Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 239–243

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j e s p

Reports

Can happy mood reduce the just world bias? Affective influences on blaming the victim
Liz Goldenberg ⁎, Joseph P. Forgas
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Do temporary moods influence people's tendency to blame victims for undeserved negative events? Based on research on the just world effect and recent affect theories, this experiment predicted and found that positive mood decreased and negative mood increased people's motivation to blame innocent victims for their misadventures. Participants (N = 70) were induced into positive or negative mood by viewing films, and subsequently read a newspaper article describing a random assault on either a fellow student (in-group member) or a corporate employee (out-group member). Their reactions were assessed on three measures: attributions of responsibility, dissociation from the victim and character evaluations. Positive mood reduced and negative mood increased the tendency to blame the victim, and in-group victims were blamed more than out-group victims. These results are discussed in terms of recent theories of affect and motivation, and their implications for real-life social judgments are considered. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 22 December 2010 Revised 23 May 2011 Available online 23 July 2011 Keywords: Social judgment Mood Attribution Just world bias

Introduction Is the world a just place? Although we all would prefer to think so, our belief in a just and predictable world is often challenged by news that innocent people may suffer terrible misfortunes. According to the fascinating literature on the ‘just world’ effect, people often cope with such threatening information by, paradoxically, blaming innocent victims for their misadventures (Lerner & Simmons, 1966; Lerner, 1980). Although affect is likely to play an important role in motivated cognition in general (Trope, Igou, & Burke, 2006) and the ‘just world’ bias in particular (Lerner, Goldberg, & Tetlock, 1998; Thornton, 1984), there has been no prior research on how pre-existing positive or negative moods may influence the motivation to blame victims. This experiment sought to demonstrate that positive mood may reduce, and negative mood increase the tendency to blame victims for their misfortunes.

The just world effect Although the term victim implies an innocent person suffering an adverse outcome, the idea that misfortunes are causally linked to a person's past transgressions has long been dominant in intuitive reasoning and in religious and moral theorising. Lerner (1980) proposed the first psychological explanation for the seemingly irrational ‘blaming the victim’ effect, suggesting that humans possess a basic need to believe that the world is a just place and people get the
⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: jp.forgas@unsw.edu.au (L. Goldenberg). 0022-1031/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.007

outcomes they deserve. Evidence that challenges the ‘just world’ view – such as innocent persons being victimized – constitute a profound psychological threat to this belief (Hafer, 2000). Motivated defensive strategies, such as blaming the victim, may help to restore a sense of justice and predictability to one's world view. By blaming a victim a person can also bolster the cherished belief in individual mastery, reassuring themselves that it is within their power to avoid similar misfortunes by acting differently (Dalbert, 2001). Several motivated justice-preservation strategies have been identified in the literature, such as attributing responsibility internally (to the victim), dissociating from the victim, and forming negative character evaluations (for a review, see Hafer & Begue, 2005). We shall look at all three measures here, and for our purposes, the term ‘blame’ will be used to refer to all three of these justice-preservation strategies. Belief in a just world is also positively related to psychological adjustment and the ability to cope with one's misfortunes (Dalbert, 1999, 2001, 2002). People often experience negative affect when events challenge their belief in a just world (Lerner & Goldberg, 1999), and blaming the victim is likely to be partly motivated by the need to alleviate the aversive affective state produced by encounters with injustice (Lerner & Goldberg, 1999; Thornton, 1984). It seems highly likely then that pre-existing affective states may also influence just world attributions, yet this effect has not been examined previously. Instead of focusing on the affective consequences of exposure to such events, this experiment will explore how antecedent positive and negative moods may influence the tendency to blame victims for their misfortunes. Thus, this study extends the recent literature on mood effects on judgments to a new domain, just world attributions. For the purposes of this research, we may define moods as “low-intensity, diffuse, and

2002). In an attempt to obtain selective evidence about these alternative theories. Forgas / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 239–243 relatively enduring affective states without a salient antecedent cause and little cognitive content” (Forgas. 2006) when moods selectively prime mood-congruent information in memory. Tan & Forgas. 2006). participants watched either the positive or negative mood induction video. decreasing the need to engage in defensive attributions. 1995. Method Overview. and design 70 students (51 females and 19 males) participated in the experiment for course credit. (1) Motivational accounts such as the mood as resource theory suggest that positive mood may function as a motivational resource enabling individuals to deal with potentially threatening information (Raghunathan & Trope. Goldenberg. positive mood should reduce. Ragunathan & Trope. First. the induced mood state was further reinforced by playing mood-consistent background music during the experiment (Eich & Macaulay. 2001. negative mood may increase the motivation to rely on justice-preservation strategies. The article was accompanied by an emotionally evocative picture of the bloodied victim in a hospital bed. Further. as the blaming the victim effect is largely a motivated bias intended to reduce discomfort and restore the belief in a just world. Thus. 2006). 2002) than do context-specific emotions (Forgas. p. 2009. 2008. 2002. In the present study victim group membership was also manipulated by describing the victim as either an in-group member (fellow student) or as an out-group member (corporate employee). as part of the second. Correia. The study comprised a 2 (mood: positive or negative) × 2 (group membership: in-group or out-group) betweensubjects design. 2011. and in the negative condition they saw excerpts from a sad film (Angela's Ashes). There is some evidence that negative affect is one of the consequences of exposure to information that challenges just world beliefs (Lerner et al. Forgas. Moods also have cognitive consequences. enduring and have more reliable and enduring judgmental consequences (Forgas. as well as influencing people's motivational resources to cope with threatening information (mood as a resource effects. However. Forgas. Bower & Forgas. character evaluations. social judgments study participants were asked to read a newspaper article on the computer screen reporting a recent random physical attack in a deserted lane where the victim was assaulted and severely injured by two strangers on his way home one night. Participants then completed questionnaires designed to assess CUED recall and recognition memory for the content of the newspaper article. Forgas. Correia. and. (3) mood congruence occurs (Forgas. Past research on the blaming the victim effect also found that defensive attributions are more likely when the victim is an in-group member rather than an out-group member (Aguiar. Recent research shows that moods can influence the valence of the information people rely on (congruence effects. 2007). Bless & Fiedler. The victim was described either as a current student at the university (in-group condition) or a corporate employee working in a bank (out-group condition). The mood induction Participants watched 10-minute edited films ‘in order to select films for a later study’. & Aguiar. they read a newspaper article describing a physical attack on either a fellow university student (in-group condition) or a corporate employee (out-group condition). such as selfhandicapping (Alter & Forgas. As the victim becomes more similar to the observer.. Goldenberg. 2002). (a) a film evaluation study (in fact. In addition. 1984). The questions measured three aspects of victim blame: two questions assessed responsibility attribution (to what . In the positive condition they saw segments from a comedy (Fawlty Towers). This theory also suggests that greater attention directed at external aversive events in a negative mood may also increase the tendency to engage in defensive attributions. in an attempt to alleviate aversive affect (Dalbert. All three affect theories considered here lead to a convergent prediction that positive affect should reduce. we expected that in-group victims should be blamed more than strangers. While most prior studies focused on the cognitive consequences of moods (Forgas. the just world study). 2006). by influencing (2) information processing styles (Bless & Fiedler. & Unkelbach. dissociation from the victim. Forgas & Bower. 1992. processing assimilatively. as exposure to injustice produces negative affect. The session was introduced as comprising two ‘unrelated’ studies. 2006). the mood induction) and (b) a study of social judgments (in fact. 2003). There are three main theories that suggest that moods may exert an important motivational as well as a cognitive influence on how just world attributions are formed (Forgas. We focus on moods rather than emotions here. Thus. as mood states are more likely to be subconscious. participants. memory data (relevant to evaluating the mood congruence account) and processing latency data (relevant to evaluating the information processing account) will also be collected here. and then provided judgments on three measures: attribution of responsibility. motivational effects received far less attention. positive mood should reduce people's tendency to selectively encode and remember the details of aversive events. Vala. Trope & Neter. and negative affect should increase people's tendency to engage in defensive justice-preservation strategies by blaming the victim. J. Hafer. processing accommodatively (Forgas. Mood effects on blaming the victim Mood states have significant cognitive as well as motivational consequences for social judgments and behaviors (Forgas. Vala. 1987). we also expected that in-group victims should be blamed more than out-group victims. Finally. 2001. 1984). This was explained to participants by the experimenter as she will be ‘listening to music while completing other work’. There is some evidence that mood states can motivate quite elaborate ego-defensive strategies. 1994). outside information. 2006. while positive mood should reduce this effect. The social judgment task Next. 2000). Extrapolating from previous findings. how they process information (processing effects. The procedure concluded with a debriefing when the effectiveness of the mood induction was also assessed. 1981. and people recall and use more affectively congruent information in their judgments (Bower. the motivated mood as resource theory seems the most likely to apply here. 2007). Next. for example. & Pereira. This model is likely to apply to just world judgments as positive mood may act as a resource and thus reduce the need to engage in defensive blame strategies. 1998. internal information. Happy persons tend to focus more on pre-existing. Blaming the victim may thus be partly motivated by the need to alleviate an aversive affective state and restore justice (Thornton. as the misfortunes of ingroup victims present a greater threat to one's just world beliefs (Correia & Vala. and negative mood should increase the motivation for people to engage in victim blame. 2006). 2002. 2000). Conversely. 2002. while sad persons pay more attention to new. 1998).240 L. Immediately after reading the article participants answered a series of eight questions presented in a random order on the computer screen on a 1–8 scale. the threat to the belief in personal mastery and a just world increases. and clarify the mechanisms responsible for the predicted effects. 2010). Thornton.230). as a result of mood congruence.P. It is rather surprising then that there has been no prior research investigating how antecedent mood states may influence the blaming the victim effect.

and three further participants were excluded as their English competence was inadequate.92).1.9).001).31%. F(1. the mood validation) asking them how they felt immediately after watching the films on four nine-point bipolar scales (happy-sad.71) than did those in the negative mood condition (M = 5.62) = 1.P.63. confirming that the mood induction was highly effective. followed later by a recognition task containing 8 original statements and 8 distracter statements. wouldn't happen to a friend. This result confirms that an attack on an in-group victim was more threatening and more likely to result in victim blame compared to an out-group victim. relaxed-tense. Blaming the victim The eight scales measuring blame for the victim were subjected to a principal components analysis (Furnham. Attribution of responsibility The effects of mood and victim group membership on attributions were examined in a 2 (mood: positive. likeability and self-confidence. VAF = 34. Two questions assessed dissociation from the victim (would you behave the same way in the same circumstances. F(1.9%).11. the third component. p b . 2003. likeability.05).9. SD = 1.13. as all participants correctly identified the victim's occupation. Memory tasks and processing latencies Memory for the information presented in the newspaper article was also assessed using a cued recall memory task. Finally.05. The final four scales assessed impressions of the victim on bipolar scales measuring competence. 1987).025.09. p b . consistent with a stronger just world effect.16.2. capacity to prevent incident. 1).44 vs. M = − 0. . how likely is IT that such events could occur to a personal friend). p N . SD = 1.62) = 4. Maes. Dissociation from the victim measure The 2 × 2 ANOVA of the dissociation measure also revealed a significant main effect due to in-group vs. Great care was taken to remove any residual mood effects.48).33. F(1. marked by four scales (respectability. and negative mood increased the tendency to display the ‘just world’ bias by blaming the victim. resulting in two components: mood valence (happy-sad. The four mood self-rating scales were subjected to a principal components analysis.67 vs.68). p b . and arousal (calm-aroused. SD = 1. Forgas / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 239–243 241 extent could the victim have prevented what happened. and negative mood increased the tendency to attribute responsibility to the victim as well as dissociate from the victim (average judgment for in-group and out-group targets). F(1. out-group status. M = 4. SD = 1.17. p b .01). The first component was labelled general evaluation.28. The time taken to read the newspaper article and reaction times for the 8 judgments concerning the victim were recorded by the computer program used to administer the task. 1. Evaluation of the victim We found no main effects due to group membership. SD = 2. SD = 1. This result indicates the absence of a basic mood-congruent effect on these judgments. or due to mood. The second component labelled responsibility attribution consisted of two items (responsibility. Mood also had a main effect on the dissociation measure. Participants first completed a ‘film evaluation questionnaire’ (in fact. The group membership manipulation was also successful. Participants were also asked to write down the occupation of the victim to check the effectiveness of the in-group/outgroup manipulation. good-bad. VAF = 11. Participants in the positive mood condition blamed the victim significantly less (M = 4.62) = 2.016. it is possible that people in a positive mood blamed the victim less because either they (a) processed external Fig.1%).87%. suggesting that mood effects on attributions and dissociation were more likely to be due to motivational effects rather than a simple mood-congruent bias.23. respectability. leaving 64 participants in the analysis. p N . J. negative)× 2 (victim group membership: in-group.74. SD = 1.62). t(62) = 13.81. F(1. VAF = 67.29. 1983. Mood effects on blaming the victim: positive mood decreased. competence. Cronbach's α = . and confidence.62) = 6. A t-test on the valence measure confirmed that participants in the positive mood condition rated themselves as significantly happier (M = 1. 1998). We also found a significant mood main effect in the predicted direction (Fig.74). goodbad.02.62) = 7. how responsible was the victim for what happened). Results Validation of the manipulations Three participants were excluded from the analysis as they indicated suspicion about the manipulations. SD = 2. Murray & Stahly. p N .03) than the out-group victim ( M = 4.43) than did those in the negative mood condition (M = − 2. Additional analyses and alternative explanations Further analyses were conducted to clarify the mechanisms responsible for these effects and to eliminate alternative explanations.62) = 5.22%) that were combined into a single measure (Cronbach's α = . Although the mood-as-a-resource model provides the most conceptually plausible account. out-group) ANOVA.05. Participants dissociated themselves more from the in-group victim ( M = 5.03. Ratings on the three valence scales were combined into a single affective valence measure (Cronbach's α = . SD = 1. calm-aroused. an issue that was explored further in additional analyses. The mood induction did not influence self-reported arousal levels (M = 0. VAF = 22.L.75. on the overall evaluation of the victim.79). relaxed-tense). consisted of two items (would behave differently. Manipulation checks and debriefing A careful debriefing concluded the procedure.89.69) than did those in the negative mood condition (M = 5.62. p b .31. VAF = 23. Group membership had a significant main effect: the victim was judged as more responsible for the incident when described as a fellow student rather than a corporate employee (M = 5. Participants in the positive mood condition dissociated themselves less from the victim (M = 4. F(1. SD = 1. Cronbach's α = . This component captures a key theoretical construct identified in the literature on blaming the victim (Gruman & Sloan. dissociation from the victim. and three components were identified. SD = 1.14. SD = 2. t(62) = 1. Goldenberg.05.0. once again confirming that positive mood reduced.

05. Practical implications Exposure to information about adversity befalling innocent others is a daily experience that challenges our beliefs in a predictable and fair world. Similarly. This study was successful in showing that transient moods can play an important role in determining how people react to such information.53 s) mood conditions. 2006.P.19. Vala. clinical and educational settings where the combination of mood and in-group vs. Thus. The finding that happy people are less inclined to blame a victim may have important implications for the way news stories and political messages are interpreted in the electronic and print media.28 s. & Raghunathan. 1984). Following the demonstration of mood effects on the just world bias here.87) mood conditions in the time taken to complete the judgments. the more detailed analysis of the precise strategies responsible for this effect will be the task of further research. . allowing happy people to more effectively cope with adverse and threatening information (Raghunathan & Trope. SD = 3.62) = 1. Our results also suggest that responsibility attribution and dissociation were more effective techniques for restoring just world beliefs than simply devaluing the victim as a person (Correia.05. Reduced blaming the victim in a happy compared to a sad mood is consistent with the idea that positive mood can function as a resource. SD = 4. moodcongruence also cannot explain our findings. it makes sense that participants felt a stronger need to blame. Goldenberg. the motivational account suggesting that positive mood may act as a motivational resource when dealing with threatening information remains the most plausible explanation for our findings (Trope & Neter.05. 1994).8. Discussion Receiving information about the misfortunes of innocent people challenges our cherished belief in a just and predictable world. These findings have several interesting theoretical and practical implications. p N . For example. a finding with some interesting practical implications. 2006). Results showed no significant mood congruence in memory between the positive (M = 14. in-group victims were judged as more responsible for negative outcomes compared to outgroup victims. p N .91 s. nor for mood- congruent effects. Trope et al.62) = 0.04) mood conditions.7. paradoxically. As the processing latency data indicated no difference across the mood conditions.62) = 0. Forgas / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 239–243 information about the incident less carefully (the informationprocessing explanation). Memory measures An ANOVA investigated mood congruent effects on memory by analysing differences in the number of details recalled by happy and sad participants. as well as affecting people's motivational resources to cope with adverse information (Forgas.62) = 2. 2002. F(1. SD = 1. However. SD = 27. Diamond. SD = 14.01.89). SD = 1. and memory for mood congruent information was not a source of the blaming the victim effect observed. 2002. SD = 13.83) and the negative (M = 15.47.97 s) and negative (M = 48. Trope. leaving the motivational account as the most likely explanation of the results obtained. out-group victim status may influence responsibility attributions.62) = 0.91 s. given the absence of any mood-congruent effects on memory and evaluative judgments. Thus. neither recall nor recognition memory results show any mood-congruent effect. 2010). We also found that. The evidence we presented for such an explanation here is somewhat indirect. Theoretical implications How well can the three theories we considered in the introduction explain our findings? Previous research has shown that temporary mood states can have a profound influence on cognitive and motivational processes in social judgments (Forgas. Processing latencies An ANOVA found no significant differences in time taken to read the story in the positive (M = 47. These possibilities were explored by analysing mood effects on the processing latency and memory data. Group membership also influenced the attribution of responsibility and dissociation from the victim. J. p N . and we recognize that alternative theoretical explanations may well be possible. and increasing self worth allows individuals to better deal with threatening information without resorting to victim blaming (Furnham. and dissociate themselves from an in-group victim. our results show that positive mood reduced. 2003). these results confirm that neither mood effects on processing style. as a resource that can reduce the motivation to blame the victim as a justice-preservation strategy. 2004. increased blaming the victim in negative mood and decreased blaming in positive mood was not due to the differential processing of the target information. A signal detection analysis of recognition data using a recognition test comprising 16 statements (8 original and 8 distracter items) revealed no difference in recognition between the positive (d′ M = 4. Overall. & Aguiar. SD = 2.84) mood conditions. an analysis of recognition bias also failed to show any differences between the positive (β M = 7. Karuza & Carey. To the extent that the misfortunes of an in-group victim present a greater threat to the belief that one lives in a just predictable world. p N . but not the overall evaluation of the victim. benign interpretation of the event (the moodcongruence explanation). Ferguson. such as offering social support.84. whereas negative mood increased people's tendency to blame the victim. influencing both the content and process of cognition. SD = 2.81.95) mood conditions. 2001. This experiment confirms that positive mood may function in a similar way. Therefore. the absence of an interaction between mood effects and group membership suggests that the motivational benefits of positive mood in reducing the ‘blaming the victim’ effect were sufficiently powerful to apply equally to in-group and out-group victims. SD = 15. The common assumption by legal professionals that jurors make decisions based on rational processes is increasingly open to questioning (Forgas. nor mood-congruent effects on the information remembered can explain the results. Prior work on the just world effect also favors a motivational rather than a cognitive explanation.51. as we found no evidence either for mood effects on processing strategies. 2006). Affective influences on blaming the victim may also be important in organisational. Overall. p N . Several studies found that bolstering a person's motivational resources. When considered jointly.73. no significant differences were found between the positive (M = 68. 1980).82) and negative (d′ M = 5. F (1. 2006).05. 2000).21) and negative (β M = 7. the present results are most consistent with a motivational explanation. The present study suggests that mood may exert an additional influence on how such information is perceived and attributed. F (1. In addition. in legal and forensic settings exposure to graphic and threatening evidence may influence a juror's ability to remain objective (Bright & Goodman-Delahunty. Only negative details were analysed as the target story contained no positive information. Further. suggesting that selective attention to.05. neither the reading latency nor the judgmental latency data support the hypothesis that mood-induced differences in processing style could have been responsible for the observed effects.01. F(1.. By assigning some blame to the victim it is possible to alleviate such distress and to maintain belief in predictability and personal control (Lerner. The absence of mood effects on the evaluation measure is also consistent with this idea.19) and negative (M = 59.72. 2002. as coded by two raters (Cronbach's α = . The common propensity to engage in victim blame seems highly dependent on one's mood: happy persons are less likely to engage in such strategies than are people in a negative mood.242 L. or (b) their positive mood selectively primed a more optimistic. F(1.

47. B.). (1984). 1994). the need to explain why undeserved misfortunes occur has been a major puzzle for moral philosophers and writers since time immemorial. Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior. Correia. . & Stahly. 46(3).. European review of social psychology. 24. Forgas.P. (2000). Dalbert. 379–400. J. I. & M. and Decision Making. Furnham. it would also be useful to explore the generalizability of our results to various real-life situations. H. & Simmons. & Sloan. H. P. (1998). Lerner. It seems that a happy mood acts as a prophylactic against threatening information about the unpredictability of negative events. J. the personal relevance of the incident and personality variables may interact and moderate mood effects on blaming the victim (Hafer & Bègue. G. Lerner. 56. (2007). Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. M. R. P. S. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). J. judgments of justice and deservingness. (1995). The effects of belief in a just world and victim's innocence on secondary victimization. In S. J. Lerner. Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. M. A. 2002) to the new domain of just world attributions.. & Goldberg. Victim’s innocence. Forgas. (1999). Forgas. (2004). In conclusion. Y. 154–166. 46. E. In R. (1987). H. Psychiatry. Bless. Forgas / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 239–243 243 Limitations and future prospects The kind of mood effects on defensive attributions such as the just world bias demonstrated here can be highly sensitive to contextual and situational variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Can bad weather improve your memory? A field study of mood effects on memory in a real-life setting. J. Sober second thought: The effects of accountability. Forgas. Vala. Bower. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.).. References Aguiar. J. 165–173. New York: Psychology Press. Mood-as-a-resource in processing self-relevant information. The influence of gruesome verbal evidence on mock juror verdicts.. J. 11. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Social Justice Research. 278. 52. Beliefs in a just world as a buffer against anger. 123–145. G. the present results offer clear support for the proposition that unrelated prior mood states have a significant influence on people's need to defend their belief in a just world. Lerner. Mood effects on person-perception judgments. 4. Gruman. Trope & Neter. Mood as a resource in structuring goal pursuit. New York: Psychology Press. Murray. J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Forgas. J. When will a victim be secondarily victimized? The effect of observer's belief in a just world. Forgas (Ed. (1981). B. Affect and social perception: Research evidence and an integrative theory. Can negative affect eliminate the power of first impressions? Affective influences on primacy and recency effects in impression formation. Correia. Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world. Forgas. 12. P. (2001). 1981. 717–763. it would also be useful in future work to explore the specific mechanisms responsible for these effects. (2011). Bright. social categorization and the threat to the belief in a just world. P. 163–185) New York. 21. (pp.. & Bègue. (pp. S. 947–954. G. This experiment extends recent research on affect and motivated cognition (Alter & Forgas. Raghunathan.). Social Justice Research. J. C. and fear on blaming the victim (Lerner & Keltner. 31–38. C.. & Raghunathan. and negative mood increases the need to blame victims for their misfortunes.. L. Hewstone (Eds. 177–180. P. England: John Wiley & Sons. (1999). P. P. Diamond. In J. Social Justice Research.. In J. J. D. (1987). Affect in social thinking and behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. C. Vala. S. 249–260. (2005). (2000). & Vala. Belief in a just world: Research progress over the last decade. & Trope. P. Correia. Bower. & Tetlock. Walking the tightrope between feeling good and being accurate: Mood as a resource in processing persuasive messages. Psychological Bulletin.. Affect in social thinking and behavior. E. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50–68. Correia. (2010). Forgas. When happiness makes us selfish. 318–331. 13–44). & Aguiar. (2010). Handbook of affect and social cognition (pp. Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a modified stroop task. 4. T. 571–576. 16. P. Lerner (Eds. Beyond fantasy and nightmare: a portrait of the jury. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. & Unkelbach. R. (1998). 53. C. (1983). Forgas (Ed. A. 510–525.. Disease as justice: Perceptions of the victims of physical illness. US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 795–817.. 13. 131. In addition. D. 53–60. disgust. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. C. 39–66. L. (pp. P.. P. 66. Cognition. In J. J. the nature of the crime. 54. The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. Forgas. 43. J. I. & M. (1980). J. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Dalbert.. & Forgas. B.. P.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. C. R. P.. Eight stages in the development of research on construct of belief in a just world? In L. (2007). C. NJ. 36. C. 244–248. J. 1995. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Eich. L. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Forgas (Ed. Social Justice Research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Emotion and the law: Psychological perspectives. J. Affect in legal and forensic settings: The cognitive benefits of not being too happy. 1980). G. NJ: Erlbaum. O. A. (2006). 254–259. Montada. (2002)... 203–210. 11. P. C. : New York Plenum Press. In J. Y. baseline neutral mood condition in order to explore the relative contribution of positive and negative moods to defensive attributions. Goldenberg.. Personality and Individual Differences.L. R. (2001). I. 2002.. & Goodman-Delahunty. Trope (Eds. 2005). Some victims are derogated more than others. Wiener & B. Goldberg. (2008). Mahwah. P. J. M. J. victim's innocence and persistence of suffering. Forgas (Ed. Psychology and Law. Thornton. 327–342. Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility.. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. developments. J. Trope. future work might also look at the consequences of specific emotions. 54. but sadness makes us fair: Affective influences on interpersonal strategies in the dictator game. Mood and the regulation of information processing and behavior. Special Issue: Emotion. New York: Guilford Press. Psychological Bulletin. E. Chaiken & T. 75. Psychological Inquiry. Maes. B. 721–734. E. & Aguiar. 183–223)Oxford. American Psychologist. (1998). Buffalo Law Review. & Forgas. E. (1966). 15. Social Justice Research. Bornstein (Eds. Alter. Cognition & Emotion. (2001). Mahwah. 11. J. H. Notwithstanding these limitations.). Trope. Dalbert. J. & Fiedler. I. Karuza. Affect in social thinking and behavior (pp. 129–148. 65–84). Stroebe. & Pereira. Further.. 128–167. 2000). Hafer. Goldenberg. US: Plenum Press.. J. Relative preference and adaptiveness of behavioral blame for observers of rape victims. such as anger. and shows that positive mood reduces. As our study found that mood significantly influenced blaming the victim strategies (attributing responsibility and dissociation). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems. 627–640). P. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Bower. (2000). (2003). C. S. & Forgas. J. P. Lerner. 1–28. Mood and social memory. J. & Macaulay. Y. (2006). 256–272). 563–574. H. Our results are broadly consistent with recent affect motivation theorising (Raghunathan & Trope. New York: Springer. 34. Ferguson. J. Tan. & Carey. M. 43. & Neter. (2009). P. 79(2). Mood and memory. D. (2002). Hafer. (1992). K.. J..). Future studies may also incorporate an intermediate. Western Journal of Black Studies. Forgas. and future challenges. Forgas. and suggest that further research on affective influences on just world attributions is likely to be of considerable theoretical as well as applied interest. & Keltner.). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world's scale validity. anger. 14. J. 117. 39–46. 2007.. Vala. C.. Observer's reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.. NY. H. Defensive attribution of responsibility: Evidence for an arousalbased motivational bias. On being happy but mistaken: Mood effects on the fundamental attribution error. L. 83. (2002). (1984). P. 79–98. On being happy but fearing failure: The effects of mood on self-handicapping strategies. Since Lerner and Simmons (1966) pioneering work. & Bower.. There is scope in future studies to explore how situational factors such as the type of victim. New York: Psychology Press. P. P. Reconciling competing motives in self-evaluation: The role of self-control in feedback seeking. we know the need to maintain an illusion of mastery and predictability plays an important role in such judgments. When do decent people blame victims? The differing effects of the explicit-rational and implicit-experiential cognitive systems. 473–493. Igou..). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. 425–429. (2003). L. & Burke. (1994). J.). H. (2006). but not the evaluation of the victim. Y. 3. 14. Critical issues in social justice. Are real moods required to reveal mood-congruent and mood-dependent memory? Psychological Science. Justice in our world and in that of others: Belief in a just world and reactions to victims. (2006). Journal of Personality. In W. Although more work is needed before we can be confident about the specific mechanisms responsible for these effects.. Trope. J. 646–657. motivational processes are likely to play an important role (Lerner. (2000). 95–120).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful