The Info List - Just-world Hypothesis

--- Advertisement ---

The just-world hypothesis is the assumption that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, or order. The hypothesis popularly appears in the English language
English language
in various figures of speech that imply guaranteed negative reprisal, such as: "you got what was coming to you", "what goes around comes around", "chickens come home to roost", and "you reap what you sow". This hypothesis has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s.[1] Research has continued since then, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just-world beliefs.[2]


1 Emergence

1.1 Melvin Lerner

2 Early evidence 3 Theory 4 Alternatives

4.1 Veridical judgment 4.2 Guilt reduction 4.3 Discomfort reduction

5 Additional evidence

5.1 Violence 5.2 Bullying 5.3 Illness 5.4 Poverty 5.5 The self as victim

6 Theoretical refinement 7 Correlates 8 Current research

8.1 Positive mental health effects 8.2 International research

9 See also 10 References 11 Further reading 12 External links

Emergence[edit] Many philosophers and social theorists have observed and considered the phenomenon of belief in a just world, going back to at least as early as the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus
Sextus Empiricus
writing around 180 CE who argued against this belief.[3] Lerner's work made the just-world hypothesis a focus of research in the field of social psychology. Melvin Lerner[edit] Lerner was prompted to study justice beliefs and the just-world hypothesis in the context of social psychological inquiry into negative social and societal interactions.[4] Lerner saw his work as extending Stanley Milgram's work on obedience. He sought to answer the questions of how regimes that cause cruelty and suffering maintain popular support, and how people come to accept social norms and laws that produce misery and suffering.[5] Lerner's inquiry was influenced by repeatedly witnessing the tendency of observers to blame victims for their suffering. During his clinical training as a psychologist, he observed treatment of mentally ill persons by the health care practitioners with whom he worked. Though he knew them to be kindhearted, educated people, they often blamed patients for the patients' own suffering.[6] Lerner also describes his surprise at hearing his students derogate (disparage, belittle) the poor, seemingly oblivious to the structural forces that contribute to poverty.[4] In a study on rewards, he observed that when one of two men was chosen at random to receive a reward for a task, that caused him to be more favorably evaluated by observers, even when the observers had been informed that the recipient of the reward was chosen at random.[7][8] Existing social psychological theories, including cognitive dissonance, could not fully explain these phenomena.[8] The desire to understand the processes that caused these phenomena led Lerner to conduct his first experiments on what is now called the just-world hypothesis. Early evidence[edit] In 1966, Lerner and his colleagues began a series of experiments that used shock paradigms to investigate observer responses to victimization. In the first of these experiments conducted at the University of Kansas, 72 female subjects were made to watch a confederate receiving electrical shocks under a variety of conditions. Initially, subjects were upset by observing the apparent suffering. But as the suffering continued and observers remained unable to intervene, the observers began to derogate the victim. Derogation was greater when the observed suffering was greater. But when subjects were told the victim would receive compensation for her suffering, subjects did not derogate the victim.[5] Lerner and colleagues replicated these findings in subsequent studies, as did other researchers.[7] Theory[edit] To explain these studies' findings, Lerner theorized that there was a prevalent belief in a just world. A just world is one in which actions and conditions have predictable, appropriate consequences. These actions and conditions are typically individuals' behaviors or attributes. The specific conditions that correspond to certain consequences are socially determined by a society's norms and ideologies. Lerner presents the belief in a just world as functional: it maintains the idea that one can influence the world in a predictable way. Belief
in a just world functions as a sort of "contract" with the world regarding the consequences of behavior. This allows people to plan for the future and engage in effective, goal-driven behavior. Lerner summarized his findings and his theoretical work in his 1980 monograph The Belief
in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion.[6] Lerner hypothesized that the belief in a just world is crucially important for people to maintain for their own well-being. But people are confronted daily with evidence that the world is not just: people suffer without apparent cause. Lerner explained that people use strategies to eliminate threats to their belief in a just world. These strategies can be rational or irrational. Rational strategies include accepting the reality of injustice, trying to prevent injustice or provide restitution, and accepting one's own limitations. Non-rational strategies include denial, withdrawal, and reinterpretation of the event.[citation needed] There are a few modes of reinterpretation that could make an event fit the belief in a just world. One can reinterpret the outcome, the cause, and/or the character of the victim. In the case of observing the injustice of the suffering of innocent people, one major way to rearrange the cognition of an event is to interpret the victim of suffering as deserving.[1] Specifically, observers can blame victims for their suffering on the basis of their behaviors and/or their characteristics.[7] Much psychological research on the belief in a just world has focused on these negative social phenomena of victim blaming and victim derogation in different contexts.[2] An additional effect of this thinking is that individuals experience less personal vulnerability because they do not believe they have done anything to deserve or cause negative outcomes.[2] This is related to the self-serving bias observed by social psychologists.[9] Many researchers have interpreted just-world beliefs as an example of causal attribution. In victim blaming, the causes of victimization are attributed to an individual rather than to a situation. Thus, the consequences of belief in a just world may be related to or explained in terms of particular patterns of causal attribution.[10] Alternatives[edit] Veridical judgment[edit] See also: Veridicality Others have suggested alternative explanations for the derogation of victims. One suggestion is that derogation effects are based on accurate judgments of a victim's character. In particular, in relation to Lerner's first studies, some have hypothesized that it would be logical for observers to derogate an individual who would allow himself to be shocked without reason.[11] A subsequent study by Lerner challenged this alternative hypothesis by showing that individuals are only derogated when they actually suffer; individuals who agreed to undergo suffering but did not were viewed positively.[12] Guilt reduction[edit] Another alternative explanation offered for the derogation of victims early in the development of the just-world hypothesis was that observers derogate victims to reduce their own feelings of guilt. Observers may feel responsible, or guilty, for a victim's suffering if they themselves are involved in the situation or experiment. In order to reduce the guilt, they may devalue the victim.[13][14][15] Lerner and colleagues claim that there has not been adequate evidence to support this interpretation. They conducted one study that found derogation of victims occurred even by observers who were not implicated in the process of the experiment and thus had no reason to feel guilty.[7] Discomfort reduction[edit] Alternatively, victim derogation and other strategies may only be ways to alleviate discomfort after viewing suffering. This would mean that the primary motivation is not to restore a belief in a just world, but to reduce discomfort caused by empathizing. Studies have shown that victim derogation does not suppress subsequent helping activity and that empathizing with the victim plays a large role when assigning blame. According to Ervin Staub,[16] devaluing the victim should lead to lesser compensation if restoring belief in a just world was the primary motive; instead, there is virtually no difference in compensation amounts whether the compensation precedes or follows devaluation. Psychopathy
has been linked to the lack of just-world maintaining strategies, possibly due to dampened emotional reactions and lack of empathy.[17] Additional evidence[edit] After Lerner's first studies, other researchers replicated these findings in other settings in which individuals are victimized. This work, which began in the 1970s and continues today, has investigated how observers react to victims of random calamities like traffic accidents, as well as rape and domestic violence, illnesses, and poverty.[1] Generally, researchers have found that observers of the suffering of innocent victims tend to both derogate and blame victims for their suffering. Observers thus maintain their belief in a just world by changing their cognitions about the victims' character.[18] In the early 1970s, social psychologists Zick Rubin and Letitia Anne Peplau developed a measure of belief in a just world.[19] This measure and its revised form published in 1975 allowed for the study of individual differences in just-world beliefs.[20] Much of the subsequent research on the just-world hypothesis used these measurement scales. Violence[edit] Researchers have looked at how observers react to victims of rape and other violence. In a formative experiment on rape and belief in a just world by Linda Carli and colleagues, researchers gave two groups of subjects a narrative about interactions between a man and a woman. The description of the interaction was the same until the end; one group received a narrative that had a neutral ending and the other group received a narrative that ended with the man raping the woman. Subjects judged the rape ending as inevitable and blamed the woman in the narrative for the rape on the basis of her behavior, but not her characteristics.[21] These findings have been replicated repeatedly, including using a rape ending and a 'happy ending' (a marriage proposal).[2][22] Other researchers have found a similar phenomenon for judgments of battered partners. One study found that observers' labels of blame of female victims of relationship violence increase with the intimacy of the relationship. Observers blamed the perpetrator only in the most significant case of violence, in which a male struck an acquaintance.[23] Bullying[edit] Researchers have employed the just-world hypothesis to understand bullying. Given other research on beliefs in a just world, it would be expected that observers would derogate and blame bullying victims, but the opposite has been found: individuals high in just-world belief have stronger anti-bullying attitudes.[24] Other researchers have found that strong belief in a just world is associated with lower levels of bullying behavior.[25] This finding is in keeping with Lerner's understanding of belief in a just world as functioning as a "contract" that governs behavior.[6] There is additional evidence that belief in a just world is protective of the well-being of children and adolescents in the school environment,[26] as has been shown for the general population. Illness[edit] Other researchers have found that observers judge sick people as responsible for their illnesses. One experiment showed that persons suffering from a variety of illnesses were derogated on a measure of attractiveness more than healthy individuals were. In comparison to healthy people, victim derogation was found for persons presenting with indigestion, pneumonia, and stomach cancer. Moreover, derogation was found to be higher for those suffering from severer illnesses, except for those presenting with cancer.[27] Stronger belief in a just world has also been found to correlate with greater derogation of AIDS victims.[28] Poverty[edit] More recently, researchers have explored how people react to poverty through the lens of the just-world hypothesis. Strong belief in a just world is associated with blaming the poor, with weak belief in a just world associated with identifying external causes of poverty including world economic systems, war, and exploitation.[29][30] The self as victim[edit] See also: Psychological response to rape and Self blame Some research on belief in a just world has examined how people react when they themselves are victimized. An early paper by Dr. Ronnie Janoff-Bulman found that rape victims often blame their own behavior, but not their own characteristics, for their victimization.[31] It was hypothesized that this may be because blaming one's own behavior makes an event more controllable. These studies on victims of violence, illness, and poverty and others like them have provided consistent support for the link between observers' just-world beliefs and their tendency to blame victims for their suffering.[1] As a result, the existence of the just-world hypothesis as a psychological phenomenon has become widely accepted. Theoretical refinement[edit] Subsequent work on measuring belief in a just world has focused on identifying multiple dimensions of the belief. This work has resulted in the development of new measures of just-world belief and additional research.[2] Hypothesized dimensions of just-world beliefs include belief in an unjust world,[32] beliefs in immanent justice and ultimate justice,[33] hope for justice, and belief in one's ability to reduce injustice.[34] Other work has focused on looking at the different domains in which the belief may function; individuals may have different just-world beliefs for the personal domain, the sociopolitical domain, the social domain, etc.[28] An especially fruitful distinction is between the belief in a just world for the self (personal) and the belief in a just world for others (general). These distinct beliefs are differentially associated with positive mental health.[35] Correlates[edit] Researchers have used measures of belief in a just world to look at correlates of high and low levels of belief in a just world. Limited studies have examined ideological correlates of the belief in a just world. These studies have found sociopolitical correlates of just-world beliefs, including right-wing authoritarianism and the protestant work ethic.[36][37] Studies have also found belief in a just world to be correlated with aspects of religiousness.[38][39] Studies of demographic differences, including gender and racial differences, have not shown systematic differences, but do suggest racial differences, with Black and African Americans having the lowest levels of belief in a just world.[40][41] The development of measures of just-world beliefs has also allowed researchers to assess cross-cultural differences in just-world beliefs. Much research conducted shows that beliefs in a just world are evident cross-culturally. One study tested beliefs in a just world of students in 12 countries. This study found that in countries where the majority of inhabitants are powerless, belief in a just world tends to be weaker than in other countries.[42] This supports the theory of the just-world hypothesis because the powerless have had more personal and societal experiences that provided evidence that the world is not just and predictable.[43][clarification needed] Belief
in unjust world has been linked to increased self-handicapping, criminality, defensive coping, anger and perceived future risk. It may also serve as ego-protective belief for certain individuals by justifying maladaptive behavior.[2][44][45] Current research[edit] Positive mental health effects[edit] Though much of the initial work on belief in a just world focused on its negative social effects, other research suggests that belief in a just world is good, and even necessary, for mental health.[46] Belief in a just world is associated with greater life satisfaction and well-being and less depressive affect.[35][47] Researchers are actively exploring the reasons why the belief in a just world might have this relationship to mental health; it has been suggested that such beliefs could be a personal resource or coping strategy that buffers stress associated with daily life and with traumatic events.[48] This hypothesis suggests that belief in a just world can be understood as a positive illusion.[49] Some studies also show that beliefs in a just world are correlated with internal locus of control.[20] Strong belief in a just world is associated with greater acceptance of and less dissatisfaction with negative events in one's life.[48] This may be one way in which belief in a just world affects mental health. Others have suggested that this relationship holds only for beliefs in a just world for oneself. Beliefs in a just world for others are related instead to the negative social phenomena of victim blaming and victim derogation observed in other studies.[50] International research[edit] More than 40 years after Lerner's seminal work on belief in a just world, researchers continue to study the phenomenon. Work continues primarily in the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia.[8] Researchers in Germany have contributed disproportionately to recent research.[4] Their work resulted in a volume edited by Lerner and German researcher Leo Montada titled Responses to Victimizations and Belief
in a Just World.[51] See also[edit]

"Best of all possible worlds"

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Candide Problem of evil

Denial Fundamental attribution error Hindsight bias Karma § Comparable concepts Mean world syndrome Moral panic Natural disasters as divine retribution System justification Theodicy Victim blaming


^ a b c d Lerner, M.J. & Montada, L. (1998). An Overview: Advances in Belief
in a Just World Theory and Methods, in Leo Montada & M.J. Lerner (Eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief
in a Just World (1–7). Plenum Press: New York. ^ a b c d e f Furnham, A. (2003). Belief
in a just world: research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences; 34: 795–817. ^ Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism", Book 1, Chapter 13, Section 32 ^ a b c Montada, L. & Lerner, M.J. (1998). Preface, in Leo Montada & M.J. Lerner (Eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief
in a Just World (pp. vii–viii). Plenum Press: New York. ^ a b Lerner, M.; Simmons, C. H. (1966). "Observer's Reaction to the 'Innocent Victim': Compassion or Rejection?" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 (2): 203–210. doi:10.1037/h0023562. PMID 5969146.  ^ a b c Lerner (1980). The Belief
in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Plenum: New York. ^ a b c d Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051 ^ a b c Maes, J. (1998) Eight Stages in the Development of Research on the Construct of BJW?, in Leo Montada & M.J. Lerner (Eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief
in a Just World (pp. 163–185). Plenum Press: New York. ^ Linden, M. & Maercker, A. (2011) Embitterment: Societal, psychological, and clinical perspectives. Wien: Springer. ^ Howard, J. (1984). Societal influences on attribution: Blaming some victims more than others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(3), 494–505. ^ Godfrey, B. & Lowe, C. (1975). Devaluation of innocent victims: An attribution analysis within the just world paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 944–951. ^ Lerner, M.J. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 205–229). New York: Academic Press. ^ Davis, K. & Jones, E. (1960). Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 402–410. ^ Glass, D. (1964). Changes in liking as a means of reducing cognitive discrepancies between self-esteem and aggression. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32, 531–549. ^ Cialdini, R. B., Kenrick, D. T., & Hoerig, J. H. (1976). Victim derogation in the Lerner paradigm: Just world or just justification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(6), 719–724. ^ Staub, Ervin (1978). Positive Social Behavior and Morality: Social and Personal Influences, Volume 1. Academic Press Inc. pp. 169–170. ISBN 0-12-663101-8. Retrieved 12 March 2015.  ^ Hafer, Carolyn L.; Bègue, Laurent; Choma, Becky L.; Dempsey, Julie L. (2005). " Belief
in a Just World and Commitment to Long-Term Deserved Outcomes" (PDF). Social Justice
Research. 18 (4): 429–444. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-8569-3. Archived from the original on 2013-12-28. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link) ^ Reichle, B., Schneider, A., & Montada, L. (1998). How do observers of victimization preserve their belief in a just world cognitively or actionally? In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 55–86). New York: Plenum. ^ Rubin, Z. & Peplau, A. (1973). Belief
in a just world and reactions to another's lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29, 73–93. ^ a b Rubin, Z. & Peplau, L.A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65–89. ^ Janoff-Bulman, R., Timko, C., & Carli, L. L. (1985). Cognitive biases in blaming the victim. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(2), 161–177. ^ Carli, L. L. (1999). Cognitive Reconstruction, Hindsight, and Reactions to Victims and Perpetrators. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 966–979. ^ Summers, G., & Feldman, N. S. (1984). Blaming the victim versus blaming the perpetrator:An attributional analysis of spouse abuse. Symposium A Quarterly Journal In Modern Foreign Literatures, 2(4), 339–347. ^ Fox, C. L., Elder, T., Gater, J., & Johnson, E. (2010). The association between adolescents’ beliefs in a just world and their attitudes to victims of bullying. The British journal of educational psychology, 80(Pt 2), 183–98. ^ Correia, I., & Dalbert, C. (2008). School Bullying. European Psychologist, 13(4), 248254. ^ Correia, I., Kamble, S. V., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Belief
in a just world and well-being of bullies, victims and defenders: a study with Portuguese and Indian students. Anxiety, stress, and coping, 22(5), 497–508. ^ Gruman, J. C., & Sloan, R. P. (1983). Disease as Justice: Perceptions of the Victims of Physical Illness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(1), 39–46. ^ a b Furnham, A. & Procter, E. (1992). Sphere-specific just world beliefs and attitudes to AIDS. Human Relations, 45, 265–280. ^ Harper, D. J., Wagstaff, G. F., Newton, J. T., & Harrison, K. R. (1990). Lay causal perceptions of third world poverty and the just world theory. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 18(2), 235–238. Scientific Journal Publishers. ^ Harper, D. J., & Manasse, P. R. (1992). The Just World and the Third World: British explanations for poverty abroad. The Journal of social psychology, 6. Heldref Publications. ^ Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1798–809. ^ Dalbert, C., Lipkus, I. M., Sallay, H., & Goch, I. (2001). A just and unjust world: Structure and validity of different world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 561–577. ^ Maes, J. (1998). Immanent
justice and ultimate justice: two ways of believing in justice. In L. Montada, & M. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 9–40). New York: Plenum Press. ^ Mohiyeddini, C., & Montada, L. (1998). BJW and self-efficacy in coping with observed victimization. In L. Montada, & M. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in the just world (pp. 43–53). New York: Plenum. ^ a b Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The Importance of Distinguishing the Belief
in a Just World for Self Versus for Others: Implications for Psychological Well-Being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 666–677. ^ Lambert, A. J., Burroughs, T., & Nguyen, T. (1999). Perceptions of risk and the buffering hypothesis: The role of just world beliefs and right wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 643–656. ^ Furnham, A. & Procter, E. (1989). Belief
in a just world: review and critique of the individual difference literature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 365–384. ^ Begue, L. (2002). Beliefs in justice and faith in people: just world, religiosity and interpersonal trust. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3), 375–382. ^ Kurst, J., Bjorck, J., & Tan, S. (2000). Causal attributions for uncontrollable negative events. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 19, 47–60. ^ Calhoun, L., & Cann, A. (1994). Differences in assumptions about a just world: ethnicity and point of view. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 765–770. ^ Hunt, M. (2000). Status, religion, and the ‘‘belief in a just world’’: comparing African Americans, Latinos, and Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 325–343. ^ Furnham, A. (1993). Just world beliefs in twelve societies. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 317–329. ^ Furnham, A. (1992). Relationship knowledge and attitudes towards AIDS. Psychological Reports, 71, 1149–1150. ^ Lench, Chang (2007). " Belief
in an Unjust World: When Beliefs in a Just World Fail". Journal of Personality Assessment. 89 (2): 126–135. doi:10.1080/00223890701468477. Retrieved 12 March 2015.  ^ Dolinski, Dariusz (1996). "The belief in an unjust world: An egotistic delusion". Social Justice
Research. 9 (3): 213–221. doi:10.1007/BF02197248. Retrieved 12 March 2015.  ^ Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource: dealing with challenges and critical life events. New York: Plenum. ^ Ritter, C., Benson, D. E., & Snyder, C. (1990). Belief
in a just world and depression. Sociological Perspective, 25, 235–252. ^ a b Hafer, C., & Olson, J. (1998). Individual differences in beliefs in a just world and responses to personal misfortune. In L. Montada, & M. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in the just world (pp. 65–86). New York: Plenum. ^ Taylor, S.E., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. ^ Sutton, R., & Douglas, K. (2005). Justice
for all, or just for me? More evidence of the importance of the self-other distinction in just-world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 637–645. ^ Montada, L. & Lerner, M. (Eds.) (1998) Responses to victimizations and belief in the just world. New York: Plenum.

Further reading[edit]

Hafer, C. L.; Bègue (2005). "Experimental research on just-world theory: problems, developments, and future challenges" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 131 (1): 128–167. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128. PMID 15631556.  Hafer, Carolyn L.; Rubel, Alicia N. (2015). "The Why and How of Defending Belief
in a Just World". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 51. pp. 41–96. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.09.001. ISBN 9780128022740.  Lerner, Melvin J. (1980). The Belief
in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Perspectives in Social Psychology. New York: Plenum Press. ISBN 978-0-306-40495-5.  Montada, Leo; Lerner, Melvin J. (1998). Responses to Victimizations and Belief
in a Just World. Critical Issues in Social Justice. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6418-5. ISBN 978-0-306-46030-2.  Rubin, Z.; Peplau, L. A. (1975). "Who believes in a just world?" (PDF). Journal of Social Issues. 31 (3): 65–90. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x. Archived from the original on 2011-07-20. CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link) Reprinted (1977) in Reflections, XII(1), 1–26. Rubin, Z.; Peplau, L. A. (1973). " Belief
in a just world and reactions to another's lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery" (PDF). Journal of Social Issues. 29 (4): 73–94. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00104.x. Archived from the original on July 20, 2011. CS1 maint: Unfit url (link)

External links[edit]

The Just World Hypothesis Issues in Ethics: The Just World Theory

v t e



Anti-social behaviour Bullying Child abuse

neglect sexual military

Cruelty to animals Domestic abuse Elder abuse Gaslighting Harassment Humiliation Incivility Institutional abuse Intimidation Neglect Persecution Professional abuse Proxy abuse Psychological abuse Physical abuse Religious abuse Sexual abuse Stalking Structural abuse Verbal abuse more...

Related topics

Abusive power and control Child grooming Complex post-traumatic stress disorder Dehumanization Denial Destabilisation Exaggeration Isolation Just-world hypothesis Lying Manipulation Minimisation Narcissism Psychological projection Psychological trauma Psychopathy Rationalization Traumatic bonding Victim blaming Victim playing Victimisation

v t e


Cognitive biases

Acquiescence Anchoring Attentional Attribution Authority Automation Belief Blind spot Choice-supportive Confirmation Congruence Cultural Distinction Dunning–Kruger Egocentric Emotional Extrinsic incentives Fading affect Correspondence Halo effect Hindsight Horn effect Hostile attribution Impact In-group Mere-exposure effect Negativity Normalcy Omission Optimism Outcome Precision Pro-innovation Response Restraint Self-serving Social comparison Status quo Time-saving Trait ascription von Restorff effect Zero-risk In animals

Statistical biases

Estimator Forecast Healthy user Information Lead time Length time Non-response Omitted-variable Participation Recall Sampling Selection Self-selection Social desirability Spectrum Survivorship Systematic error Systemic Verification Wet

Other biases

Academic Exponent Funding FUTON Inductive Infrastructure Inherent in education Media

Vietnam War Norway South Asia Sweden United States Arab–Israeli conflict Ukraine

Net Publication Reporting White hat


Cognitive bias
Cognitive bias
mitigation Debiasing Heuristics in judgment and decision-making

Lists: General · Memory

v t e



Abusive supervision Cyberbullying Disability bullying Gay bashing Hazing Military bullying Mobbing Parental bullying of children Passive aggression Peer victimization Prison bullying Rankism Relational aggression School bullying Sexual bullying Workplace bullying (Academia Higher education Information technology Legal aspects Legal profession Medicine Nursing Teaching Toxic leader)


Betrayal Blacklisting Bullying
and emotional intelligence Bullying
culture Character assassination Control Coercion Climate of fear Defamation Destabilisation Discrediting Embarrassment False accusation Gaslighting Gossip Harassment Humiliation Incivility Innuendo Insult Intimidation Isolation Kiss up kick down Mind games Moving the goalposts Nagging Name calling Personal attacks Psychological abuse Physical abuse Rudeness Sarcasm School pranks Setting up to fail Silent treatment Smear campaign Social exclusion Social undermining Taunting Teasing Whispering campaign Workplace incivility Verbal abuse Yelling


Act Against Bullying Ditch the Label Bullying
UK It Gets Better Project Kidscape GRIN Campaign Jer's Vision

Activists and academics

Andrea Adams Louise Burfitt-Dons Tim Field SuEllen Fried Liam Hackett Heinz Leymann Gary Namie Kenneth Westhues


Anti- Bullying
Day Anti- Bullying
Week International STAND UP to Bullying
Day Anti-bullying legislation International Day of Pink

Notable suicides (List)

Kelly Yeomans (1997) Dawn-Marie Wesley (2000) Nicola Ann Raphael (2001) Ryan Halligan (2003) Megan Meier (2006) Phoebe Prince (2010) Tyler Clementi (2010) Jamey Rodemeyer (2011) Jamie Hubley (2011) Kenneth Weishuhn (2012) Audrie Pott (2012) Amanda Todd (2012) Jadin Bell
Jadin Bell
(2013) Rehtaeh Parsons (2013)

Murder–suicides (incidents)

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
(Columbine, 1999) Jeff Weise
Jeff Weise
(Red Lake, 2005) Elliot Rodger
Elliot Rodger
(Isla Vista, 2014)

Related topics

Control freak Complex post-traumatic stress disorder Dehumanization Depression Emotional blackmail Just-world hypothesis Machiavellianism in the workplace Narcissism
in the workplace Personal boundaries Personality disorders Psychological manipulation Psychological projection Psychological trauma Psychopathy
in the workplace Scapegoating Self-esteem Social dominance orientation Suicide among LGBT youth Sycophancy Victim blaming Victim playing Victimisation Whistleblowing

v t e

Informal fallacies


Equivocation False equivalence False attribution Quoting out of context Loki's Wager No true Scotsman Reification

Question-begging fallacies

Circular reasoning / Begging the question Loaded language (Leading question) Compound question / Loaded question No true Scotsman

Correlative-based fallacies

False dilemma (Perfect solution fallacy) Denying the correlative Suppressed correlative

Fallacies of illicit transference

Composition Division

Deductive fallacies

Accident Converse accident

Inductive fallacies

Anecdotal evidence Sampling bias
Sampling bias
(Cherry picking McNamara fallacy) Base rate fallacy / Conjunction fallacy Double counting False analogy Hasty generalization / Slothful induction Misleading vividness Overwhelming exception

/ ambiguity

Accent Amphibology Continuum fallacy / Sorites paradox False precision Moving the goalposts Slippery slope

Questionable cause

Animistic (Furtive) Correlation proves causation (Cum hoc ergo propter hoc) Gambler's (inverse) Post hoc Regression Single cause Slippery slope Texas sharpshooter Third-cause Wrong direction

List of fallacies Other types of fallacy