Rationalisation and/or relativity - The paradox of perceived fairness in mobility systems

Mobility systems play a crucial role in structuring access to work, services, and social participation, yet their justice is unevenly experienced across social groups. However, perceptions of mobility justice do not always correspond to the distribution of material disadvantage. In this context, system justification theory holds that people are motivated to view existing social arrangements as fair and legitimate. Its strongest claim, rooted in cognitive dissonance theory, suggests that those most disadvantaged by the status quo may be especially motivated to defend and justify it. In contrast, the Relative Deprivation Theory highlights when discontent emerges through comparisons with more privileged individuals/groups. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aims to understand disparities in perceptions of injustice in the mobility system among advantaged and disadvantaged groups and the motivations that lead disadvantaged groups to reduce dissonance (or not) and justify an unjust system. Quantitative findings show a clear paradox: advantaged groups report more negative evaluations of fairness in transport infrastructure, whereas disadvantaged groups, who theoretically face greater structural barriers, express more positive evaluations. ... mehrQualitative interviews explain this paradox, showing how participants normalise financial and infrastructural constraints, but also show when such normalisation breaks down once disadvantages become evident. The analysis demonstrates how mobility justice perceptions are shaped not only by material inequalities but also by psychological and comparative processes. This has important implications for policymaking and society, since efforts to address inequality may face resistance not only from privileged groups but also from those who are disadvantaged, or risk normalising a society in which the disadvantaged accept and reproduce systemic injustice