The Why and How of Defending Belief in a Just World

Hafer, Carolyn L.; Rubel, Alicia N.

doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.09.001

Cited by 63 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 134 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the studies that have been conducted focused largely on individual differences in just-world beliefs to explain differences in helping (e.g., Bègue et al, 2008;DePalma et al, 1999). Nevertheless, more recent studies have focused on a broader array of possible reactions following a BJW threat and on explaining when people choose to react in a certain way (see, e.g., Hafer & Rubel, 2015;Harvey, Callan & Matthews, 2015). Our current studies fit within this line of research and aim to further our understanding of the mechanisms underlying diverging reactions toward innocent victims.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting the “I” and “Us” in Justice: Derogatory and Benevolent Reactions Toward Innocent Victims in Self-Focused and Other-Focused Individuals

Bal

Bos

2015

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reactions toward innocent victims can range from harsh derogatory reactions to great effort to alleviate the victims' ill fates. Using insights from research on justworld theory and perspective taking, the current paper investigates both negative and positive reactions toward innocent victims. Specifically, we propose that self-focused versus other-focused motives can evoke derogatory versus more benevolent reactions, respectively, toward innocent victims. By manipulating self-focus versus other-focus, we indeed show in two studies that a self-focus enhanced indirect victim blaming and derogation and decreased helping of innocent victims. Furthermore, when participants were focused on another person these effects attenuated. Taken together, these findings extend previous studies on just-world theory and show that both blaming and helping can be viable strategies to deal with unjust situations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting the “I” and “Us” in Justice: Derogatory and Benevolent Reactions Toward Innocent Victims in Self-Focused and Other-Focused Individuals

Bal

Bos

2015

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…BJW develops as an adaptive mechanism to help individuals cope with life's stresses, and serves the need to see the world as a just, safe, and secure place (Hafer and Begue 2005). BJW contributes to well-being (Furnham 2003) and can even motivate individuals to ameliorate injustice (Hafer and Rubel 2015). However, it can have adverse consequences, such as blaming victims for negative outcomes outside of their control (Furnham 2003;Lerner and Miller 1978).…”

Section: Belief In a Just Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide

Santos¹,

Feygina²

2017

Michigan Journal of Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is an increasingly politicized issue in the United States, with many members of the American public, especially those who identify as politically conservative, skeptical about this dangerous phenomenon. A host of social and psychological processes have been investigated in an attempt to understand skepticism and resistance to responding to the threat of climate change, including motivated reasoning, system justification theory, social dominance orientation, belief in a just world, the cultural cognition thesis, and solution aversion. In this article, we review recent research into these processes and their implications for understanding the political divide in responding to climate change. We also highlight efforts to test communications interventions aimed at ameliorating these processes underlying climate change skepticism, including framing and scientific consensus. This literature review may be informative for climate change focused communicators, policymakers, practitioners, and academics who directly or indirectly interact with the 6

show abstract

“…Being confronted with innocent victims, therefore, threatens this sense of justice (Ramos, Correia, & Alves, 2014). People then seek to correct this sense of injustice, in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and to maintain the belief that the world is a just place (Hafer & Rubel, 2015). In this manner, innocent victims are often blamed as a way to maintain BJW (Lerner & Simmons, 1966).…”

Section: Implicit and Explicit Dimensions Of Bjw And The Reaction To mentioning

confidence: 99%

Not All Victims Matter”: Belief in a Just World, Intergroup Relations and Victim Blaming

Modesto¹,

Pilati²

2017

Temas Psicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research investigated the process of victim blaming in the context of intergroup relations through the just world hypothesis. In two studies we tested the infl uence of the victim's social category in the relationship between explicit and implicit beliefs in a just world (BJW) and victim blaming. In Study 1, 102 participants answered the explicit and implicit measures of BJW and evaluated how much a stray bullet victim (ingroup X outgroup) was to blame. In Study 2, aside from the manipulation of victim social category, we included a manipulation of cognitive load. 110 participants answered the BJW measures and evaluated how much a stray bullet victim (ingroup X outgroup) was to blame in a situation of cognitive load (low X high). It was verifi ed that the victim's social category interferes in the relationship between BJW and victim blaming. When explicit or implicit BJW explained blaming, that effect was restricted to the evaluation of an ingroup victim. The fi ndings of the present research confi rm the hypothesis that ingroup victims are more threatening to individual's BJW and indicate the importance of considering the victim's social category for a more adequate understanding of the just world hypothesis.A presente pesquisa investigou o processo de responsabilização de vítimas no contexto das relações intergrupais a partir da hipótese do mundo justo. Em dois estudos testamos a infl uência da categoria social da vítima na relação entre crenças no mundo justo (CMJ) explícita\ implícita e a responsabilização de vítimas. No Estudo 1, 102 participantes responderam a medidas explícita e implícita da CMJ e avaliaram o grau de responsabilidade de uma vítima (endogrupo X exogrupo) de bala perdida. No Estudo 2, além da manipulação da categoria social da vítima, incluímos uma manipulação de carga cognitiva. Foram 110 participantes que responderam às medidas da CMJ e avaliaram a responsabilidade de uma vítima (endogrupo X exogrupo) de bala perdida em uma situação de carga cognitiva (baixa X alta). Verifi couse que a categoria social da vítima interfere na relação da CMJ com a responsabilização. Quando a CMJ explícita ou implícita explicou a responsabilização, esse efeito foi restrito para a avaliação da vítima do 1 Mailing address:

show abstract

The Why and How of Defending Belief in a Just World

Cited by 63 publications

References 134 publications

Putting the “I” and “Us” in Justice: Derogatory and Benevolent Reactions Toward Innocent Victims in Self-Focused and Other-Focused Individuals

Putting the “I” and “Us” in Justice: Derogatory and Benevolent Reactions Toward Innocent Victims in Self-Focused and Other-Focused Individuals

Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide

Not All Victims Matter”: Belief in a Just World, Intergroup Relations and Victim Blaming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About