Pros & Cons Of Using Quizlet In Your Classroom ~ NEWS Tips

The Just World Hypothesis. by michael_vassar23 min read9th Oct 201710 comments. If this is the case, deliberate ignorance of an unjust world, rather than Bayesian updating of one's belief on the matter, might turn out to be the dominant strategy for participation in an intellectual community...The just world hypothesis is a part of many traditional belief systems across a huge variety of cultures, and is a perennial basis for storytelling. : The just - world hypothesis is the assumption that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that...The just-world phenomenon is the tendency to believe that the world is just and that people get what they deserve. The just-world theory posits that when people do fall victim to misfortune, others tend to look for things that might explain their circumstances.The just-world hypothesis is the belief that, in general, the social environment is fair, such that people get what they deserve. The concept was developed in part to help explain observations that to preserve a belief that the world is a just place, people will sometimes devalue a victim.According to the Just World hypothesis, we would expect a predictable, appropriate, fair consequence. In this example, the consequence of a noble act would be a reward. Now, the opposite may also be true. If our friend performed an evil act unto the world, according to the Just World...

What is the just-world hypothesis? - Quora

just-world hypothesis. the idea that the world is a fair and orderly place where what happens to people generally is what they deserve. In other words, bad things happen to bad people, and good things happen to good people. This view enables an individual to confront his or her physical and...A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. Null hypothesis. What are the health benefits of eating an apple a day?By looking at the just-world hypothesis (also known as the just-world fallacy), we can begin to understand how victim-blaming can come from people who have...The just world hypothesis says that people generally like to believe that the world is a fair place, and desperately want to cling to this idea. When something unjust happens (a girl gets raped, for instance), this creates cognitive dissonance. That is the belief that people have...

The Just-World Phenomenon Overview and Examples

I have been reading "Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don't," by Stanford Business School professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. I may highlight other aspects of the book, but I was struck by his description of the just world hypothesis (or just world fallacy)...The just-world fallacy or just-world hypothesis is the cognitive bias that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person; thus, it is the assumption that noble actions are eventually rewarded and evil actions eventually punished.Rna World Hypothesis. Quizlet is the easiest way to study, practise and master what you're learning. Create your own flashcards or choose from millions 1. What is the question that Platt addresses in his 1964 paper, Strong Inference? In its separate elements, strong inference is just the simple and...Rna World Hypothesis. Quizlet is the easiest way to study, practise and master what you're learning. Create your own flashcards or choose from millions created by other students. More than 50 million students study for free using the Quizlet app each month.Because the Christian world view and spirit world view makes sense. Christianity offers plausible answers to why the world is as it is and what is A hypothesis must be subjected to rigorous testing before it becomes a theory. A hypothesis is used to explain some phenomenon about the natural...

Jump to navigation Jump to go looking

The just-world fallacy or just-world hypothesis is the cognitive bias that a person's actions are inherently prone to deliver morally fair and becoming consequences to that individual; thus, it is the assumption that noble movements are eventually rewarded and evil movements ultimately punished. In other phrases, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute penalties to—or be expecting penalties as the result of—a universal pressure that restores ethical stability or a common inherency in the structure of items that connects actions and effects. This belief normally implies the lifestyles of cosmic justice, destiny, divine windfall, wilderness, balance, and/or order. It is frequently related to various elementary fallacies, particularly in regard to rationalizing people's struggling on the grounds that they "deserve" it.

The hypothesis popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech that imply guaranteed negative reprisal, reminiscent of: "you got what was coming to you", "what goes around comes around", "chickens come home to roost", "everything happens for a reason", and "you reap what you sow". This hypothesis has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner performed seminal work on the trust in a simply world in the early 1960s.[1] Research has persisted since then, inspecting the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and throughout cultures, and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just-world beliefs.[2]

Emergence

Many philosophers and social theorists have seen and regarded as the phenomenon of belief in a simply global, going back to at least as early as the Pyrrhonist thinker Sextus Empiricus, writing circa A hundred and eighty CE, who argued against this trust.[3] Lerner's paintings made the just-world hypothesis a focus of research in the box of social psychology. Aristotelian ethics perspectives "justice" as the chief of the virtues; judgment of right and wrong being deeply rooted in the nature of humans as social and rational animals.[4]

Melvin Lerner

Lerner used to be induced to review justice ideals and the just-world hypothesis in the context of social psychological inquiry into destructive social and societal interactions.[5] Lerner noticed his paintings as extending Stanley Milgram's work on obedience. He sought to answer the questions of the way regimes that cause cruelty and struggling care for well-liked fortify, and how folks come to accept social norms and regulations that produce misery and suffering.[6]

Lerner's inquiry was once influenced by way of again and again witnessing the tendency of observers responsible victims for his or her struggling. During his clinical training as a psychologist, he seen treatment of mentally sick individuals through the well being care practitioners with whom he worked. Although Lerner knew them to be kindhearted, educated folks, they often blamed patients for the patients' personal suffering.[7] Lerner also describes his surprise at listening to his scholars derogate (disparage, belittle) the poor, apparently oblivious to the structural forces that give a contribution to poverty.[5] In a study on rewards, he observed that when one in all two men was once selected at random to obtain a praise for a job, that caused him to be extra favorably evaluated by means of observers, even if the observers were knowledgeable that the recipient of the reward was once chosen at random.[8][9] Existing social psychological theories, including cognitive dissonance, may just no longer totally explain those phenomena.[9] The desire to grasp the processes that brought about those phenomena led Lerner to behavior his first experiments on what is now known as the just-world hypothesis.

Early proof

In 1966, Lerner and his colleagues started a series of experiments that used shock paradigms to investigate observer responses to victimization. In the first of these experiments performed at the University of Kansas, 72 feminine members watched what appeared to be a accomplice receiving electric shocks under various conditions. Initially, these watching members were dissatisfied by the victim's obvious suffering. But as the struggling continued and observers remained not able to intrude, the observers began to reject and devalue the sufferer. Rejection and devaluation of the sufferer used to be larger when the noticed struggling was once larger. But when participants were advised the victim would obtain repayment for her suffering, the members did not derogate the victim.[6] Lerner and co-workers replicated these findings in subsequent research, as did other researchers.[8]

Theory

To provide an explanation for these research' findings, Lerner theorized that there was a prevalent trust in a simply world. A just world is one by which movements and stipulations have predictable, suitable consequences. These actions and prerequisites are typically people' behaviors or attributes. The specific prerequisites that correspond to sure consequences are socially decided via a society's norms and ideologies. Lerner presents the trust in a just global as functional: it maintains the concept that one can influence the global in a predictable manner. Belief in a simply global functions as a kind of "contract" with the world referring to the penalties of behavior. This allows other folks to plot for the long term and have interaction in efficient, goal-driven habits. Lerner summarized his findings and his theoretical work in his 1980 monograph The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion.[7]

Lerner hypothesized that the belief in a simply global is crucially vital for people to deal with for their very own well-being. But people are confronted daily with proof that the international is now not just: people suffer without apparent motive. Lerner defined that folks use strategies to get rid of threats to their belief in a simply global. These methods can be rational or irrational. Rational methods come with accepting the truth of injustice, looking to prevent injustice or supply restitution, and accepting one's own limitations. Non-rational methods come with denial, withdrawal, and reinterpretation of the event.[10]

There are a couple of modes of reinterpretation that might make an tournament have compatibility the trust in a just international. One can reinterpret the consequence, the motive, and/or the persona of the sufferer. In the case of staring at the injustice of the struggling of blameless folks, one major technique to rearrange the cognition of an match is to interpret the victim of suffering as deserving.[1] Specifically, observers can blame victims for their suffering on the foundation in their behaviors and/or their characteristics.[8] Much mental research on the trust in a just world has keen on these unfavorable social phenomena of victim blaming and victim derogation in numerous contexts.[2]

An additional impact of this pondering is that folks experience less non-public vulnerability because they don't consider they have performed the rest to deserve or cause negative results.[2] This is associated with the self-serving bias noticed by means of social psychologists.[11]

Many researchers have interpreted just-world beliefs for example of causal attribution. In victim blaming, the reasons of victimization are attributed to an individual fairly than to a scenario. Thus, the consequences of belief in a simply international could also be associated with or explained with regards to explicit patterns of causal attribution.[12]

Alternatives

Veridical judgment See additionally: Veridicality

Others have steered selection explanations for the derogation of victims. One advice is that derogation results are in response to accurate judgments of a victim's persona. In explicit, in terms of Lerner's first studies, some have hypothesized that it will be logical for observers to derogate an individual who would permit himself to be surprised without explanation why.[13] A subsequent study by means of Lerner challenged this choice hypothesis by means of showing that individuals are simplest derogated after they actually undergo; individuals who agreed to go through suffering but did not had been viewed positively.[14]

Guilt relief

Another choice rationalization offered for the derogation of sufferers early in the construction of the just-world hypothesis was that observers derogate victims to cut back their very own emotions of guilt. Observers would possibly feel responsible, or responsible, for a sufferer's struggling if they themselves are involved in the scenario or experiment. In order to scale back the guilt, they are going to devalue the sufferer.[15][16][17] Lerner and colleagues declare that there has no longer been good enough evidence to toughen this interpretation. They carried out one find out about that discovered derogation of victims took place even through observers who were not implicated in the means of the experiment and thus had no reason to feel accountable.[8]

Discomfort relief

Alternatively, sufferer derogation and other strategies might only be tactics to alleviate discomfort after viewing struggling. This would imply that the primary motivation is not to repair a belief in a simply global, however to scale back discomfort led to by empathizing. Studies have shown that victim derogation does now not suppress next serving to task and that empathizing with the victim plays a large function when assigning blame. According to Ervin Staub,[18] devaluing the victim should lead to lesser repayment if restoring belief in a simply international was the number one motive; as an alternative, there is virtually no distinction in reimbursement quantities whether the repayment precedes or follows devaluation. Psychopathy has been related to the lack of just-world keeping up strategies, in all probability because of dampened emotional reactions and loss of empathy.[19]

Additional proof

After Lerner's first research, other researchers replicated those findings in different settings during which persons are victimized. This paintings, which began in the Seventies and continues as of late, has investigated how observers react to sufferers of random calamities like visitors accidents, as well as rape and domestic violence, diseases, and poverty.[1] Generally, researchers have discovered that observers of the struggling of innocent victims have a tendency to each derogate and blame sufferers for their struggling. Observers thus handle their belief in a simply international through changing their cognitions about the victims' persona.[20]

In the early 1970s, social psychologists Zick Rubin and Letitia Anne Peplau advanced a measure of belief in a simply world.[21] This measure and its revised shape revealed in 1975 allowed for the find out about of person variations in just-world ideals.[22] Much of the next analysis on the just-world hypothesis used these dimension scales.

These studies on sufferers of violence, illness, and poverty and others like them have equipped constant enhance for the hyperlink between observers' just-world ideals and their tendency guilty victims for his or her suffering.[1] As a result, the life of the just-world hypothesis as a mental phenomenon has develop into extensively authorised.

Violence

Researchers have checked out how observers react to victims of rape and different violence. In a formative experiment on rape and belief in a simply world by Linda Carli and co-workers, researchers gave two groups of topics a story about interactions between a man and a woman. The description of the interaction was once the same till the end; one organization gained a story that had a impartial finishing and the other organization won a story that ended with the guy raping the woman. Subjects judged the rape finishing as inevitable and blamed the woman in the narrative for the rape on the basis of her habits, however no longer her traits.[23] These findings have been replicated again and again, including using a rape finishing and a 'glad finishing' (a marriage proposal).[2][24]

Other researchers have discovered a an identical phenomenon for judgments of battered partners. One study discovered that observers' labels of blame of feminine sufferers of dating violence build up with the intimacy of the courting. Observers blamed the offender only in the most important case of violence, during which a male struck an acquaintance.[25]

Bullying

Researchers have employed the just-world hypothesis to understand bullying. Given other analysis on ideals in a just international, it might be anticipated that observers would derogate and blame bullying victims, however the reverse has been found: individuals prime in just-world trust have more potent anti-bullying attitudes.[26] Other researchers have found that strong belief in a just international is related to decrease ranges of bullying behavior.[27] This discovering is in line with Lerner's figuring out of belief in a simply international as functioning as a "contract" that governs conduct.[7] There is additional proof that belief in a just world is protective of the well-being of kids and teenagers in the faculty setting,[28] as has been proven for the common population.

Illness

Other researchers have found that observers judge ill folks as responsible for their sicknesses. One experiment confirmed that individuals suffering from quite a few illnesses were derogated on a measure of attractiveness more than wholesome people have been. In comparison to wholesome people, victim derogation used to be discovered for individuals presenting with indigestion, pneumonia, and abdomen cancer. Moreover, derogation was once discovered to be upper for the ones suffering from more critical illnesses, except for for those presenting with most cancers.[29] Stronger trust in a just world has also been discovered to correlate with greater derogation of AIDS victims.[30]

Poverty

More lately, researchers have explored how other folks react to poverty through the lens of the just-world hypothesis. Strong trust in a just world is associated with blaming the deficient, with weak belief in a simply international associated with identifying external causes of poverty including international economic systems, battle, and exploitation.[31][32]

The self as victim See additionally: Psychological response to rape and Self blame

Some research on trust in a just global has examined how other folks react once they themselves are victimized. An early paper by Dr. Ronnie Janoff-Bulman discovered that rape victims incessantly blame their own conduct, but now not their very own traits, for their victimization.[33] It was hypothesized that this may be as a result of blaming one's own habits makes an event more controllable.

Theoretical refinement

Subsequent work on measuring belief in a simply world has fascinated about figuring out a couple of dimensions of the belief. This paintings has resulted in the development of recent measures of just-world belief and further research.[2] Hypothesized dimensions of just-world beliefs include belief in an unjust world,[34] beliefs in immanent justice and supreme justice,[35] hope for justice, and trust in one's skill to scale back injustice.[36] Other work has serious about taking a look at the other domains during which the trust would possibly serve as; individuals may have other just-world beliefs for the personal area, the sociopolitical area, the social area, etc.[30] An especially fruitful distinction is between the trust in a simply global for the self (personal) and the trust in a just international for others (common). These distinct beliefs are differentially related to positive mental well being.[37]

Correlates

Researchers have used measures of trust in a just world to have a look at correlates of high and low levels of trust in a simply global.

Limited studies have examined ideological correlates of the belief in a just global. These studies have discovered sociopolitical correlates of just-world ideals, including right-wing authoritarianism and the Protestant paintings ethic.[38][39] Studies have also discovered trust in a simply international to be correlated with sides of religiousness.[40][41][42]

Studies of demographic differences, together with gender and racial differences, have now not proven systemic differences, however do suggest racial variations, with blacks and African Americans having the lowest levels of belief in a just international.[43][44]

The construction of measures of just-world ideals has additionally allowed researchers to evaluate cross-cultural differences in just-world ideals. Much research performed shows that ideals in a simply global are obvious cross-culturally. One learn about tested ideals in a simply world of scholars in 12 countries. This study found that in countries the place the majority of population are powerless, trust in a just world has a tendency to be weaker than in different nations.[45] This supports the theory of the just-world hypothesis because the powerless have had more private and societal reviews that supplied evidence that the international is no longer simply and predictable.[46]

Belief in unjust international has been related to greater self-handicapping, criminality, defensive coping, anger and perceived long run menace. It may also serve as ego-protective belief for certain folks by way of justifying maladaptive behavior.[2][47][48]

Current analysis

Positive mental well being effects

Although a lot of the initial paintings on belief in a simply international concerned about its destructive social results, other analysis suggests that trust in a just international is just right, and even vital, for psychological health.[49] Belief in a just world is associated with larger existence satisfaction and well-being and not more depressive impact.[37][50] Researchers are actively exploring the the reason why the belief in a just international would possibly have this relationship to psychological well being; it's been prompt that such ideals generally is a personal resource or coping technique that buffers stress related to day by day life and with anxious events.[51] This hypothesis means that belief in a just world may also be understood as a positive phantasm.[52] In line with this perspective, fresh research also suggests that trust in a simply world might provide an explanation for the recognized statistical affiliation between religiosity/spirituality and psychological well-being [40]

Some research also show that ideals in a just international are correlated with inside locus of control.[22] Strong trust in a simply world is related to larger acceptance of and no more dissatisfaction with unfavourable occasions in one's life.[51] This may be a technique during which trust in a just international impacts mental health. Others have urged that this dating holds only for beliefs in a just world for oneself. Beliefs in a just world for others are related instead to the adverse social phenomena of sufferer blaming and sufferer derogation observed in different research.[53]

International analysis

More than Forty years after Lerner's seminal paintings on belief in a just global, researchers continue to study the phenomenon. Work continues essentially in the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia.[9] Researchers in Germany have contributed disproportionately to contemporary research.[5] Their work resulted in a volume edited through Lerner and German researcher Leo Montada titled Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World (1998).

See additionally

"Best of all possible worlds" Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Candide Problem of evil Denial Fundamental attribution error Hindsight bias Karma § Comparable ideas Mean world syndrome Moral good fortune Moral panic Myth of meritocracy Natural screw ups as divine retribution Revenge System justification The banality of evil Theodicy Victim blaming

References

^ a b c d .mw-parser-output cite.quotationfont-style:inherit.mw-parser-output .quotation qquotes:"\"""\"""'""'".mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .quotation .cs1-lock-free abackground:linear-gradient(transparent,clear),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg")appropriate 0.1em center/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .quotation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration abackground:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")correct 0.1em center/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .quotation .cs1-lock-subscription abackground:linear-gradient(transparent,clear),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")correct 0.1em heart/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registrationcolour:#555.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration spanborder-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:assist.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon abackground:linear-gradient(clear,clear),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg")correct 0.1em heart/12px no-repeat.mw-parser-output code.cs1-codecolour:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-errordisplay:none;font-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-errorfont-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-maintshow:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em.mw-parser-output .cs1-formatfont-size:95%.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-leftpadding-left:0.2em.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-rightpadding-right:0.2em.mw-parser-output .quotation .mw-selflinkfont-weight:inheritLerner, Melvin J.; Montada, Leo (1998). "An Overview: Advances in Belief in a Just World Theory and Methods". In Montada, L.; Lerner, M. J. (eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World. Critical Issues in Social Justice. New York: Plenum. pp. 1–7. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6418-5_1. ISBN 978-1-4419-3306-5. ^ a b c d e f Furnham, Adrian (2003). "Belief in a just world: research progress over the past decade". Personality and Individual Differences. 34 (5): 795–817. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00072-7. ^ Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism", Book 1, Chapter 13, Section 32 ^ Nicomachean Ethics Book V ^ a b c Montada, Leo; Lerner, Melvin J. (1998). "Preface" (PDF). In Montada, L.; Lerner, M. J. (eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World. Critical Issues in Social Justice. New York: Plenum. pp. vii–viii. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6418-5. ISBN 978-1-4419-3306-5. ^ 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, Melvin J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Perspectives in Social Psychology. New York: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5. ISBN 978-0-306-40495-5. ^ a b c d Lerner, Melvin J.; Miller, Dale T. (1978). "Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead". Psychological Bulletin. 85 (5): 1030–1051. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030. ^ a b c Maes, Jürgen (1998). "Eight Stages in the Development of Research on the Construct of Belief in a Just World?". In Montada, L.; Lerner, M. J. (eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World. Critical Issues in Social Justice. New York: Plenum. pp. 163–185. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6418-5_10. ISBN 978-1-4419-3306-5. ^ Reichle, Barbara; Schmitt, Manfred (2002). "Helping and Rationalization as Alternative Strategies for Restoring the Belief in a Just World: Evidence from Longitudinal Change Analyses". In Ross, Michael; Miller, Dale T. (eds.). The Justice Motive in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press. pp. 127–148. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499975.008. ISBN 9780511499975. ^ Linden, Michael; Maercker, Andreas (2011). Embitterment: Societal, mental, and clinical perspectives. Wien: Springer. ISBN 9783211997413. ^ Howard, Judith A. (1984). "Societal influences on attribution: Blaming some victims more than others". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 47 (3): 494–505. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.3.494. ^ Godfrey, Bruce W.; Lowe, Charles A. (1975). "Devaluation of innocent victims: An attribution analysis within the just world paradigm". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31 (5): 944–951. doi:10.1037/h0076786. ^ Lerner, M.J. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to sufferers. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and serving to behavior (pp. 205–229). New York: Academic Press. ^ Davis, Keith E.; Jones, Edward E. (1960). "Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 61 (3): 402–410. doi:10.1037/h0044214. PMID 13720212. S2CID 16524346. ^ Glass, David C. (1964). "Changes in liking as a means of reducing cognitive discrepancies between self-esteem and aggression". Journal of Personality. 32 (4): 531–549. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1964.tb01357.x. PMID 14238983. S2CID 19556220. ^ Cialdini, Robert B.; Kenrick, Douglas T.; Hoerig, James H. (1976). "Victim derogation in the Lerner paradigm: Just world or just justification?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 33 (6): 719–724. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.33.6.719. ^ Staub, Ervin (1978). Positive Social Behavior and Morality: Social and Personal Influences, Volume 1. Academic Press Inc. pp. 169–170. ISBN 978-0-12-663101-2. ^ 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. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.507.4227. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-8569-3. S2CID 38967492. Archived from the authentic (PDF) on 2013-12-28. ^ Reichle, Barbara; Schneider, Angela; Montada, Leo (1998). "How do Observers of Victimization Preserve Their Belief in a Just World Cognitively or Actionally?". In Montada, L.; Lerner, M. J. (eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World. Critical Issues in Social Justice. New York: Plenum. pp. 55–64. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6418-5_4. ISBN 978-1-4419-3306-5. ^ Rubin, Zick; Peplau, Anne (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 (4): 73–93. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00104.x. ^ a b 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 unique (PDF) on 2011-07-20. ^ Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie; Timko, Christine; Carli, Linda L. (1985). "Cognitive biases in blaming the victim". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 21 (2): 161–177. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(85)90013-7. ^ Carli, Linda L. (1999). "Cognitive Reconstruction, Hindsight, and Reactions to Victims and Perpetrators". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 25 (8): 966–979. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.830.8628. doi:10.1177/01461672992511005. S2CID 145242166. ^ Summers, Gertrude; Feldman, Nina S. (1984). "Blaming the Victim Versus Blaming the Perpetrator: An Attributional Analysis of Spouse Abuse". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 2 (4): 339–347. doi:10.1521/jscp.1984.2.4.339. ^ Fox, Claire L.; Elder, Tracey.; Gater, Josephine; Johnson, Elizabeth (2010). "The association between adolescents' beliefs in a just world and their attitudes to victims of bullying". British Journal of Educational Psychology. 80 (2): 183–198. doi:10.1348/000709909X479105. PMID 19930790. S2CID 33974893. ^ Correia, Isabel; Dalbert, Claudia (2008). "School Bullying". European Psychologist. 13 (4): 248–254. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.248. S2CID 145567888. ^ Correia, Isabel; Kamble, Shanmukh V.; Dalbert, Claudia (2009). "Belief in a just world and well-being of bullies, victims and defenders: A study with Portuguese and Indian students". Anxiety, Stress & Coping. 22 (5): 497–508. doi:10.1080/10615800902729242. PMID 19333798. S2CID 205725655. ^ Gruman, Jessie C.; Sloan, Richard P. (1983). "Disease as Justice: Perceptions of the Victims of Physical Illness". Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 4: 39–46. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0401_4. ^ a b Furnham, Adrian; Procter, Eddie (1992). "Sphere-Specific Just World Beliefs and Attitudes to AIDS". Human Relations. 45 (3): 265–280. doi:10.1177/001872679204500303. S2CID 145524763. ^ Harper, David J.; Wagstaff, Graham F.; Newton, J. Tim; Harrison, Kevin R. (1990). "Lay Causal Perceptions of Third World Poverty and the Just World Theory'" (PDF). Social Behavior and Personality. 18 (2): 235–238. doi:10.2224/sbp.1990.18.2.235. ^ Harper, David J.; Manasse, Paul R. (1992). "The Just World and the Third World: British explanations for poverty abroad". The Journal of Social Psychology. 132 (6): 783–785. doi:10.1080/00224545.1992.9712107. ^ Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie (1979). "Characterological versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (10): 1798–1809. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1798. PMID 512837. S2CID 22347571. ^ Dalbert, C.; Lipkus, I.; Sallay, H.; Goch, I. (2001). "A just and unjust world: Structure and validity of different world beliefs". Personality and Individual Differences. 30 (4): 561–577. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00055-6. ^ Maes, Jürgen (1998). "Immanent justice and ultimate justice: two ways of believing in justice". In Montada, L.; Lerner, M. J. (eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World. Critical Issues in Social Justice. New York: Plenum. pp. 9–40. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6418-5_2. ISBN 978-1-4419-3306-5. ^ Mohiyeddini, Changiz; Montada, Leo (1998). "BJW and Self-Efficacy in Coping with Observed Victimization". In Montada, L.; Lerner, M. J. (eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World. Critical Issues in Social Justice. New York: Plenum. pp. 41–54. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6418-5_3. ISBN 978-1-4419-3306-5. ^ a b Lipkus, Isaac M.; Dalbert, Claudia; Siegler, Ilene 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. doi:10.1177/0146167296227002. S2CID 145379940. ^ Lambert, Alan J.; Burroughs, Thomas; Nguyen, Tina (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. doi:10.1177/0146167299025006001. S2CID 53576739. ^ Furnham, Adrian; Procter, Edward (1989). "Belief in a just world: Review and critique of the individual difference literature". British Journal of Social Psychology. 28 (4): 365–384. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00880.x. ^ a b Schuurmans-Stekhoven, J. B. (2020). "Just world beliefs mediate the well-being effects of spiritual/afterlife beliefs among older Australians". Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging. na (na): 1–18. doi:10.1080/15528030.2020.1779902. ^ Bègue, Laurent (2002). "Beliefs in justice and faith in people: just world, religiosity and interpersonal trust". Personality and Individual Differences. 32 (3): 375–382. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00224-5. ^ Kunst, J. L.; Bjorck, J. P.; Tan, S.-Y. (2000). "Causal attributions for uncontrollable negative events". Journal of Psychology and Christianity. 19 (1): 47–60. ^ Calhoun, Lawrence G.; Cann, Arnie (1994). "Differences in Assumptions about a Just World: Ethnicity and Point of View". The Journal of Social Psychology. 134 (6): 765–770. doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9923011. ^ Hunt, Matthew O. (2000). "Status, Religion, and the "Belief in a Just World": Comparing African Americans, Latinos, and Whites". Social Science Quarterly. 81 (1): 325–343. JSTOR 42864385. ^ Furnham, Adrian (1993). "Just World Beliefs in Twelve Societies". The Journal of Social Psychology. 133 (3): 317–329. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9712149. ^ Furnham, Adrian (1992). "Relationship between Knowledge of and Attitudes towards Aids". Psychological Reports. 71 (3_suppl): 1149–1150. doi:10.2466/pr0.1992.71.3f.1149. PMID 1480694. S2CID 41943578. ^ 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. PMID 17764390. S2CID 18511029. ^ Dolinski, Dariusz (1996). "The belief in an unjust world: An egotistic delusion". Social Justice Research. 9 (3): 213–221. doi:10.1007/BF02197248. S2CID 144694943. ^ Dalbert, Claudia (2001). The Justice Motive as a Personal Resource: Dealing with Challenges and Critical Life Events. New York: Plenum. ISBN 9780306465550. ^ Ritter, Christian; Benson, D. E.; Synder, Clint (1990). "Belief in a Just World and Depression". Sociological Perspectives. 33 (2): 235–252. doi:10.2307/1389045. JSTOR 1389045. S2CID 145553423. ^ a b Hafer, Carolyn L.; Olson, James M. (1998). "Individual Differences in the Belief in a Just World and Responses to Personal Misfortune". In Montada, L.; Lerner, M. J. (eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World. Critical Issues in Social Justice. New York: Plenum. pp. 65–86. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6418-5_5. ISBN 978-1-4419-3306-5. ^ Taylor, S. E.; Brown, J. D. (1988). "Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health". Psychological Bulletin. 103 (2): 193–210. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193. PMID 3283814. S2CID 762759. ^ Sutton, Robbie M.; Douglas, Karen M. (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. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.010.

External links

The Just World Hypothesis Issues in Ethics: The Just World TheoryvteAbuseTypes Anti-social behaviour Bullying Child abuse forget sexual military marriage Cruelty to animals Disability abuse Domestic abuse Elder abuse Financial Marriage Gaslighting Harassment Humiliation Incivility Institutional abuse Intimidation Neglect Persecution Professional abuse Proxy abuse Psychological abuse Physical abuse Police brutality Religious abuse Sexual abuse Stalking Structural abuse Verbal abuse extra...Related topics Abuse of power Abusive power and control Child grooming Complex post-traumatic stress dysfunction Dehumanization Denial Destabilisation Exaggeration Isolation Just-world hypothesis Lying Manipulation Minimisation Narcissism Psychological projection Psychological trauma Psychopathy Rationalization Traumatic bonding Victim blaming Victim taking part in Victimisation vteBiasesCognitive biases Actor–observer Acquiescence Ambiguity Anchoring Attentional Attribution Authority Automation Belief Blind spot Choice-supportive Confirmation Compassion fade Congruence Courtesy Cultural Distinction Dunning–Kruger Egocentric Emotional Extrinsic incentives Fading have an effect on Framing Correspondence Halo impact Hindsight Horn impact Hostile attribution Impact Implicit In-group Mere-exposure impact Negativity Normalcy Omission Optimism Out-group homogeneity Outcome Overton window Precision Present Pro-innovation Response Restraint Self-serving Social comparison Status quo Time-saving Trait ascription von Restorff impact Zero-risk In animalsStatistical biases Estimator Forecast Healthy user Information Psychological Lead time Length time Non-response Observer Omitted-variable Participation Recall Sampling Selection Self-selection Social desirability Spectrum Survivorship Systematic error Systemic Verification RainyOther biases Academic Funding FUTON Inductive Infrastructure Inherent In schooling Media False balance Vietnam War Norway South Asia Sweden United States Arab–Israeli warfare Ukraine Net Political bias Publication Reporting White hatBias reduction Cognitive bias mitigation Debiasing Heuristics in judgment and decision-makingLists: General · Memory vteBullyingVarieties Abusive supervision Cyberbullying Disability bullying Doxing Gay bashing Hazing Military bullying Mobbing Parental bullying of youngsters Passive aggression Peer victimization Prison bullying Rankism Relational aggression School bullying Higher schooling Sexual bullying Workplace bullying Academia Information era Legal facets Legal profession Medicine Nursing Teaching Toxic leaderElements Betrayal Blacklisting Bullying and emotional intelligence Character assassination Coercion Control freak Culture of fear Defamation Destabilisation Discrediting Embarrassment False accusation Gaslighting Gossip Harassment Humiliation Incivility Innuendo Insult Intimidation Isolation Kiss up kick down Mind video games Moving the goalposts Nagging Name calling Personal attacks Physical abuse Psychological abuse Rudeness Sarcasm Screaming Setting as much as fail Silent remedy Smear marketing campaign Social exclusion Social undermining Taunting Teasing Whispering marketing campaign Workplace incivility Verbal abuseOrganizations Act Against Bullying Ban Bossy Bullying UK Bystander Revolution Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity Ditch the Label GRIN Campaign It Gets Better Project Kidscape Society Against Violence in EducationExpertsAcademics Anna Costanza Baldry Wendy Craig Dorothy Espelage David P. Farrington Shelley Hymel Heinz Leymann Gary Namie James O'Higgins Norman Dan Olweus Debra Pepler Christina Salmivalli Kenneth WesthuesActivists Andrea Adams Louise Burfitt-Dons Tim Field SuEllen Fried Liam Hackett Lizzie VelásquezActions Anti-Bullying Day Anti-Bullying Week Anti-bullying regulation International Day of Pink International Stand Up to Bullying Day National Bullying Prevention Month Think Before You DiscussNotin a position suicides(List) William Arthur Gibbs (1877) Kelly Yeomans (1997) Hamed Nastoh (2000) Dawn-Marie Wesley (2000) Nicola Ann Raphael (2001) Ryan Halligan (2003) Megan Meier (2006) Sladjana Vidovic (2008) Phoebe Prince (2010) Tyler Clementi (2010) Jamey Rodemeyer (2011) Jamie Hubley (2011) Kenneth Weishuhn (2012) Audrie Pott (2012) Amanda Todd (2012) Jadin Bell (2013) Rehtaeh Parsons (2013) Rebecca Ann Sedwick (2013) Leelah Alcorn (2014) Conrad Roy (2014) Tyrone Unsworth (2016)Murder–suicides(incidents) Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold Columbine, 1999 Jeff Weise Red Lake, 2005 Seung-Hui Cho Virginia Tech, 2007 Pekka-Eric Auvinen Jokela High School, 2007 Elliot Rodger Isla Vista, 2014Related subjects Dehumanization Depression Emotional blackmail Just-world hypothesis List of LGBT-related suicides Machiavellianism in the place of work Narcissism in the place of business Personal boundaries Personality problems PTSD C-PTSD Psychological manipulation Psychological projection Psychological trauma Psychopathy in the workplace Scapegoating Self-esteem Social dominance orientation Suicide amongst LGBT early life Sycophancy Victim blaming Victim enjoying Victimisation Whistleblowing vteFallacies (list)FormalIn propositional good judgment Affirming a disjunct Affirming the consequent Denying the antecedent Argument from fallacyIn quantificational good judgment Existential Illicit conversion Proof via instance Quantifier shiftSyllogistic fallacy Affirmative conclusion from a detrimental premise Exclusive premises Existential Necessity Four phrases Illicit major Illicit minor Negative conclusion from affirmative premises Undistributed middle Masked man Mathematical fallacyInformalEquivocation Equivocation False equivalence False attribution Quoting out of context Loki's Wager No true Scotsman ReificationQuestion-begging fallacies Circular reasoning / Begging the query Loaded language Leading query Compound question / Loaded query / Complex question No true ScotsmanCorrelative-based fallacies False quandary Perfect resolution Denying the correlative Suppressed correlativeIllicit transference Composition Division EcologicalSecundum quid Accident Converse accidentFaulty generalization Anecdotal proof Sampling bias Cherry choosing McNamara Base fee / Conjunction Double counting False analogy Slothful induction Overwhelming exceptionVagueness / ambiguity Accent False precision Moving the goalposts Quoting out of context Slippery slope Sorites paradox Syntactic ambiguityQuestionable purpose Animistic Furtive Correlation implies causation Cum hoc Post hoc Gambler's Inverse Regression Single motive Slippery slope Texas sharpshooterFallacies of relevanceAppeals to emotion Fear Flattery Novelty Pity Ridicule Think of the kids In-group favoritism Invented right here / Not invented right here Island mentality Loyalty Parade of horribles Spite Stirring symbols Wisdom of repugnanceGenetic fallaciesAd hominem Appeal to cause Association Reductio advert Hitlerum Godwin's legislation Reductio ad Stalinum Bulverism Poisoning the effectively Tone Tu quoque Whataboutism Authority Accomplishment Ipse dixit Poverty / Wealth Etymology Nature Tradition / Novelty Chronological snobberyAppeals to consequences Argumentum ad baculum Wishful thinking Ad nauseam Sealioning Argument to moderation Argumentum advert populum Appeal to the stone / Proof through statement Ignoratio elenchi Argument from anecdote Argument from silence Invincible lack of information Moralistic / Naturalistic Motte-and-bailey fallacy Rationalization Red herring Two wrongs make a right Special pleading Straw guy Cliché I'm entitled to my opinion Category Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Just-world_hypothesis&oldid=1017156777"