No abstract

Although Belief in a Just World (BJW) has positive influences on well-being, the attempts to maintain these beliefs may give rise to awry judgments in contexts of harm. In a scenario-based study, we examined the associations of general belief in a just world (GBJW) with BJW maintenance strategies, including victim blaming, victim derogation, perpetrator demonization, and compensation. We hypothesized that because these harsh judgments about victims and offenders along with compensation are used as defensive mechanisms against threats to BJW, using a specific strategy depends on the availability of each strategy and the level of a person’s GBJW. Thus, we also tested whether GBJW and situational cues for victim’s respectability and perpetrator’s evilness have interaction effects on various strategies to defend BJW. By manipulating the characteristics of the victim (professor vs. car dealer) and offender (with evilness cues vs. without evilness cues) in a crime scenario, the interaction effects on judgments about victims and perpetrators as well as compensation were investigated. The results indicated that while GBJW interacted with victim’s respectability and perpetrator’s evilness to predict demonization and derogation, there was no three-way interaction and two-way interaction effects between victim’s respectability and perpetrator’s evilness on the four BJW-maintenance strategies. Taken together, our findings highlight the nuanced effects of just world beliefs on how people react to and make sense of violent incidents.

People possess a pre-conscious need to believe in the existence of justice in the world. This belief in a just world (BJW) is usually measured with self-report scales. Dalbert et al. (1987) and Dalbert (1999) have developed the general belief in a just world (GBJW) and personal belief in a just world (PBJW) scales as psychometrically robust measures of just-world beliefs. We conducted three studies to demonstrate the validity of the Persian versions of belief in a just world scales and the importance of distinguishing between GBJW and PBJW. First, we confirmed the factor structure. reliability, convergent validity (self-esteem, life satisfaction, and religiosity), and divergent validity (big five personalityfactors and dark triad traits) of GBJW and PBJW using Iranian participants (N1 = 454). Second, the associations of GBJW and PBJW with perceived threat of unjust behavior directed to self or others were assessed using two scenario-based studies (N2 = 81, N3 = 71) in the context of kin favoritism. While GBJW negatively predicted perceived threat of kin favoritism directed to others, PBJW was a negative predictor of perceived threat of kin favoritism directed to self. Consistent with theoretical assumptions, perceived likelihood of punishment mediated these associations. In addition to providing further evidence for the differentiation between GBJW and PBJW, the findings of Study 2 and 3 also support the idea of an optimistic bias towards self by showing that people perceived less threat of kin favoritism when others, rather than themselves, were potential victims of injustice.