Carolyn L. Hafer

Experimental Research on Just-World Theory: Problems, Developments, and Future Challenges

M. J. Lerner (1980) proposed that people need to believe in a just world; thus, evidence that the world is not just is threatening, and people have a number of strategies for reducing such threats. Early research on this idea, and on just-world theory more broadly, was reviewed in early publications (e.g., M. J. Lerner, 1980; M. J. Lerner & D. T. Miller, 1978). In the present article, focus is directed on the post-1980 experimental research on this theory. First, 2 conceptualizations of the term belief in a just world are described, the typical experimental paradigms are explained, and a general overview of the post-1980 experiments is provided. Second, problems with this literature are discussed, including the unsystematic nature of the research. Third, important developments that have occurred, despite the problems reviewed, are described. Finally, theoretical challenges that researchers should address if this area of inquiry is to advance in the future are discussed.

Investment in Long-Term Goals and Commitment to Just Means Drive the Need to Believe in a Just World

The author hypothesized that the less one focuses on long-term goals, or the less one plans to achieve goals through just means, the less essential is the belief in a just world (BJW) and the less one will work at maintaining this belief when it is threatened. In Studies 1 and 2, participants’ focus on long-term investments was either manipulated or measured, and their reactions to a victim who presented a high or low threat to the BJW were assessed. In Study 2, the tendency to obtain goals through unjust means (delinquency) also was measured. As predicted, strong long-term focus and low-delinquency participants reacted more negatively toward the high-threat victim, presumably to maintain the BJW. Study 3 showed that the more one focuses on long-term investments and the less one uses unjust means, the stronger one’s BJW.

Beliefs in a Just World, Discontent, and Assertive Actions by Working Women

Seventy working women completed a questionnaire that assessed their dissatisfaction with their own job situation (personal discontent), their dissatisfaction with the job situations of women as a group (group discontent), and the strength of their beliefs in a just world (BJW). One month later, they completed a questionnaire that measured behaviors potentially related to discontent, some involving self-improvement (self-directed behaviors) and others relating to collective action (group-directed behaviors). Strong believers in a just world reported less group discontent than weak believers. BJW predicted both self-directed and group-directed behaviors; strong believers reported fewer behaviors of both kinds than weak believers. Taken together, BJW, group discontent, and personal discontent accounted for 23% of the variance in self-directed behaviors (R = .48) and 26% of the variance in group-directed behaviors (R = .50). These data constitute the first evidence linking BJW to assertive actions.

An Analysis of Empirical Research on the Scope of Justice

The scope of justice has been defined as the boundary within which justice is perceived to be relevant. The empirical literature on this topic is primarily aimed at predicting when a target will be excluded from the scope of justice and at examining potential consequences of exclusion, from accepting a targets suffering to active harm-doing such as mass internment and genocide. The concept of the scope of justice is interesting and heuristically useful, but there are several problems with the empirical literature that impede its progress. For example, the proposed mediator often has not been measured, or operationalizations of the scope of justice have been confounded with other constructs. Also, although the scope of justice remains one possible explanation for results obtained in various experiments, there are equally compelling alternatives that do not implicate exclusion from the scope of justice. We offer suggestions about how to study scope of justice issues in the future and identify points that need to be clarified regarding the conceptualization of the scope of justice.

Mediators of the Relation Between Beliefs in a Just World and Emotional Responses to Negative Outcomes

Research shows that strong believers in a just world respond with less negative and more positive emotion to their own negative outcomes than do weak believers. The present study investigated mediators of this relation. We proposed that strong believers in a just world (versus weak believers) would make stronger internal and weaker external attributions for their negative outcomes, leading to reduced perceived unfairness, which, in turn, was expected to lead to less negative and more positive emotion. We assessed the just world beliefs of a sample of undergraduates as well as measuring their cognitive and emotional responses to an exam grade. Mediational analyses showed that our data were consistent with the processes proposed above. Various cognitive and motivational interpretations of the present findings are discussed

Compensatory Rationalizations and the Resolution of Everyday Undeserved Outcomes

People prefer to perceive the world as just; however, the everyday experience of undeserved events challenges this perception.The authors suggest that one way people rationalize these daily experiences of unfairness is by means of a compensatory bias. People make undeserved events more palatable by endorsing the notion that outcomes naturally balance out in the end—good, yet undeserved, outcomes will balance out bad outcomes, and bad undeserved outcomes will balance out good outcomes.The authors propose that compensatory biases manifest in people’s interpretive processes (Study 1) and memory (Study 2). Furthermore, they provide evidence that people have a natural tendency to anticipate compensatory outcomes in the future, which, ironically, might lead them to perceive a current situation as relatively more fair (Study 3).These studies highlight an understudied means of justifying unfairness and elucidate the justice motive’s power to affect people’s construal of their social world.

Individual Differences in the Belief in a Just World and Responses to Personal Misfortune

According to just world theory (Lerner, 1977, 1980; Lerner, Miller, & Holmes, 1976), people have a basic need to believe that the world is a just place—a place where individuals get what they deserve and deserve what they get. The belief in a just world provides an explanation for people’s responses to the suffering of others, especially their tendency to blame innocent victims for their fate (see Lerner & Miller, 1978, for a review). Rubin and Peplau (1975) proposed that individuals differ in the extent to which they actually believe the world is a just place. Studies investigating the relationship between individual differences in just world beliefs and attitudes toward suffering generally show that strong believers in a just world have a greater tendency to blame victims for their misfortune and a greater acceptance of general social inequalities than do weak believers (e.g., Clyman, Roth, Sniderman, & Charrier, 1980; Dalbert, Fisch, & Montada, 1992; Furnham, 1985; Furnham & Gunter, 1984; Glennon & Joseph, 1993; Smith, 1985; Wagstaff, 1983; Zuckerman, Gerbasi, Kravitz, & Wheeler, 1975; see Furnham & Procter, 1989, for a review).

A content analysis of playboy centrefolds from 1953 through 1990: Changes in explicitness, objectification, and model's age

In this study, the magazine Playboy was subjected to a content analysis. Centrefold models in 430 issues from 1953 through 1990 were coded for explicitness, objectification (e.g., face not visible), and age. Curvilinear trends were observed for both explicitness and objectification, such that explicitness was found to increase over time until leveling off in the early 1980s, and objectification was found to decrease from the 1950s to the late 1960s and then increase slightly during the mid‐1970s. Overall, objectification level was low. The mean age of the models was 21.3 years and increased linearly over time. The results are discussed in relation to assertions that the sexual media not only serve as reflections of sexual standards and attitudes but also as agents in the development of sexual attitudes, including setting standards of attractiveness.

The Role of Resource and Relational Concerns for Procedural Justice

Two studies test the hypothesis that trust, neutrality, and standing influence procedural justice because of their relation to resource motives as well as the relational motive posited by the Group Value Theory. In Study 1, El Salvadorons were asked to evaluate a procedure for seeking redress for a rights violation and the current national government. Both the rights procedure and the government were evaluated on the dimensions of trust, neutrality, standing, absolute outcome, outcome fairness, and procedural fairness. In separate models of procedural fairness, the relational variables exerted both resource and relational effects. The same model was examined among U.S. residents questioned about a recent encounter with another individual. The resource hypothesis was supported again, despite changes in the cultural and political context and the operationalization of key constructs. These studies suggest a broader interpretation of the meaning of the relational variables than is typically emphasized in current theoretical conceptualizations.

Belief in a Just World

In this chapter, we review past and current developments on individual differences in belief in a just world (BJW). Research focusing on measurement of BJW has led to critiques of the original Just World Scale (Rubin & Peplau, Journal of Social Issues, 29, 1973; Journal of Social Issues, 31, 1975) and a trend toward multiple scales assessing different forms of BJW; most notably, personal vs. general forms of BJW. The overall concept of BJW has been well validated by studies of correlates, including certain reactions to victims and ideological variables. With respect to the broader significance of BJW, though BJW is adaptive for the self, the implications of BJW for society are more ambiguous. The developmental foundations of BJW are also unclear, but possible sources include experience with justice and injustice, social learning, and so on. In future, researchers should integrate the forms of BJW into a coherent theoretical framework, further explore the adaptive and maladaptive correlates of BJW, and employ longitudinal designs to better address developmental processes.