life-history evolution. Ecology. 2002;83:1509–20. 10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083. [1509:RAKSRT]2.0.CO;2. [ Google Scholar ] 26. Wang Y, Lin ZC, Hou BW, Sun SJ. The intrinsic mechanism of life history trade-offs: The mediating role of control striving. Acta Psychol Sin. 2017;49(6):783–93. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00783. [ Google Scholar ] 27. Zeng M, Zhou X, Wu XC, Chen JL. Trauma Exposure and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Control Beliefs as a Moderator. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2017;25(01):59–64. 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2017.01.014. [ Google Scholar ] 28. Li CL, Liu SL. Factors affecting national identity and differences in intergenerational characteristics: Based on data from the Chinese Social Survey for 2013. Social Sci China. 2018;04:132–50. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:ZSHK . 0.2018-04-007. [ Google Scholar ] 29. Xie XN, Zhang Y, Ding Y, Guo YY. The Effect of System Dependence on System-justifying Belief During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2021;29(04):829–33. 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2021.04.033. [ Google Scholar ] 30. Stephens NM, Markus HR, Phillips LT. Social Class Culture Cycles: How Three Gateway Contexts Shape Selves and Fuel Inequality. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65:611–34. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115143. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Articles from BMC Psychology are provided here courtesy of BMC ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.2 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top