View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

For Better or Worse? System-Justifying Beliefs in Sixth-Grade Predict Trajectories of Self-Esteem and Behavior across Early Adolescence

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: For Better or Worse? System-Justifying Beliefs in Sixth-Grade Predict Trajectories of Self-Esteem and Behavior across Early Adolescence
Language: English
Authors: Godfrey, Erin B., Santos, Carlos E., Burson, Esther
Source: Child Development. Jan-Feb 2019 90(1):180-195.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Grade 6
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Junior High Schools
Descriptors: Early Adolescents, Beliefs, Grade 6, Predictor Variables, Self Esteem, Adolescent Attitudes, Middle School Students, Low Income, Disadvantaged Youth
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12854
ISSN: 0009-3920
Abstract: Scholars call for more attention to how marginalization influences the development of low-income and racial/ethnic minority youth and emphasize the importance of youth's subjective perceptions of contexts. This study examines how beliefs about the fairness of the American system (system justification) in sixth grade influence trajectories of self-esteem and behavior among 257 early adolescents (average age 11.4) from a diverse, low-income, middle school in an urban southwestern city. System justification was associated with higher self-esteem, less delinquent behavior, and better classroom behavior in sixth grade but worse trajectories of these outcomes from sixth to eighth grade. These findings provide novel evidence that system-justifying beliefs undermine the well-being of marginalized youth and that early adolescence is a critical developmental period for this process.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1202492
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwH_vflw5eOoCasEP6ScEJvLAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIv3BK-BIs6D9ACkHgIBEICBmnuBT0UlOhQkpRwvBDrgB2jNCe6tM61aoquLsFp9JVqJI0ocdTiJmCIJLDbmeh198bUyQhKGudQR6Kqfldk4HwAUB9Wo-1IWyeUx0VLPYJJJp_1ufsyLFQlePo9dYAJY34B-Xa3gTnzQhLXxOD3Yd_quwgkp5Zu-BZVcrNLgxhDVlfQz9C_5JcViYYbl_gcZ6hOfeVtoJ5OmL3M=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0134091721;cdv01jan.19;2019Jan14.04:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0134091721-1">For Better or Worse? System‐Justifying Beliefs in Sixth‐Grade Predict Trajectories of Self‐Esteem and Behavior Across Early Adolescence </title> <p>Scholars call for more attention to how marginalization influences the development of low‐income and racial/ethnic minority youth and emphasize the importance of youth's subjective perceptions of contexts. This study examines how beliefs about the fairness of the American system (system justification) in sixth grade influence trajectories of self‐esteem and behavior among 257 early adolescents (average age 11.4) from a diverse, low‐income, middle school in an urban southwestern city. System justification was associated with higher self‐esteem, less delinquent behavior, and better classroom behavior in sixth grade but worse trajectories of these outcomes from sixth to eighth grade. These findings provide novel evidence that system‐justifying beliefs undermine the well‐being of marginalized youth and that early adolescence is a critical developmental period for this process.</p> <p>Considerations of social stratification and position are central to the development of children and youth who experience marginalization due to their race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES; Garcia‐Coll et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]). Scholars have made inroads into understanding some of the processes resulting from social stratification, such as perceived discrimination, ethnic identity development, and racial socialization (Cabrera et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]). However, very little work has considered how youth think about the larger American social system and their place in it, and few studies have addressed how youth's beliefs about the system might influence development in other areas. This gap is pressing considering core developmental and social psychological theory that considers perception a key mediator of the effects of context on individuals (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]; Lewin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref4">33</reflink>]; Spencer, Dupree, & Hartmann, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref5">59</reflink>]). Marginalized youth who believe the system is fair and legitimize its social, economic, and racial/ethnic hierarchies are likely to be influenced by it differently from those who critique it. This study examines how marginalized youths' beliefs about the American system influence their outcomes in other domains over early adolescence.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-2">System Justification Theory</hd> <p>We ground this examination in the robust body of social psychological research on system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]), which proposes that individuals are motivated to justify and rationalize existing social arrangements, defending and bolstering the status quo simply because it exists (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]). Although people may not believe every aspect of the system is fair and good in absolute terms, they are motivated to hold more favorable attitudes toward the system than would be warranted by an objective evaluation of the evidence, even when a different system might better meet personal or group needs. Although there is variation in system‐justifying beliefs across people and situations (Kay & Friesen, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>]), people at all levels of the social hierarchy engage in it (Jost et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref9">24</reflink>]) because of its ability to satisfy fundamental needs (Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because they satisfy basic needs, buffer stress, and serve as the basis for coping strategies in the face of threat, system‐justifying beliefs are generally hypothesized to serve a palliative function (Jost & Hunyady, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref11">26</reflink>]). System‐justifying beliefs have been associated with improved mental health and higher subjective well‐being for adults overall, including increased positive affect and life satisfaction and decreased anger, frustration, anxiety, and depressive symptoms (Jost & Hunyady, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref12">26</reflink>]; Rankin, Jost, & Wakslak, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref13">46</reflink>]). However, evidence suggests system justification is not beneficial to all. For marginalized adults, including racial/ethnic minorities and the poor, system‐justifying beliefs are associated with lower self‐esteem and higher depressive and anxious symptoms (Jost & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]; Quinn & Crocker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref15">42</reflink>]; Rankin et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref16">46</reflink>]), especially over the long term (Harding & Sibley, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]) and for people who identify more highly with their social group (O'Brien & Major, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-3">Evidence of System Justification Among Youth</hd> <p>Although there is a robust body of work on system‐justifying beliefs and their effects among adults, there is little research examining system justification developmentally. There is, however, research indicating that children attend to and often perpetuate societal status differences, even at very young ages. A status‐based asymmetry in intergroup attitudes emerges as early as preschool, when children from high‐status groups (e.g., Whites) show a robust preference for their own group, but children from low‐status groups (e.g., Blacks) do not (Hailey & Olson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref19">18</reflink>]). These preferences may be driven by an explicit recognition of status differences (as measured by wealth) across racial groups (Horwitz, Shutts, & Olson, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]; Newheiser, Dunham, Merrill, Hoosain, & Olson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref21">37</reflink>]). In addition, young children will often perpetuate rather than rectify the group‐based inequalities they observe (i.e., give more rewards to the advantaged group; Elenbaas & Killen, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]; Olson, Dweck, Spelke, & Banaji, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref23">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>A small body of research with older adolescents and emerging adults has examined the antecedents and consequences of youth's system‐justifying beliefs and ideologies more directly. For example, some research has examined demographic predictors of adolescents' attributions for poverty and wealth (Flanagan et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]). Attributing poverty and wealth to individual causes (lack of ability/effort) rather than structural causes (lack of jobs) serves a system‐justifying function by placing the blame for poverty on the individual rather than on flaws in the system (Godfrey & Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]). Paradoxically, but in line with system justification theory, youth from low‐SES and inner‐city areas are more likely to attribute poverty to individual factors (Flanagan & Tucker, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]). Other research has examined older adolescents' critical consciousness development (e.g., Watts, Diemer, & Voight, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref27">62</reflink>]). Studies find that marginalized youth who are more critically conscious—who understand the economic, political, historical, and social forces that contribute to inequity, feel empowered to change these conditions, and take part in social action—have better occupational outcomes (Diemer, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]; Diemer et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref29">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>System‐justifying ideologies also predict older youth's academic achievement and behavior in school, but differentially for high‐ versus low‐status youth. Among high‐status youth (German adolescents in Germany), just‐world beliefs predicted better grades and less distress in school (Dalbert & Stoeber, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]), perhaps because they helped frame failure and success in terms of individual effort. However, among low‐status youth (Latina/o college students in the United States), greater system‐justifying beliefs were associated with lower grade point averages (O'Brien, Mars, & Eccleston, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref31">40</reflink>]), perhaps because system justification predicts more endorsement of negative self‐stereotypes (e.g., intellectual inferiority) among members of low‐status groups (Laurin, Kay, & Shepherd, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]). Similarly, greater endorsement of assimilationist racial ideology—which is akin to system justification in that the values and beliefs of higher‐status groups that define "mainstream" American society are deemed superior to the values and beliefs of Black Americans—predicted lower self‐reported grades among Black college students (Sellers, Chavous, & Cooke, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref33">53</reflink>]) and lower academic persistence and curiosity and more behavioral problems in school among Black adolescents (Smalls, White, Chavous, & Sellers, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref34">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-4">Early Adolescence as a Critical Period for System Justification</hd> <p>The available evidence thus suggests that system‐justifying beliefs and associated ideologies relate to occupational outcomes, academic achievement, and behavior in school for older adolescents and young adults who are marginalized by the system. We replicate and extend these findings across a range of outcomes in early adolescence, which we believe to be a critical developmental period for system‐justifying beliefs. Although children attend to, and often perpetuate, societal status differences from a young age (Hailey & Olson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref35">18</reflink>]), it is not clear whether this preference is driven by a system‐justifying motive. Children could favor higher‐status groups simply because they notice a covariation between group membership and desired characteristics (i.e., status; Newheiser & Olson, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>]). It is not until early adolescence that youth begin to consistently endorse common system‐justifying ideologies and beliefs, such as attributing poverty and wealth to individual factors like ability and effort, rather than simply associating rich people with desired things (money, education; Sigelman, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref37">54</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref38">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, system‐justifying beliefs are associated with lower self‐esteem and higher depressive and anxious symptoms among marginalized adults (Jost & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>]; O'Brien & Major, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref40">39</reflink>]; Quinn & Crocker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref41">42</reflink>]; Rankin et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref42">46</reflink>]). System justification theory proposes that believing the system is fair involves accepting that one and one's social group deserve a marginalized place in society, which leads to negative well‐being outcomes. The motivation to justify the system is at odds with other basic motivations to justify one's social group (group justification) and one's self (ego justification; Jost, Burgess, & Mosso, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>]). Ego justification differs from self‐esteem in that it represents a motivation or need to feel good about one's self rather than an evaluation of one's self‐worth (Greenwald, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref44">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>For system justification to engender these negative consequences, marginalized youth must not only be aware of their lower status and the societal stereotypes about their group but also understand that these factors are driven by a larger socioeconomic system. Theory and research on children's understanding of race suggests that this kind of thinking, although shaped by individual and contextual factors, is heightened around early adolescence (Quintana, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref45">44</reflink>]). Although children prior to this period are aware of race, status, and bias, the social‐cognitive advancements of early adolescence allow them to fully understand how racial bias is entrenched in societal systems and to apprehend both institutional and interpersonal forms of discrimination. Early adolescence is also marked by an acceleration of racial/ethnic identity development (Quintana, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref46">43</reflink>]; Santos, Kornienko, & Rivas‐Drake, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref47">49</reflink>]). Thus, marginalized youth's ability to think abstractly about socioeconomic systems and perceive systemic and institutional bias is occurring at the same time as a heightened sense of membership in a marginalized social group.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-5">The Present Study</hd> <p>This study leverages longitudinal data to examine associations between marginalized youths' system‐justifying beliefs in sixth grade; their self‐esteem, internalizing behavior, deviant behavior, and classroom behavioral regulation in sixth grade; and trajectories of these outcomes from sixth to eighth grade. We examine system justification at sixth grade because it marks an important transition to early adolescence that has lasting consequences for behavior (Ruble & Seidman, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref48">48</reflink>]) and is associated with changes in youths' understanding of the world and themselves. We focus on trajectories of four core competencies (self‐esteem, internalizing behavior, deviant behavior, and classroom regulatory behavior) to understand the role of system justification across a variety of domains. We chose outcomes available in the current data that are known to undergo transitions in early adolescence (Greene & Way, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref49">15</reflink>]; McGill, Hughes, Alicea, & Way, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref50">35</reflink>]) and map onto previous theory and research.</p> <p>First, we examined trajectories of self‐esteem and internalizing behavior. Self‐esteem and internalizing behavior are two of the primary outcomes in the adult literature on system justification. Evidence suggests that marginalized adults with higher system‐justifying beliefs have lower self‐esteem and more depressive symptoms (Jost & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref51">28</reflink>]; Quinn & Crocker, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref52">42</reflink>]; Rankin et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref53">46</reflink>]). In addition, Dalbert and Stoeber ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref54">5</reflink>]) found that higher just‐world beliefs were associated with lower internalizing behavior among advantaged adolescents, as would be predicted by system justification theory. Second, because of deviance's relevance to adolescence and importance for long‐term outcomes (Tanner, Davies, & O'Grady, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref55">60</reflink>]), we examine associations between youth's system‐justifying beliefs and trajectories of deviant behavior. To believe the system is fair, marginalized youth must accept on some level that they and their group deserve their marginalized place in society. Youth may act out this belief in deviant ways, especially as deviance is a dominant societal stereotype of marginalized youth. In addition, system‐justifying beliefs may be indirectly related to deviant behavior through self‐esteem and internalizing behavior, both of which have been associated with risky behaviors across the early adolescent period (Bornstein, Hahn, & Haynes, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]). Third, extant research suggests that system‐justifying ideologies are associated with grades, school behavior, and occupational outcomes for marginalized older adolescents and college students (Diemer et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref57">8</reflink>]; O'Brien et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref58">40</reflink>]; Smalls et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref59">57</reflink>]). Because grades were not available in the data, we examined the behavioral regulation of youth in the classroom, which predicts a variety of educational outcomes among middle school youth (Gumora & Arsenio, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref60">17</reflink>]). This construct captures youths' focus in the classroom, and includes aspects of persistence, attention, and behavior associated with system‐justifying ideologies in prior work (Smalls et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref61">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>Following system justification theory and prior empirical evidence, we hypothesize that sixth‐grade system‐justifying beliefs will be associated with worse outcomes in sixth grade (lower self‐esteem, higher internalizing behavior, more deviant behavior, and less classroom behavioral regulation) as well as worsening trajectories of these outcomes over the course of middle school. We also examine four potentially important moderators of associations between system justification and youth's trajectories. We first investigate moderation by demographic characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, and generation of immigration) to assess whether associations between system justification and outcomes differ for youth facing different types of marginalization. We then examine moderation by perceived discrimination to assess whether the consequences of system‐justifying beliefs worsen for youth with more awareness of their marginalized position, as is theorized for adults. There is already some evidence that perceived discrimination moderates associations between system‐justifying ideologies and adolescent outcomes (Smalls et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref62">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-6">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0134091721-7">Data and Sample</hd> <p>Data for this study come from a three‐wave longitudinal study of social identity in early adolescence. Data were collected from an urban middle school in the U.S. Southwest. Teachers and staff at the school were largely White, but the student body was racially/ethnically diverse, with the largest group being Latina/o (53.2%). Eighty‐one percent of the student body was categorized as economically disadvantaged (Arizona Department of Education, National School Lunch Program & School Breakfast Program, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>]). Although students in the school were diverse, the area in which they live is largely White, and there was significant social/political unrest at the time of data collection concerning policies targeting immigrant families.</p> <p>Data were collected at three measurement occasions spaced approximately 8 months apart. Wave 1 took place in February of 2011, Wave 2 occurred in October of 2011, and Wave 3 occurred in May of 2012. Passive consent procedures were approved by the school and the university institutional review board. Students in the participating school were recruited by sending home information letters and consent forms. Letters and consent forms were sent in both English and Spanish; letters informed parents of the purpose of the study and permitted parents to opt out of participation. Student assent was obtained at each wave of data collection. The overall participation rate ranged from approximately 85% to approximately 95% across waves.</p> <p>Demographic characteristics of the analytic sample are presented in Table 1. To create the analytic sample, we retained all youth in the study who were in sixth grade at Wave 1 and came from low‐SES families (<emph>N</emph> = 257). Youth were identified as coming from low‐SES families if district‐provided data indicated they were eligible for the federal free or reduced price lunch program. We focused on sixth graders because of our interest in associations between system‐justifying beliefs at the start of middle school and trajectories of behavior across early adolescence. Because our predictions center on marginalized youth, we retained youth who have experienced marginalization due to SES or race/ethnicity, or both (c.f. Diemer & Li, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]). A total of 234 youth (91%) in our sample were racial/ethnic minorities, and 23 (9%) were White.</p> <p>Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 257) at Sixth Grade</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="char">%/<italic>M</italic></th><th align="char"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Race/ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">White</td><td align="char" char=".">9</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Black</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Native American</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Latino</td><td align="char" char=".">55</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Other</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="char" char=".">49</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Generation of immigration</td></tr><tr><td align="left">First generation</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Second generation</td><td align="char" char=".">41</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Third generation</td><td align="char" char=".">45</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">English as home language</td><td align="char" char=".">42</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">11.43</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>At each wave of data collection, participants completed questionnaires, administered during two class periods (approximately 90 min total) on two consecutive days deemed least disruptive by instructional staff. Trained researchers read aloud each item to ease comprehension, but students marked their responses privately on their own surveys. Research assistants also walked around the classroom while students completed the survey to provide individual assistance when needed. We took extra steps to ensure students' privacy and minimize issues concerning social desirability. Students were asked to sit as far away from one another as possible, and a card was provided for students to cover their responses while completing the survey. Students received a small gift (pencil, bracelet, and water bottle at Waves 1, 2, and 3, respectively) as a token of appreciation for their participation.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-8">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0134091721-9">System Justification</hd> <p>Endorsement of system‐justifying beliefs was measured at Wave 1 using a system justification scale adapted from Kay and Jost ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref65">30</reflink>]). Ten items assessed perceptions of fairness, legitimacy, and justifiability of the U.S. sociopolitical and economic system (α = .88). Sample items included: "In general, American society is fair," "In the U.S., you have an equal chance no matter where you came from or who you are," and "America is the land of opportunity where everyone who works hard can get ahead." Participants responded to items on a 6‐point scale from 0 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-10">Self‐Esteem</hd> <p>Global self‐esteem was assessed at each wave via Rosenberg's global self‐esteem scale (Rosenberg, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref66">47</reflink>]). Participants indicated their agreement with 10 items on a 4‐point Likert‐type scale ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>) to 4 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>). Sample items include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself" and "I feel that I'm as good as others." Cronbach's α ranged from.81 to.85 across waves.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-11">Internalizing Behavior</hd> <p>The Children's Depression Inventory (Kovacs, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref67">31</reflink>]) was administered to participants at each wave. Youth responded to 10 items anchored on a 3‐point scale assessing their depressed thoughts and feelings in the past 2 weeks. Scale anchors varied slightly for each item, but ranged from 0 (<emph>once in a while</emph>) to 2 (<emph>all the time</emph>). Sample items include: "I am sad: once in a while, many times, or all the time" and "Things bother me: once in a while, many times, or all the time." Cronbach's α ranged from.85 to.88 across waves.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-12">Deviant Behavior</hd> <p>Deviant behavior was assessed at all three waves using a modified version of the Risky Behavior Questionnaire (Eccles & Barber, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref68">9</reflink>]) consisting of 17 self‐reported items measuring deviant and risky behaviors both inside and outside school (sample items included: "stayed out all night without your parent's permission," "lied about your age to buy or do things," "gotten in trouble at school," "cheated on school tests," and "started a fight with someone"). Participants rated how many times in the past year they had engaged in each behavior on a 4‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (<emph>never</emph>) to 4 (<emph>more than 10 times</emph>). Cronbach's α ranged from.88 to.91 across waves.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-13">Classroom Behavioral Regulation</hd> <p>At each wave, participants completed the Classroom Regulatory Behaviors Scale (Santos & Menjívar, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref69">51</reflink>]). Youth rated their level of ease with five classroom behaviors such as "How easy is it for you to follow teacher directions?" and "How easy is it for you to stay quiet while others are talking?" Items were anchored on a 4‐point Likert scale from 1 (<emph>very hard</emph>) to 4 (<emph>to very easy</emph>). Cronbach's α was.74 to.82 across waves.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-14">Perceived Discrimination</hd> <p>Participants completed a 10‐item measure of perceived interpersonal ethnic discrimination from "others" and societal authorities (shopkeepers, police, teachers; Whitbeck, Hoyt, McMorris, Chen, & Stubben, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref70">63</reflink>]) at each wave on a 4‐point Likert scale from 1 (<emph>almost never</emph>) to 4 (<emph>very often</emph>). Items include: "How often have others suspected you of doing something wrong because of your ethnicity?" and "How often have the police hassled you because of your ethnicity?" Cronbach's alpha ranged from.76 to.83 across waves. Because of our interest in this construct as a moderator, we used the average of responses across sixth, seventh, and eighth grades to yield a more accurate assessment of discrimination across early adolescence. This approach was supported by a latent growth model showing no significant change in discrimination over time (the slope was not significant and the latent growth model was not a significantly better fit than the latent intercept model).</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-15">Gender</hd> <p>Gender was measured via youth self‐report (1 = male).</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-16">Race/Ethnicity</hd> <p>Youths' racial/ethnic background was gathered through self‐report (dummy codes for Latino/a, Black, White, and other). Because of restrictions in our sample size, we were not able to examine each racial/ethnic group separately in moderation analyses. Thus, we compared Latino/a youth to all other youth.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-17">Generation of Immigration</hd> <p>Youths' reports of where they and their parents were born were used to create a variable indicating generation of immigration (first, second, and third [or higher] generation). Again, due to sample size restrictions, we were unable to contrast all three groups in moderation analyses. Instead, moderation analyses compared youth from immigrant families (first and second generation) to youth in native families (third generation).</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-18">Covariates</hd> <p>In addition to gender, race/ethnicity, and generation of immigration, we included age and language spoken at home (1 = English) as covariates to reduce the likelihood that any associations found are due to an unspecified third variable.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-19">Analytic Strategy</hd> <p>All analyses employed structural equation modeling techniques in M<emph>plus</emph> 7 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref71">36</reflink>]). Using confirmatory factor analysis, we first estimated measurement models for each construct at each wave and assessed measurement invariance across gender, race/ethnicity, generation of immigration, and study wave. Measurement models for each construct were an adequate fit to the data at each wave. All items loaded significant and highly (at or above.4) onto the latent factor and demonstrated (at least) metric invariance. Further details on all measurement models are included in Supporting Information. As a robustness check on the distinctiveness of the four outcome measures, we also estimated a single measurement model at Wave 1 in which all four constructs were estimated simultaneously and items for each construct were specified to load only onto their respective latent factor. This model was an adequate fit to the data (comparative fit index [CFI] = .93; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = .90; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .058; 90% CI: [.05,.063]), and each item loaded highly (at or above.4) onto its latent factor. Due to model complexity and possible empirical underidentification, main models modeled outcomes as manifest variables rather than latent constructs and separate growth models were estimated for each outcome. As recommended by Hu and Bentler ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref72">21</reflink>]), models were evaluated using several indices of fit: the CFI and TLI (values > .95 indicate good fit), and the RMSEA and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; values lower than.05–.10 indicate adequate fit). Following Singer and Willett ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref73">56</reflink>]), analyses proceeded as follows. First, a latent intercept and growth model were estimated to assess the nature of change in the outcome and gauge whether there was enough variation in intercepts and slopes to warrant including predictors. Next, the main model was estimated in which system justification and covariates were included as predictors of the latent intercept and slope. These models were estimated using the robust full information maximum likelihood (MLR) estimator, which corrects standard errors for the fact that youth were nested within classrooms (at Wave 1 students were nested in 10 classrooms, with an average of 25 students per class). MLR also provides efficient estimation of statistical parameters from data with missing values, allowing retention of the complete sample for analysis (Schafer & Graham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref74">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>To address the small‐to‐medium correlations among our outcomes of interest (especially between self‐esteem and internalizing), main models also included Wave 1 indicators of each of the other outcomes as covariates. Finally, a series of multigroup models were estimated to determine if associations between system justification and the latent intercept and change parameters differed by gender, race/ethnicity, generation of immigration, or perceived discrimination. Models in which these associations were constrained to be equal across groups were compared to models allowing them to vary. The chi‐square difference statistic (χ<sups>2</sups>Δ) calculated using Santorra–Bentler correction was used to evaluate changes in model fit.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-20">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0134091721-21">Descriptive Results</hd> <p>Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and zero‐order correlations for study variables. On average, youth in our sample had moderate levels of system‐justifying beliefs, indicating slight‐to‐somewhat agreement that the U.S. system is fair, just, and meritocratic. A <emph>t</emph>‐test and a one‐way analysis of variance indicated that these beliefs did not differ across gender, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib252" id="ref75">252</reflink>) = −.79, <emph>p</emph> = .43, or racial/ethnic group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>, 251) = 1.48, <emph>p </emph>= .23. However, system‐justifying beliefs did vary by generation of immigration, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>, 252) = 10.17, <emph>p</emph> < .000. Tukey's post hoc comparisons revealed that although first (<emph>M </emph>= 2.85) and second (<emph>M</emph> = 3.03) generation youth's system justification did not differ significantly, they were each significantly lower than third generation youth's system justification (<emph>M</emph> = 3.53). System justification at sixth grade evidenced differing patterns of correlations with each outcome across waves but was not significantly correlated with perceived discrimination at any wave (see Table 2).</p> <p>Means, Standard Deviations, and Zero‐Order Correlations for Main Study Variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="char"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="char"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="char">1</th><th align="char">2</th><th align="char">3</th><th align="char">4</th><th align="char">5</th><th align="char">6</th><th align="char">7</th><th align="char">8</th><th align="char">9</th><th align="char">10</th><th align="char">11</th><th align="char">12</th><th align="char">13</th><th align="char">14</th><th align="char">15</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">1. System justification</td><td align="char" char=".">3.23</td><td align="char" char=".">1.03</td><td align="char" char=".">—</td><td align="char" char=".">.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Self‐esteem 1</td><td align="char" char=".">3.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.51</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.58<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.44<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.62<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.41<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.38<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Self‐esteem 2</td><td align="char" char=".">3.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.58</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.71<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.48<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.65<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.55<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.37<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Self‐esteem 3</td><td align="char" char=".">3.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.59<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.68<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.41<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Internalizing 1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.36</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.59<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.54<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Internalizing 2</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.65<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.46<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Internalizing 3</td><td align="char" char=".">0.28</td><td align="char" char=".">0.36</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="char" char=".">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.46<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Deviant 1</td><td align="char" char=".">1.60</td><td align="char" char=".">0.48</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.69<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.65<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.50<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Deviant 2</td><td align="char" char=".">1.70</td><td align="char" char=".">0.53</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.78<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.57<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.51<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Deviant 3</td><td align="char" char=".">1.76</td><td align="char" char=".">0.57</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.48<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.60<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">11. Class behavior 1</td><td align="char" char=".">3.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.64<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.53<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">12. Class behavior 2</td><td align="char" char=".">3.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.65<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">13. Class behavior 3</td><td align="char" char=".">3.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">−.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">14. Gender (1 = male)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.51</td><td align="char" char=".">0.50</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.07<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0002" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">15. Discrimination</td><td align="char" char=".">1.45</td><td align="char" char=".">0.52</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>128540002 <sups>†</sups><emph>p</emph> < .10. *<emph>p</emph> < .05. **<emph>p</emph> < .01. ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-22">Latent Growth Models</hd> <p>Main models are depicted in Figure 1. Fit statistics and standardized path coefficients are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.</p> <p>GRAPH: System justification predicting latent growth in outcomes.Note. Standardized coefficients presented. Covariates modeled but not shown. Correlation between intercept and slope modeled but not shown.*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01jan19/cdev12854-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev12854-fig-0001.jpg" title="image_n/cdev12854-fig-0001.png" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Fit Statistics for Main Models</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="char">CFI</th><th align="char">TLI</th><th align="char">RMSEA [90% CI]</th><th align="char">SRMR</th><th align="char">χ<sup>2</sup> (<italic>df</italic>)</th><th align="char">χ<sup>2</sup> difference test (<italic>df</italic>)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0003" /></th><th align="char">Scaling factor</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Self‐esteem</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Latent intercept model</td><td align="char" char=".">0.891</td><td align="char" char=".">0.918</td><td align="char" char=" ">.133 [.082,.189]</td><td align="char" char=".">.254</td><td align="char" char=" ">22.08 (4)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Latent growth model</td><td align="char" char=".">0.998</td><td align="char" char=".">0.993</td><td align="char" char=" ">.038 [.000,.176]</td><td align="char" char=".">.013</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.370 (1)</td><td align="char" char=" ">17.88 (3)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="char" char=".">1.56</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SJ and covariates model</td><td align="char" char=".">0.992</td><td align="char" char=".">0.975</td><td align="char" char=" ">.032 [.000,.075]</td><td align="char" char=".">.015</td><td align="char" char=" ">16.05 (13)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Internalizing</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Latent intercept model</td><td align="char" char=".">0.919</td><td align="char" char=".">0.939</td><td align="char" char=" ">.091 [.037,.150]</td><td align="char" char=".">.059</td><td align="char" char=" ">12.49 (4)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Latent growth model</td><td align="char" char=".">0.969</td><td align="char" char=".">0.918</td><td align="char" char=" ">.143 [.053,.258]</td><td align="char" char=".">.042</td><td align="char" char=" ">6.220 (1)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="char" char=" ">8.86 (3)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="char" char=".">1.40</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SJ and covariates model</td><td align="char" char=".">0.953</td><td align="char" char=".">0.890</td><td align="char" char=" ">.064 [.025,.100]</td><td align="char" char=".">.022</td><td align="char" char=" ">25.48 (13)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom regulatory behavior</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Latent intercept model</td><td align="char" char=".">0.691</td><td align="char" char=".">0.768</td><td align="char" char=" ">.186 [.136,.241]</td><td align="char" char=".">.172</td><td align="char" char=" ">39.467 (4)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Latent growth model</td><td align="char" char=".">1.000</td><td align="char" char=".">1.006</td><td align="char" char=" ">.000 [.000,.157]</td><td align="char" char=".">.011</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.767 (1)</td><td align="char" char=" ">45.76 (3)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SJ and covariates model</td><td align="char" char=".">1.000</td><td align="char" char=".">1.062</td><td align="char" char=" ">0 [.000,.033]</td><td align="char" char=".">.009</td><td align="char" char=" ">7.50 (13)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Deviant behavior</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Latent intercept model</td><td align="char" char=".">0.957</td><td align="char" char=".">0.968</td><td align="char" char=" ">.261 [.210,.314]</td><td align="char" char=".">.133</td><td align="char" char=" ">73.769 (4)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Latent growth model</td><td align="char" char=".">1.000</td><td align="char" char=".">1.000</td><td align="char" char=" ">.018 [.000,.168]</td><td align="char" char=".">.007</td><td align="char" char=" ">1.085 (1)</td><td align="char" char=" ">62.10 (3)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0004" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SJ and covariates model</td><td align="char" char=".">0.983</td><td align="char" char=".">0.950</td><td align="char" char=" ">.047 [.000,.086]</td><td align="char" char=".">.016</td><td align="char" char=" ">19.799 (13)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>128540003 Difference test calculated using Santorra–Bentler correction for MLR (see https://www.statmodel.com/chidiff.shtml). CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; MLR = robust maximum likelihood.</item> <item>128540004 *<emph>p</emph> < .05. ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <p>Standardized Coefficients From Models Predicting Latent Growth From System Justification and Covariates</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="char">Self‐esteem</th><th align="char">Internalizing behavior</th><th align="char">Classroom regulatory behavior</th><th align="char">Deviant behavior (low discrim)</th><th align="char">Deviant behavior (high discrim)</th></tr><tr><th align="char">Intercept</th><th align="char">Slope</th><th align="char">Intercept</th><th align="char">Slope</th><th align="char">Intercept</th><th align="char">Slope</th><th align="char">Intercept</th><th align="char">Slope</th><th align="char">Intercept</th><th align="char">Slope</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">System justification</td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.39<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.174</td><td align="char" char=".">−.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.57<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Male</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="char" char=".">−.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.15</td><td align="char" char=".">.158</td><td align="char" char=".">.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">English at home</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.084</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Generation of immigration</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.12</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.075</td><td align="char" char=".">.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Free or reduced price lunch</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.235</td><td align="char" char=".">.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">.001</td><td align="char" char=".">−.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−.12</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td><td align="char" char=".">−.192</td><td align="char" char=".">.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.15</td></tr><tr><td align="left">White</td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.297</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Black</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.0001</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.21</td><td align="char" char=".">−.13</td><td align="char" char=".">.388</td><td align="char" char=".">.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other R/E</td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">.0001</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.082</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−.32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐esteem W1</td><td align="char">—</td><td align="char">—</td><td align="char" char=".">−.62<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.387</td><td align="char" char=".">−.18</td><td align="char" char=".">.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Internalizing behavior W1</td><td align="char" char=".">−.08<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char">—</td><td align="char">—</td><td align="char" char=".">.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.34<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.240</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Classroom behavior W1</td><td align="char" char=".">−.64<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.14</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char">—</td><td align="char">—</td><td align="char" char=".">−.55<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.070</td><td align="char" char=".">−.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Deviant behavior W1</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.09</td><td align="char" char=".">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−.55<xref ref-type="fn" rid="cdev12854-note-0005" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−.11</td><td align="char">—</td><td align="char">—</td><td align="char">—</td><td align="char">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>128540005 <sups>†</sups><emph>p</emph> < .10. *<emph>p</emph> < .05. **<emph>p</emph> < .01. ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-24">Self‐Esteem</hd> <p>As evidenced in Table 3, the latent growth model for self‐esteem was a good fit to the data and a significantly better fit than the unconditional means model. The mean for self‐esteem in sixth grade was moderately high (<emph>M</emph><subs>int</subs> = 3.00, <emph>SE</emph> = .03, <emph>p</emph> < .001), and there was no significant change in self‐esteem over the course of early adolescence (<emph>M</emph><subs>slope</subs> = 0.02, <emph>SE</emph> = .03, <emph>p</emph> = .532). There was significant variation around the mean and slope, however ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev12854:cdev12854-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>s</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">int</mi></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml>  = .22, <emph>p</emph> < .001 and <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev12854:cdev12854-math-0002" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>s</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">slope</mi></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml>  = .08, <emph>p</emph> = .001), justifying the inclusion of predictors. Finally, the intercept and slope were significantly negatively correlated (<emph>r</emph> = −.36, <emph>p</emph> = .001).</p> <p>When system justification and covariates were included as predictors of these growth parameters, the model was a good fit to the data (Table 3). System justification was positively related to self‐esteem at Wave 1 (<emph>b </emph>= .07, <emph>SE </emph>= .03, β<emph> </emph>= .16, <emph>p </emph>= .03) but negatively related to self‐esteem over time (<emph>b </emph>= −.05, <emph>SE </emph>= .02, β<emph> </emph>= −.23, <emph>p </emph>= .02). Thus, higher levels of system justification are associated with higher self‐esteem at the start of early adolescence, but greater declines in self‐esteem over the subsequent 2 years. Multigroup analyses revealed no significant differences by gender, race/ethnicity, generation of immigration, or discrimination.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-25">Internalizing Behavior</hd> <p>The latent growth model for internalizing behavior was a good fit to the data and a significantly better fit than the means model. On average, youth evidenced low levels of internalizing behavior in sixth grade (<emph>M</emph><subs>int</subs><emph> </emph>= 0.31, <emph>SE </emph>= .009, <emph>p</emph> < .001), and there was no significant change in internalizing across early adolescence (<emph>M</emph><subs>slope</subs><emph> </emph>= −0.01, <emph>SE </emph>= .01, <emph>p </emph>= .431). There was, however, significant variation around both the mean and slope ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev12854:cdev12854-math-0003" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>s</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">int</mi></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml><emph> </emph>= .10, <emph>p</emph> < .001 and <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev12854:cdev12854-math-0004" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>s</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">slope</mi></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml><emph> </emph>= .02, <emph>p</emph> < .001), justifying the inclusion of predictors. The intercept and slope for internalizing were significantly negatively correlated (<emph>r </emph>= −.37, <emph>p </emph>= .006).</p> <p>We then included system justification and the set of covariates as predictors of the intercept and slope for internalizing. Although this model was an adequate fit to the data, no significant associations between system justification and the latent growth parameters were found. Mulitgroup analyses did not reveal any significant moderation of these associations by gender, race/ethnicity, generation of immigration, or perceived discrimination.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-26">Classroom Behavioral Regulation</hd> <p>Fit statistics revealed the latent growth model for classroom behavioral regulation to be a good fit to the data and a significantly better fit than the latent intercept model. In sixth grade, youth reported moderately high behavioral regulation in the classroom (<emph>M</emph><subs>int</subs><emph> </emph>= 3.24, <emph>SE </emph>= .03, <emph>p</emph> < .001), but this behavior declined significantly over the course of early adolescence (<emph>M</emph><subs>slope</subs><emph> </emph>= −0.11, <emph>SE </emph>= .02, <emph>p</emph> < .001). There was significant variation in both the intercept and the slope ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev12854:cdev12854-math-0005" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>s</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">int</mi></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml><emph> </emph>= .31, <emph>p</emph> < .001 and <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev12854:cdev12854-math-0006" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>s</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">slope</mi></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml><emph> </emph>= .05, <emph>p </emph>= .05). The intercept and slope for classroom behavioral regulation were not significantly correlated (<emph>r </emph>= −.13, <emph>p </emph>= .510).</p> <p>Adding system justification and covariates to the latent growth model resulted in a good model fit. System justification significantly positively predicted classroom behavioral regulation at Wave 1 (<emph>b </emph>= .15, <emph>SE </emph>= .04, β<emph> </emph>= .28, <emph>p</emph> < .001), but significantly negatively predicted the slope for classroom behavioral regulation (<emph>b </emph>= −.08, <emph>SE </emph>= .03, β<emph> </emph>= −.34, <emph>p </emph>= .004). Thus, system justification was associated with more classroom behavioral regulation in sixth grade but greater declines in classroom behavior over early adolescence. Multigroup analyses indicated no significant differences by gender, race/ethnicity, generation of immigration, or discrimination.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-27">Deviant Behavior</hd> <p>The latent growth model for deviant behavior was found to be a good fit to the data, and a significantly better fit than the latent intercept model. Youth reported low levels of deviant behavior in sixth grade (<emph>M</emph><subs>int</subs><emph> </emph>= 1.60, <emph>SE </emph>= .04, <emph>p</emph> < .001), but this behavior increased significantly over the course of early adolescence (<emph>M</emph><subs>slope</subs><emph> </emph>= 0.08, <emph>SE </emph>= .01, <emph>p </emph>< .001). There was significant variation around the intercept ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev12854:cdev12854-math-0007" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>s</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">int</mi></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml><emph> </emph>= .18, <emph>p</emph> < .001) and the slope ( <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev12854:cdev12854-math-0008" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi>s</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="normal">slope</mi></mrow><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml><emph> </emph>= .03, <emph>p</emph> < .05), warranting the inclusion of predictors of these parameters. The intercept and slope were not significantly correlated (<emph>r </emph>= .005, <emph>p </emph>= .984).</p> <p>The model including system justification and covariates as predictors of the intercept and slope was a good fit to the data. System justification was significantly negatively related to deviant behavior in sixth grade (<emph>b </emph>= −.07, <emph>SE </emph>= .04, β<emph> </emph>= −.16, <emph>p </emph>= .05) but significantly positively related to the slope for deviant behavior (<emph>b </emph>= .05, <emph>SE </emph>= .02, β<emph> </emph>= .33, <emph>p </emph>= .005), indicating that system justification is associated with less deviant behavior at the start of early adolescence but also greater increases in deviant behavior over the course of early adolescence. Multigroup analyses revealed no significant differences in these associations by gender, race/ethnicity, or generation of immigration. However, there was evidence of moderation by perceived discrimination. The model constraining the associations between system justification and the latent growth parameters to be the same across students with low versus high perceived discrimination was a significantly worse fit than the unconstrained model that allowed these associations to vary across groups, χ<sups>2</sups><subs>change</subs> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>)<emph> </emph>= 10.13, <emph>p </emph>< .001. In the unconstrained model, there were no significant associations between system justification and the deviant behavior intercept or slope for youth with low perceived discrimination. For youth who perceived high levels of discrimination in early adolescence, however, system justification did predict the latent growth parameters. It was related to lower deviant behavior in sixth grade (<emph>b </emph>= −.19, <emph>SE </emph>= .04, β<emph> </emph>= −.48, <emph>p </emph>< .001) but greater increases in deviant behavior over the course of early adolescence (<emph>b </emph>= .10; <emph>SE </emph>= .03; β<emph> </emph>= .67; <emph>p </emph>= .001).</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-28">Sensitivity Analyses</hd> <p>We conducted two sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of our findings. First, due to the small‐to‐medium correlations between our outcomes of interest, we applied a more stringent <emph>p</emph> value to reflect multiple comparisons using a Bonferroni correction. With the corrected <emph>p</emph> value of.0125, all substantive results remain significant, except for the findings on self‐esteem. As our outcomes are only weakly to moderately correlated and the Bonferroni correction is conservative even for multiple comparisons of the same outcome (McDonald, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref79">34</reflink>]), we still interpret the self‐esteem results but do so with some caution. Second, we reran all models excluding the 23 White youth in our sample, as they may experience marginalization differently. Removing these youth from analyses did not change the substantive results.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-29">Discussion</hd> <p>Scholars argue that studies of minority youth need to explicitly incorporate social position into models of development (Garcia‐Coll et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref80">13</reflink>]) and contend that individual perceptions and understandings of social stratification are central to development (Spencer et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref81">59</reflink>]). Despite this appeal, little work has focused on youth's beliefs about the American system or examined how these beliefs relate to other areas of development. This study fills this gap by examining associations between system‐justifying beliefs in sixth grade and trajectories of self‐esteem, internalizing behavior, deviant behavior, and classroom behavioral regulation across sixth, seventh, and eighth grades among a sample of marginalized youth.</p> <p>Based on prior work, we hypothesized that early system‐justifying beliefs would be related to worse developmental outcomes—lower self‐esteem, more internalizing behavior, more deviant behavior, and less behavioral regulation in the classroom. Our predictions were partially supported. In sixth grade, believing the system to be fair, just, and meritocratic was actually associated with higher self‐esteem, less deviant behavior, and better classroom behavioral regulation. However, these same beliefs predicted worsening trajectories of these outcomes over time: system‐justifying beliefs in sixth grade were associated with stronger declines in self‐esteem and classroom behavioral regulation and a greater rise in deviant behavior across sixth, seventh, and eighth grade. System‐justifying beliefs were not associated with either sixth grade levels or change in internalizing behavior over early adolescence. These results were robust to sensitivity checks, however, the findings on self‐esteem should be interpreted with some caution as they did not meet the more stringent Bonferonni‐corrected alpha level.</p> <p>Overall, our findings provide important initial evidence that beliefs about the social system at the start of early adolescence shape trajectories for a range of developmental outcomes among marginalized youth. We also uncover a surprising pattern of associations between early system justification and outcomes during this time: youth with greater system‐justifying beliefs in sixth grade had better outcomes in sixth grade but worsening trajectories across sixth‐to‐eighth grade. One explanation for this pattern is that youth in sixth grade have not yet developed the systemic understanding of status differences or identity as a member of a marginalized group. At this stage, believing the system is fair may not yet imply that one's self or group is not good or worthy, and may instead be palliative, as it is for members of advantaged groups (e.g., Jost et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref82">24</reflink>]). Higher system justifying beliefs might even improve school behavior because it frames failure and success in terms of individual effort (Dalbert & Stoeber, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref83">5</reflink>]). However, these same early beliefs about the fairness of the system may become a liability over time, as youth become increasingly cognizant of how the larger socioeconomic system puts them and their group at a disadvantage, and as their identity as a marginalized group member becomes more salient.</p> <p>Indeed, a provocative implication of these findings is that the early adolescent period is a critical developmental time in which system‐justifying beliefs go from palliative to detrimental for marginalized youth. Rapid cognitive development enables early adolescents to think abstractly about larger societal systems and their place in those systems for the first time. Youth are gaining a more complex and systemic understanding of discrimination and its institutional nature (Quintana, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>]). At the same time, they are solidifying their social group identity and seeing their group more intensely as a reflection of themselves (Quintana, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref85">43</reflink>]; Santos et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref86">49</reflink>]). In the midst of this move toward a more adult‐like cognition and understanding, believing the system is fair implies that one deserves one's disadvantaged place in society, which can result in worsening trajectories of self‐esteem, classroom behavior, and deviant behavior. By the end of early adolescence, we see the negative consequences of system justifying ideologies found for marginalized youth in late adolescence and early adulthood (O'Brien et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref87">40</reflink>]; Sellers et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref88">53</reflink>]; Smalls et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref89">57</reflink>]) and among marginalized adults (Jost & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref90">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although outcome measures were assessed at three time points, system justification was administered only once. Thus, we cannot empirically assess how system justification itself changes over the course of early adolescence or how potential changes in system justification predict other developmental trajectories. There is some evidence that system justification has stable personality (e.g., need for closure, Kay & Friesen, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref91">29</reflink>]) and neural (Jost & Amodio, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref92">22</reflink>]) correlates. However, this research has focused on adults rather than early adolescence, a period characterized by rapid change. To explore this issue further, we compared the system‐justifying beliefs of the sixth‐grade students in our analytic sample to those of seventh‐ and eighth‐grade students who participated in the larger study at Wave 1. Students across grades attend the same school and share similar demographic characteristics. We explored mean level differences across grade broken down by gender and race/ethnicity. For all subgroups except Latino boys levels of system justification did not differ significantly across grades. For Latino boys, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref93">2</reflink>, 216)<emph> </emph>= 4.75, <emph>p </emph>= .01, Tukey's post hoc comparisons indicated that system justification was significantly higher in sixth grade (<emph>M </emph>= 3.35) than in seventh (<emph>M </emph>= 2.90) or eighth (<emph>M </emph>= 2.87) grades (seventh‐ and eighth‐grade scores did not differ significantly). Thus, there is some evidence that system justification might change during the early adolescent period, at least for some youth. However, neither gender nor race/ethnicity moderated associations between system justification and developmental trajectories. Given the dearth of literature on this topic and its importance to youth development, we see our findings as providing important initial evidence that system‐justifying beliefs at the start of early adolescence are associated with developmental trajectories over that time period. Future research should pursue how system justification itself changes over time and how trajectories of system justification associate with other developmental trajectories.</p> <p>We also examined whether associations between sixth‐grade system justification and trajectories differed for youth facing different types of societal marginalization. We found no evidence that gender, race/ethnicity, or generation of immigration moderated relations between system justification and latent growth parameters for any of our outcomes. These findings provide initial evidence, albeit limited, that system justification may operate similarly for youth facing different sources of structural oppression and marginalization. All our youth were low SES, however. Given that many system‐justifying beliefs invoke economic mobility (e.g., meritocracy), it may be that system‐justifying beliefs have different ramifications for youth marginalized due to factors other than SES (e.g., high SES racial/ethnic minority youth).</p> <p>In addition, we assessed whether associations between system justification and trajectories were heightened for youth who perceived greater discrimination over the course of early adolescence. There was some support for this prediction. The association between system justification and trajectories of deviant behavior varied for youth who perceived more versus less discrimination. For youth who perceived more discrimination, the associations were as described above: system justification was associated with less deviant behavior in sixth grade but a steeper rise in deviant behavior across sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. For youth who perceived less discrimination, however, system justification was unrelated to either deviant behavior in sixth grade or to the trajectory of deviant behavior across early adolescence.</p> <p>Thus, although discrimination itself was only weakly correlated with deviant behavior, perceiving more discrimination changed the way system‐justifying beliefs relate to trajectories of deviant behavior. System justification theory suggests the ramifications of system‐justifying beliefs are heightened for people who perceive more marginalization (Jost & Hunyady, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref94">26</reflink>]). Our measure does not capture a structural or group‐based understanding of marginalization, but it does assess experiences of interpersonal discrimination. Our hypothesis is that experiences of interpersonal discrimination compound youths' awareness of societal marginalization as their understanding of the systemic nature of marginalization grows. In sixth grade, before youth fully develop a systemic understanding of inequities and social group identity, system justification may actually buffer the negative effects of interpersonal discrimination because the belief that the system is fair allows youth to see discrimination as as idiosyncratic. However, as youth's understanding of the systemic and institutional nature of discrimination develops over early adolescence (Quintana, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref95">44</reflink>]), experiences of discrimination may heighten youth's awareness of their societal marginalization, leading to more deviant behavior.</p> <p>But why might this pattern arise for deviant behavior and not for self‐esteem and classroom regulatory behavior? One possible explanation is that different mechanisms and stereotypes underlie the negative association between system justification and deviant behavior. Black and Latina/o, and to some extent, low‐SES youth, are often stereotyped as "aggressive" and "delinquent," and many experiences of discrimination are predicated on this stereotype (e.g., followed in a store, stopped by authorities; Santos, Galligan, Pahlke, & Fabes, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref96">50</reflink>]). Given that high system‐justifying youth may endorse more negative self‐stereotypes (Laurin et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref97">32</reflink>]), they may act out in increasingly deviant ways with increasing exposure to that stereotype. Quintana ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref98">44</reflink>]) and Quintana and Segura‐Herrera ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref99">45</reflink>]) suggest that repeated exposure to stereotypes in contexts in which their legitimacy is not challenged contributes to the explicit and implicit acceptance of them. Youth with higher system‐justifying beliefs may be less likely to challenge the legitimacy of stereotypes inherent in the discrimination they experience and thus may internalize and act out these messages. Relations between system justification and self‐esteem, in contrast, could be driven by the feeling that one and one's group must deserve lower societal standing.</p> <p>The mechanism underlying system justification's relation to classroom behavioral regulation is less clear. It could be that higher system‐justifying youth are internalizing negative societal stereotypes about their aptitude, in which case we might expect experiences of discrimination to be an exacerbating factor. Alternatively, it could be that system‐justifying beliefs make marginalized youth question whether they belong in the school environment. There is mounting experimental evidence that increasing youth's sense of belonging in school improves academic outcomes (Walton & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref100">61</reflink>]). Overall, our findings suggest that system justification has implications for a variety of outcomes among marginalized youth, but more research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms through which it exerts this influence.</p> <p>It is interesting that we found no associations between system justification in sixth grade and trajectories of internalizing behavior. This finding stands in contrast to the social psychological literature, which has found system justification to be related to more anxious and depressive symptoms among marginalized adults, especially over the long term (Harding & Sibley, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref101">19</reflink>]; Jost & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref102">28</reflink>]). A number of factors could explain this discrepancy. First, although the bulk of literature suggests that system‐justifying beliefs are related to more anxiety and depression among marginalized adults, some research suggests that instead of a negative association, system justification and mental health may simply be unrelated (Rankin et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref103">46</reflink>]). Second, our measure of internalizing behavior captures more acute symptoms of psychological distress than the measures typically used in social psychological research. In addition, the measure we used, although well‐validated for youth (Smucker, Craighead, Craighead, & Green, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref104">58</reflink>]), has only a 3‐point response scale, which could have limited the amount of variability found. In addition, this measure taps recent feelings (the last 2 weeks). Although this time frame aids reporting accuracy, it may also function as more of a short‐term measure of internalizing behavior (vs. the self‐esteem measure which provides a more global, trait‐like assessment). It could also be that associations between system justification and depressive symptoms are different in this developmental period. Perhaps depressive symptoms do not manifest until later in life, with repeated exposure to an inequitable system. As this study is the first to our knowledge to examine associations between system justification and outcomes in early adolescence, more research is needed to replicate and expand these results.</p> <hd id="AN0134091721-30">Limitations and Conclusion</hd> <p>A number of limitations should be acknowledged. First, although our data allowed us to model associations between system justification in sixth grade and trajectories of important developmental outcomes, system justification was not available in later waves. Thus, while we can say that system‐justifying beliefs early in adolescence predict trajectories over this time period, future research must examine how system justification itself changes over the course of early adolescence. Second, our sample is small and generalizability is limited. Future research should examine the extent to which the results found here generalize to other definitions of marginalization and different geographical areas and school settings. Third, as is true for most research in this area, this study cannot make causal claims. Although the threat of selection bias is mitigated somewhat by the use of latent growth models, which help account for (stable) selection factors, additional research is needed to tease apart the direction of the associations seen here. Fourth, we relied on adolescents' self‐reports of study variables. Although youth are the best—and potentially only—reporters of their system‐justifying beliefs, parent or teacher reports of developmental outcomes would have strengthened the study and allayed the threat of monoreporter bias. Finally, due to lack of availability of measures we were unable to test the mechanisms (psychological conflict, internalization of societal stereotypes) hypothesized to underlie associations between system justification and the outcomes studied here.</p> <p>Despite these limitations, this study advances the literature in numerous ways. Scholars have long called for more attention to be paid to the unique ways that marginalization influences the development of low‐income and racial/ethnic minority youth. At the same time, scholars recommend paying attention not only to objective differences in context but also to the subjective experience and perception of contexts. This study responds to both calls by showing how beliefs about the social system and its inherent social and economic hierarchies uniquely influence key outcomes among marginalized youth in early adolescence. We also provide novel evidence that early adolescence is a critical developmental period during which believing in the fairness of the system begins to undermine the self‐esteem and behavior of marginalized youth. We hope this study will inspire additional research to better understand the complex ways that experiences of marginalization, filtered through the lens of one's own beliefs about the system, shape youth development.</p> <p>GRAPH: Table S1. Fit Statistics for Measurement Models Table S2. Loadings for Measurement Models Across Waves Table S3. Summary of Measurement Invariance Fit Statistics: Gender (Male vs. Female) Table S4. Summary of Measurement Invariance Fit Statistics: Race/Ethnicity (Latino vs. Other Race/Ethnicity) Table S5. Summary of Measurement Invariance Fit Statistics: Generation of Immigration (First/Second Generation vs. Third Generation) Table S6. Summary of Measurement Invariance Fit Statistics: Study Waves Data S1. Psychometric Analyses</p> <ref id="AN0134091721-31"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref63" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The study was supported in part by funds provided by the T. Denny Sanford School of Social Dynamics at Arizona State University as part of The Lives of Girls and Boys Enterprise (https://thesanfordschool.asu.edu/lives). The authors would like to thank the graduate and undergraduate students who contributed to this project and the students, teachers, principal, staff, and parents for their participation.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0134091721-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Arizona Department of Education, National School Lunch Program & School Breakfast Program. (2011). Child nutrition programs: Percentage of free and reduced reports. Arizona Department of Education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.ade.az.gov/health-safety/cnp/frpercentages/free-reducedpercentage%5fOCT10.pdf">http://www.ade.az.gov/health-safety/cnp/frpercentages/free-reducedpercentage%5fOCT10.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref56" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C. S., & Haynes, O. M. (2010). Social competence, externalizing, and internalizing behavioral adjustment from early childhood through early adolescence: Developmental cascades. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 717 – 735. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579410000416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 793 – 828). Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cabrera, N., Beeghly, M. J., Brown, C., Casas, J., Palacios, N., Phinney, J., ... Witherspoon, D. (2013). Positive development of minority children. Social Policy Report, 27, 3 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00253.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Dalbert, C., & Stoeber, J. (2005). The belief in a just world and distress at school. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 123 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-005-1835-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Diemer, M. A. (2009). Pathways to occupational attainment among poor youth of color: The role of sociopolitical development. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 6 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000007309858</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref64" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Diemer, M. A., & Li, C. H. (2011). Critical consciousness development and political participation among marginalized youth. Child Development, 82, 1815 – 1833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01650.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref29" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Diemer, M. A., Wang, Q., Moore, T., Gregory, S. R., Hatcher, K. M., & Voight, A. M. (2010). Sociopolitical development, work salience, and vocational expectations among low socioeconomic status African American, Latin American, and Asian American youth. Developmental Psychology, 46, 619 – 635. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref68" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. (1990). The risky behavior scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elenbaas, L., & Killen, M. (2016). Children rectify inequalities for disadvantaged groups. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1318 – 1329. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanagan, C. A., Kim, T., Pykett, A., Finlay, A., Gallay, E. E., & Pancer, M. (2014). Adolescents' theories about economic inequality: Why are some people poor while others are rich? Developmental Psychology, 50, 2512 – 2525. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flanagan, C. A., & Tucker, C. J. (1999). Adolescents' explanations for political issues: Concordance with their views of self and society. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1198 – 1209. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garcia‐Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., Mcadoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & Garcia, H. V. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891 – 1914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01834.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Godfrey, E. B., & Wolf, S. (2016). Developing critical consciousness or justifying the system? A qualitative analysis of attributions for poverty and wealth among low‐income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22, 93 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greene, M. L., & Way, N. (2005). Self‐Esteem trajectories among ethnic minority adolescents: A growth curve analysis of the patterns and predictors of change. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 151 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00090.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603 – 618. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.35.7.603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gumora, G., & Arsenio, W. F. (2002). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and school performance in middle school children. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 395 – 413. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00108-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hailey, S. E., & Olson, K. R. (2013). A social psychologist's guide to the development of racial attitudes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 457 – 469. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harding, J. F., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). The palliative function of system justification: Concurrent benefits vs longer‐term costs to wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 113, 401 – 418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0101-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horwitz, S. R., Shutts, K., & Olson, K. R. (2014). Social class differences produce social group preferences. Developmental Science, 17, 991 – 1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12181</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jost, J. T., & Amodio, D. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jost, J. T., Burgess, D., & Mosso, C. O. (2001). 15 Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and system. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 363 – 388). Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00056.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group‐based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self‐esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kay, A. C., & Friesen, J. (2011). On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 60 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of "poor but happy" and "poor but honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kovacs, M. (1992). Children's Depression Inventory. New York, NY : Multi‐Health System.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., & Shepherd, S. (2011). Self‐stereotyping as a route to system justification. Social Cognition, 29, 360 – 375. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.360</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York, NY : McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, J. H. (2014). Handbook of biological statistics (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD : Sparky House.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGill, R. K., Hughes, D., Alicea, S., & Way, N. (2012). Academic adjustment across middle school: The role of public regard and parenting. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1003 – 1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA : Muthén & Muthén.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newheiser, A. K., Dunham, Y., Merrill, A., Hoosain, L., & Olson, K. R. (2014). Preference for high status predicts implicit outgroup bias among children from low‐status groups. Developmental Psychology, 50, 1081 – 1090. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newheiser, A. K., & Olson, K. R. (2014). Is the inherence heuristic needed to understand system‐justifying tendencies among children? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 496 – 497. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x13002197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien, L. T., & Major, B. N. (2005). System justifying beliefs and psychological well‐being: The roles of group status and identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1718 – 1729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien, L. T., Mars, D. E., & Eccleston, C. (2011). System‐justifying ideologies and academic outcomes among first‐year Latino college students. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 406. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, K. R., Dweck, C. S., Spelke, E. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Children's responses to group‐based inequalities: Perpetuation and rectification. Social Cognition, 29, 270. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2011.29.3.270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, D. M., & Crocker, J. (1999). When ideology hurts: Effects of belief in the protestant ethic and feeling overweight on the psychological well‐being of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 402 – 414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.402</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quintana, S. M. (2007). Racial and ethnic identity. Developmental perspectives and research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 259 – 270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quintana, S. M. (2008). Racial perspective taking ability: Developmental, theoretical, and empirical trends. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 16 – 36). Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quintana, S. M., & Segura‐Herrera, T. A. (2003). Developmental transformations of self and identity in the context of oppression. Self and Identity, 2, 269 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1080/714050248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rankin, L. E., Jost, J. T., & Wakslak, C. J. (2009). System justification and the meaning of life: Are the existential benefits of ideology distributed unequally across racial groups. Social Justice Research, 22, 312 – 333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-009-0100-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self‐image. Middletown, CT : Wesleyan University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruble, D. N., & Seidman, E. (1996). Social transitions: Windows into social psychological processes. In E. T. Higgins (Ed.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 830 – 856). New York, NY : Guilford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, C. E., Kornienko, O., & Rivas‐Drake, D. (2017). Peer influence on ethnic‐racial identity development in adolescence: A multi‐site investigation. Child Development, 88, 725 – 742. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, C. E., Galligan, K., Pahlke, E., & Fabes, R. A. (2013). Gender‐typed behaviors, achievement, and adjustment among racially and ethnically diverse boys during early adolescence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83 (2–3), 252 – 264. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajop.12036.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santos, C. E., & Menjívar, C. (2013). Youths' perspective on Senate Bill 1070 in Arizona: The socio‐emotional effects of immigration policy. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 7, 7 – 17.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sellers, R. M., Chavous, T. M., & Cooke, D. Y. (1998). Racial ideology and racial centrality as predictors of African American college students' academic performance. Journal of Black Psychology, 24, 8 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984980241002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sigelman, C. K. (2012). Rich man, poor man: Developmental differences in attributions and perceptions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 415 – 429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.06.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sigelman, C. K. (2013). Age differences in perceptions of rich and poor people: Is it skill or luck? Social Development, 22, 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smalls, C., White, R., Chavous, T., & Sellers, R. (2007). Racial ideological beliefs and racial discrimination experiences as predictors of academic engagement among African American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 299 – 330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798407302541</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smucker, M. R., Craighead, W. E., Craighead, L. W., & Green, B. J. (1986). Normative and reliability data for the Children's Depression Inventory. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 25 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00917219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spencer, M. B., Dupree, B. D., & Hartmann, T. (1997). A phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST): A Self‐organization perspective in context. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 817 – 833. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579497001454</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner, J., Davies, S., & O'Grady, B. (1999). Whatever happened to yesterday's rebels? Longitudinal effects of youth delinquency on education and employment. Social Problems, 46, 250 – 274. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097255</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watts, R. J., Diemer, M. A., & Voight, A. M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011, 43 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., McMorris, B. J., Chen, X., & Stubben, J. D. (2001). Perceived discrimination and early substance abuse among American Indian children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 405 – 424.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Erin B. Godfrey; Carlos E. Santos and Esther Burson</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib252" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref104"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1202492
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: For Better or Worse? System-Justifying Beliefs in Sixth-Grade Predict Trajectories of Self-Esteem and Behavior across Early Adolescence
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Godfrey%2C+Erin+B%2E%22">Godfrey, Erin B.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Santos%2C+Carlos+E%2E%22">Santos, Carlos E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burson%2C+Esther%22">Burson, Esther</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development%22"><i>Child Development</i></searchLink>. Jan-Feb 2019 90(1):180-195.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Early+Adolescents%22">Early Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Esteem%22">Self Esteem</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescent+Attitudes%22">Adolescent Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Low+Income%22">Low Income</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disadvantaged+Youth%22">Disadvantaged Youth</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/cdev.12854
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0009-3920
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Scholars call for more attention to how marginalization influences the development of low-income and racial/ethnic minority youth and emphasize the importance of youth's subjective perceptions of contexts. This study examines how beliefs about the fairness of the American system (system justification) in sixth grade influence trajectories of self-esteem and behavior among 257 early adolescents (average age 11.4) from a diverse, low-income, middle school in an urban southwestern city. System justification was associated with higher self-esteem, less delinquent behavior, and better classroom behavior in sixth grade but worse trajectories of these outcomes from sixth to eighth grade. These findings provide novel evidence that system-justifying beliefs undermine the well-being of marginalized youth and that early adolescence is a critical developmental period for this process.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1202492
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1202492
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/cdev.12854
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 180
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Early Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Esteem
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescent Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Low Income
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disadvantaged Youth
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: For Better or Worse? System-Justifying Beliefs in Sixth-Grade Predict Trajectories of Self-Esteem and Behavior across Early Adolescence
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Godfrey, Erin B.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Santos, Carlos E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burson, Esther
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0009-3920
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 90
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1