tselief in a .!
ust Wor[d
Carolyn L. Hafer and Robbie Sutton
8.1 lntroduction
Lerner's (!g77)justice motive theory is one of
the most influential justice theories in social psy-
chology. Testifying to its impact, the theory has
spawned two very different lines of research:
One focused on experimental tests of motiva-
tional processes; and another, largely correla-
tional, line of ' research emphasizing stable
individual differences. Ellard, Harvey, and Callan
(2016) provide a detailed review of the former,
experimental literature. In this chapter, we review
past and current dbvelopments in the individuat
difference literature.
Based on a series, of experiments, Lerner
(1980) proposed that people need to believe that
the world is a just place wherein individuals get
what they deserve. Instances of undeserved out-
comes (i.e., injustice) are therefore'threatening.
People respond to such threats by trying to restore
justice, often tluough defensive means. For
example, people might defensively derogate the
character of victims of misfortune and lionize the
character of undeserving beneflciaries of good
fortune. In either case, assessment of the indi-
C.L. Hafer (X)
Brock University, Saint Catharines, Canada
e-mait: chafer@brocku.ca
R. Sutron
University of Kent, Canterbury UK
e-mail: R.Sutton@kent.ac.uk
O Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
C' Sabbagh, M. Schmitt (eds.), Iiandbook of Social Justice Theory and Research,
DoI 10.1007/978-1-4939-321 6-0_8
vidual's character is adjusted, so the individual's
fate seems more deserved and, therefore, just
(see Ellard, Harvey, & Callan, 2016, Chap.7 of
this handbook, for a sustained discussion of the
motive to perceive the world as a just place).
Rubin and Peplau (1973) proposed that only
individuals who have a strong dispositional
belief in a just world (BJW) would react as pre-
dicted by justice motive theory. In doing so,
Rubin and Peplau (1973) assumed a closo cor-
respondence between the strength of (a) the
BJW and (b) the desire to believe in a just world.
Informed by this assumption, Rubin and Peplau
(1973, 1975) developed the Just World Scale,
which measures people's chronic belief that the
world is a just place in which individuals get
what they deserve. Importantly, the Just World
Scale, like other BfW scales, does not explicitly
assess the need to believe in a just world.
Further, as we shall see later in this chapter, it is
unlikely that anything more than a very weak
relation exists between scores on BJW scales
and the need to believe in a just world. Thus,
Rubin and Peplau's starting assumption now
seems misguided. Nonetheless; their research
was the first to explore the properties of BJW as
an individual difference variable, and in doing
so made possible all the discoveries that have
subsequently arisen from studies of BJW.
Since Rubin and Peplau's (197 3, 197 5) seminal
papers, the research has matured such that BJW

is often examined as an important individual dif-
ference consffuct in its own right, and not solely
as a potential moderator of experimental effects
predicted by justice motive theory. This research
can be characterized by three broad trends: fur-
ther development of BJW scales, studies of cor-
relates of BJW, and research addressing the
broader significance of BJW. We organize our
chapter according to these three themes'
8.2 Scale DeveloPment
8.2.1 Rubin and PePlau's Just
World Scale
The Just World Scale is an explicit self-report
of a series of statements to
measure consisting
which people indicate the extent of their
agreement-disagreement on a numeric scale' An
initial 16-item version of the scale was followed
by a 2O-item version (see Rubin & Peplau, 1975)'
Several items in the Just Wbrld Scale address a
specific domain, such as the legal system and
health, whereas other items are general (e'g',
"Basically, the world is a just place")' Some items
are phrased in the unjust world direction and are,
thus, reverse-scored (e.g., "I've found that a per-
son rarely deserves the reputation he has")'
To validate the 16-item scale, Rubin and Peplau
(1973) administered the measure to young men
who were subiect to the 1971 military draft lottery
in the United States. Men scoring higher onthe Just
World Scale, compared to those scoring lower, had
a greater tendency to react more favorably to 'lwin-
ners" of the lottery (those whose randornly drawn
number meant they were less likely to be drafted
into military service) than to "losers" (those whose
number meant they were more likely to be drafted)'
The findings were consistent with Rubin and
Peplau's (1973) claim that individuals who hold a
strong BJW are more likely to respond to unde-
served outcomes as hypothesized in justice motive
theory; that is, by derogating victims of undeserved
negative outcomes and lionizing beneflciaries of
undeserved positive outcomes.
Rubin and Peplau (1975) summarized early evi-
dence of the reliability and validity of the Just World
C.L. Hafer and R. Sutton
Scale. For example, regarding constuct validiry
Rubin and Peplau reported further evidence that
individuals with a strong BJW derogate victims
relative to individuals with a weaker BJW. In addi-
tion, Rubin and Peplau summarized correlates of
BJW (e.g., authoritarianism) that are expected on
the basis of theory about the development and func-
tions of the belief. Finally, Rubin and Peplau pre-
sented correlational evidence of predicted
sociopolitical "consequences" of BJW, such as
positive attitudes toward existing political and social
institr.rtions, negative attitudes toward disadvan-
taged $oups, and lower levels of social activism'
8.2.2 Criticisms of Rubin
and PePlau's JustWorld Scale
Despite preliminary evidence of acceptable reli-
ability and validity for the Just World Scale,
researchers soon began to discover weaknesses
(for reviews, see Furnham & Procter, 1989;
Furnham, 2003). First, although most initial
internal consistency coefficients were adequate,
later studies yielded poorer results (e'g',
Ambrosio & Sheehan, 1990; Hellman,
Muilenburg-Trevino, &
Worley, 2008; Loo'
2002a). Second, the factor sffucture of the Just
World Scale was also criticized. Although the
scale is presumably meant to be unidimensional,
many studies showed evidence for several inter-
pretable factors. Furthermore, the factor structure
is not consistent across studies (Furnham, 2003)'
A third problem for the Just World Scale is
that the meaning of its reverse-coded items is
ambiguous. Several authors have found that
items worded in the just-world vs. unjust-wor1d
direction load onto different factors. In addition,
separate just-world and unjust-world seales cre-
ated from these differentially keyed items are
only weakly correlated (if at all) and typically
predict different criteria (e.g., Couch, 1998;
Dalbert, Lipkus, SallaY, & Goch, 2001;
Furnham, 1995; Loo, 2002a). These flndings
imply that the opposite of BfW is not necessarily
belief in an uniust world. Furnham and Procter
(1989) suggested that another alternative to a
BJW is a belief that the world is random and,
6 Belief in a Just World
therefore, not predicable at all. In contrast, an
unjust world is a nonrandom world in which
people predictably receive undeserved out-
cornes. Thus, unjust world items are likely inad-
equate as indicators of (low) BJW.
9,2.3 Attempts to lmprove the Just
World Scale
Since Rubin and Peplau's groundbreaking work,
the development of BfW scales has taken differ-
ent directions, First, researchers have created
more psychometrically sound measures of gen-
eral BJW Second, researchers have gone beyond
the idea of general BfW to create scales assessing
BJW in different domains of life. Third, some
researchers have attempted to assess different
ways of believing in ajust world.
General BJW scales. Rubin and Peplau's scale
includes both domain-specific and general items.
Two subsequent measures of BJW-a
6-item
German scale by Dalbert, Montada, and Schmitt
(1987), and a 7-item English scale by Lipkus
(199l)-include only general items. These scales
address many of the criticisms of the Just World
Scale. Likely due to the use of only general items,
the newer scales show increased reliability com-
pared to the Just World Scale, as well as unidimen-
sionality (see Dalbert, 1999;Lipkus, 1991, though
see O'Connor et al., 1996). Cronbach's alpha is
often between .60 and .70 for the Dalbert scale
(e.g., Dalbert, 1999; Dalbert & Yamauchi, i994;
Loo, 2002b), and above .80 for the Lipkus scale
(e.g., Hafer, 2000; Lipkus , l99l; O'Connor et al.,
1996). Also, items for both scales are keyed in the
just-world direction, thus avoiding problems asso-
ciated with some items indicating an unjust world.
Scores on both the Dalben and Lipkus scales cor-
relate with criteria based on past research with the
JustWorld Scale and on theorizing about the func-
tions of BJW (e.g., Lipkus, i991; Montada, 1998).
Overall, the psychometric properties of both newer
scales exceed those of the Rubin and Peplau
measure.
Although the Just World Scale remains the
most widely used measure of individual differ-
147
ences in BIW, the Dalbert and Lipkus measures
are gaining popularity. Indeed, the Dalbert measure
has been translated into several different lan-
guages (e.g., Bastounis, Leiser, & Roland-L6vy,
2004; Bastounis & Minibas-Poussard, 2012;
Dalbert & Katona-Sallay, 7996; Dalbert &
Yamauchi, 1994).
BJW in dffirent domains. Some researchers have
argued that BfW might vary within individuals
depending on the domain specifled. Furnham and
Procter (1992) created the Multidimensional
BJW Scale, which taps into just world and unjust
world beliefs in three spheres of life: sociopoliti-
cal, interpersonal, and personal domains.
Unfortunately, the scales suffer from poor psy-
chometric properties (e.g., Furnham & Procter,
i992; Lipkus, 1991) and thus have not been
widely used.
More promising, Lucas and colleagues have
created measures of distributive and procedural
BJW (e.g., Lucas, Alexander, Firestone, &
LeBreton, 2007). Distributive justice is the jus-
tice of distributions of resources or outcomes (e.g.,
Deutsch, 1985). hocedural justice is the justice of
mechanisms for making decisions about distribu-
tions or outcomes, as well as the treafirent of those
affected by decisions (e.g., Bies & Moag, 1986;
Lind & Tyler, 1988). Lucas's research is still in its
early stages, but initial reliability and validity for
his scales are good. Interestingly, Lucas, Zhdanova,
and Alexander (201 1) recently crossed procedural
vs. distributive BJW with BJW for self vs. others
(the latter distinction is described next) to yield
four domains of BJW, each of which might have
di fferent consequences.
BJW for self vs. people generally: A more long-
standing approach to assessing BJW in different
domains is to distinguish a belief that one's own
world is just from a belief that the world is just
for people generally. According to justice motive
theory, the ultimate reason to believe that the
world is just for people generally is that, if the
world is 'Just for others,f it is also likely 'Just for
me." Thus, the two domains of BJW, though sep-
arable, should be related. In addition, given the
more important goal of perceiving one's own
 C.L. Hafer and R. Sutton
148

world to be just, a personal BJW should be sffonger and seek vengeance against those who have
than a more general BfW. transgressed against the self, whereas BJW-self is

The distinction between personal and general positively associated with forgiveness (Lucas
Strelan & Sutton, 20 11 Alternatively,
has been operationalized in two ways' Lipkus, et al., 20 11; ).

Dalbert, and Siegler (1996) distinguished the these findings could be accounted for by the
BJW for the self from the BfW for others' Each relation between BJW-others and antisocial
domain is assessed with eight items. Items for tendencies (e.g., Sutton & Winnard, 2007).
BJW-self and BJW-others differ only in the use
of believing in a iust world.Maes
of pronouns (e.g., "I feel that the world treats me Dffirent ways
(e.g., Maes, 1998b; Maes & Schmitt, 1999) has
fairly" vs. "I feel that the world treats others
gone beyond general BfW scales by proposing
fairly"). In parallel, Dalbert (1999) designed the
of believing in a just world; These
6-item Personal BJW Scale as a counterpart to different ways
justice-that justice will
Dalbert's general BfW scale, noted earlier' The are a belief in ultimate
belief in imma-
personal BfW items are not tightly matched to prevail in the long-run-and
a

the general BJW items, as in the Lipkus scales' nent justice-that justice occurs in the present
(see Piaget, t93211965). Similar to BJW-others'
Research using the Lipkus and Dalbert scales
has produced similm flndings (e.g., Bbgue & belief in immanent justice is more strongly
responses to victims that are
Bastounis, 2003; Dalbert, 1999 Lipkus et a1', related to negative
in the justice motive literature,
1996; Sutton & Douglas, 2005). Consistent with typically
studied
justice motive theory the personal versions of BJW such as character derogation and blame.
are positively correlated with their more general Conversely, belief in ultimate justice is more
counterparts. A1so, personal BJW and BJW-self are related to prosocial responses to victims, such as
typically endorsed more sffongly than general BfW positive character evaluations and a willingness to
and BJw-others, respectively; though the relative help. Although few researchers outside of Maes's
sftength of the personal versions of BJW may be group have employed immanent and ultimate
culturally bound (see Wu et a1., 2011). BJW scales (though see BBgue, 2002), the notion
Despite the correlation between personal and of different ways of believing in a just world has
general versions of BfW, the two versions have promise for further refining the concept of BIW
unique correlates. Overall, personal BfW and
BIW-self tend to be associated with the theoreti-
cal "benefits" of BfW-like subjective well- 8.3 Correlates of BJW
being-moreso than general BIW and
BJW-others (e.g., BBgue & Bastounis, 2003; Whereas one research stream has focussed on the
Lipkus et al., 1996; Sutton et al', 2008; Sutton & development of various BJW scales, an otten-
Douglas, 2005; Sutton & Winnard, 2007)' The related line ofresearch involves the correlates of
more general forms of BfW, especially BJW- BJW. The majority of the correlational studies
others, are associated with traditional "costs" of were conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, during
BJW, including harsh, punitive responses to per- what has been called the construct validation
petrators of injustice and harsh responses to the phase of research on individual differences in
disadvantaged (e.g., Bdgue & Bastounis, 2003; BfW (Maes, 1998a). Relevant literature has been
Sutton & Douglas, 2005)' These findings suggest reviewed by several authors (e.g., Furnham,
that BJW-others is more closely linked than 2003; Furnham & Procter, 1989; Rubin & Peplau'
BJW-self with defenses typically associated with 1975). In the current chapter, we integrate and
justice motive theory, such as derogation of vic- update these reviews, focusing on the most com-
tims of injustice. A heightened defensiveness monly studied correlates of BfW-reactions to
about injustice might explain why BJW-others is victims and beneficiaries, and ideological
positively associated with the desire to ostracise variables.
g Belief in a Just World
9,3,1 Reactions to Victims and
Beneficiaries
14ost authors conceptualize BfW not only as a
belief that people get what they deserve, but also
as a belief that people deserve what they get.
BfW should react
Thus, individuals with a strong
to people's outcomes in ways that reflect a bias
toward seeing those outcomes as deserved. Such
rsactions should occur whether the target is the
self or another person, and whether the target's
outcomes are negative, as in the case of "victims,"
or positive, as in the case of "beneficiaries,"
The other as victim. A large number of studies
have examined relations between BfW and reac-
dons to victimized or disadvantaged others. The
most commonly assessed reactions are attribu-
tions about the causes of the misfortune and eval-
uadons of the victim. Research generally shows
that a stronger BJW is related to blaming victims
for their negative outcomes, as well as to nega-
tively evaluating victims (Furnham, 2003; Rubin
& Peplau, 1975; for examples of more recent
work, see Bizer, Hart, & Jekogian, 2012;Ebneter,
Latner, & O'Brien, 20ll; Keller & Siegrist,
2010; Sakalli-U[ur1u, Yalgm, & Gltck, 2007;
Smith, Mao, Perkins, & Ampuero, 2011). Given
that blame and negative evaluations help to jus-
tify victims' fate as deserved, it is not surprising
that researchers have also found an association
between BfW and perceived deservingness or
fairness of victims' lot (e.g., Appelbaum, Lennon,
& Aber, 2006; Dalbert, Fisch, & Montada, 1992;
Nudelman & Shiloh, 201 I ),
Several authors note that relations between
BJW and attributional or evaluative reactions to
victims are small (e.g., Montada, 1998; Rubin &
Peplau, 1975). Research showing that different
measures of BJW predict different responses to
victims (e.g., BfW-self vs. BJW-others, ultimate
vs. immanent BIW) helps account for the modest
findings.
The self as yictim. Relatively little research has
been devoted to BJW and reactions to one's own
victimized or disadvantaged state. Overall, asso-
ciations between BfW and either self-blame or
negative evaluations of the self are less reliable
than in the literature on reactions to others (cf.
Carels et a1.,2009;Dalbert, 1998; Hafer & Correy,
1999; Kielcolt-Glaser & Williams, 1987; Riisch,
Todd, Bodenhausen, & Conigan, 2010). Ego-
defensive motives might reduce the likelihood
that victims will interpret their own outcomes in a
way that reflects badly on the self (e.g., through
self-blame; see Hafer & Gosse, 2010). BIW is
more consistenfly related to perceived fairness of
one's negative outcomes, though the association
is sometimes moderated by a third variable, such
as ambiguity of the situation (cf. Ball, Trevino, &
Sims, 1993; Choma, Hafer, Crosby, & Foster,
2012; Hafer & Correy, 1999; Hafer & Olson,
1989; Hagedoorn, Buunk, & Van de Vliert,2OO2).
Another cofltmon dependent variable is affective
reactions to one's negative outcomes (e.g., Hafer
& Olson, 1989, 1998; Hagedoorn et a1.,2002;
Kielcolt-Glaser & Williams, 1987). Hafer and
Correy (1999), for example, found that students'
BfW predicted their emotional reactions to a poor
exam grade, mediated by perceived unfairness
and attributions.
Beneficiaries. Still less research has examined
the relation between BJW and reactions to recipi-
ents of positive outcomes. In general, this
research shows that a strong BJW is associated
with reactions that presumably rationalize a ben-
eflciary's positive fate as deserved. For example,
individuals with a strong BJW associate higher
status with positive characteristics more than do
individuals with a weaker BfW (e.g., Dion &
Dion, 1987:' Oldmeadow & Fiske, 2007).
Similarly, BJW is associated with more positive
evaluations of powerful others (e.g., Rubin &
Peplau, 1975; Smith, 1985).
We are aware of only one study on BJW and
reactions to the self as beneficiary. Ellard and
Bates (1990, Study 2) assigned participants a
high status role, and an alleged other participant
a low status role. Individuals with a strong, but
not those with a weak, BJW rated their own
character traits more positively compared to the
other's ffaits.
mlwl
150
Researchers have also frequently examined the
relation between BfW and socio-political ideol-
ogy, especially conservative ideology and religi-
osity (Furnham,2O}3;Furnham & Procter, 1989;
Rubin & Peplau, 1975). BIW should correlate
positively with these variables given that they
share the following content: adulation of high
status and denigration of low status others; a
focus on order, conEol, and support for the status
quo; and a belief in ultimate justice'
Most reviews of BfW mention associations
between BfW and conservative ideology' More
recent studies report similar relations, whether
conservative ideology is assessed via authoritari-
anism (e.g., Christopher, Zabel, Jones, & Marek,
2008; Henderson-King' Henderson-King, Bolea,
Koches, & Kauffman, 2004; Reser & Muncer,
2004), selt'-identifi cation as liberal-conservative
(e.g., Christopher et al,, 2008; Parikh, Post, &
Flowers, 2011; but see Choma et al',20t2), ot
endorsement of traditionally conservative policy
opinions and social attitudes (e'g', Bastounis
et al., 2004; Bbgue & Bastounis, 2003;
Lodewijkx, Kersten, & v an Zomeren, 2008)'
Religiosity is also a relatively consistent cor-
relate of BJW, though there is evidence that the
expected positive correlation does not occur for
all religious groups (Furnham, 2003; Furnham &
Procter, 1989; Rubin & Peplau, 1975)' A more
of BJW is
consistent quasi-religious correlate
endorsement of the Protestant Work Ethic
(Furnham & Procter, 1989; Rubin & Peplau,
1975). Recent authors (Christopher et al', 2008;
Ghorpade, Lackritz, & Singh, 2006) argue that
BJW is more strongly associated with speciflc
facets of Protestant Work Ethic beliefs, such as
the (nonreligious) belief that hard work leads to
good outcomes.
Many researchers have measured locus of
control along with socio-political ideology and
BJW. Greater internal locus of control and simi-
lar constructs (e.g., mastery) are related to a
stronger BJW (Bastounis et a1., 2004; Choma
eta1.,2012; Christopher et a1., 2008; Furnham &
Procter, 1989; Ghorpade et a1., 2006; Rubin &
Peplau, 1975). A correlation between BfW and
C.L. Hafer and R. Sutton
internal locus of control is consistent with justice
motive theory. Lerner (197'l) argues that BJW
helps people invest in long-term goals, presum-
ably by providing confidence that their current
efforts will eventually pay off as deserved' Thus, '
BJW should increase the sense that one can influ-
ence one's outcomes, as is chmacteristic of indi-
viduals with a strong internal locus of control'
As noted by Dittmar and Dickinson (1993),
the ideological correlates of BIW are themselves
intercorreiated, and high scores on these vari-
ables are characteristic of right-wing ideology'
Yet, BJW is conceptually and empirically dis-
tinct from its socio-political correlates.
Concephrally, many theories of conservative
ideology claim that such belief-systems origi-
nate in personalities or social climates that pro-
mote feelings of threat and uncertainty (e'g',
Duckitt, 2001; Jost, 2009). In contrast, proposed
sources of BIW include an intrapsychic need
related to investment in long-term goals, experi-
ence with iniustice, and social learning (see sec-
tion on bases of BfW). Empirically, a distinction
is by factor analyses (e'g', Lerner,
suggested
1978) and by the many studies in which BJW
accounts for unique variance in relevant criteria,
over and above ideological correlates (e'g',
Appelbaum, 2002; Bbgue &
Bastounis,2003,
Study 5; Henderson-King et a1., 2004; Martin &
Cohn, 2004; Ng & Allen, 2005)' In addition,
BJW might act as a mediator between ideologi
cal variables and criterion variables. For exam-
ple, Schlenker, Chambers, and Le (2012, Study
1) found that the relation between political con-
servatism and psychological adjustment was
mediated by BJW and related perceptions of
fairness,
8.3.3 Other Correlates of BJW
A few other noteworthy correlates add to the
discriminant validity of BJW. Small correla-
tions between BJW and sensitivity to injustice'
as measured by Schmitt and colleagues' justice
sensitivity scales (Schmitt, Gollwitzer, Maes, &
Arbach, 2005), indicate that these constructs are
not equivalent. Similarly, BJIV does not seem to
g Belief in a Just World
6e equivalent to a preference for the equity or
perit principle of distributive justice (Davey,
Bobocel, Son Hing, & Zanta, 1999; Montada,
1998), although BJW is construed as a belief
that the world works according to rules for
deservingness (which is often equated with
equitY or merit).
Finally, BfW shows small correlations with
some personality traits (Nudelman, 2013), suph
as an inverse correlation with the Big Five factor
of Neuroticism. Yet, multiple regression analyses
show that BJW predicts criteria over and above
personality (e.9., Dette, St<iber, & Dalbert, 2004;
Keller & Siegrist, 2010; Lipkus et al., 1996).
Thus, BJW explains human psychological varia-
don that is not accounted for by broad dimen-
sions of personality.
8.4 The Significance of BJW
in People's Lives
The literature reviewed so far has advanced the
measurement, validation, and refinement of the
construct of BfW Other studies address (directly
or indirectly) the significance of
BfW in people's
iives. Much of this work has been conducted
post-1990 and continues to be an important
theme in BfW research. We organize the relevant
research around three key questions: Is BJW
adaptive for the self?, is BJW adaptive for soci-
ety?, and what are the bases of BfW?
8.4.1 ls BJW Adaptive for the Self?
Psychological well-being. According to justice
motive theory, BJW affords psychological bene-
fits by providing people with a sense that their
lives are meaningful, predictable, and controlla-
ble (see Dalbert, 2001; Lerner, 1980). BJW
should thus protect people from negative affect
associated with worries about the future
and also
buffer them from the adverse psychological
con-
sequences of negative and
undeserved outcomes
tn lheir past
and present.
The systematic examination of BJW and well-
being starred in the
1990s, when Dalbert (e.g.,
151
Dalbert, 1999) conceptualized BJW as a "positive
illusion"-in other words, a belief that is psycho-
logically beneflcial, yet unwarranted by facts and
logic (Taylor & Brown, 1988). tnspired by this
conceptualization, researchers have gathered a
large body of evidence suggesting that BJW is
associated with good psychological adjustment
(Dalbert, 2009; Furnham, 2003). As noted earlier,
personal BJW appears to be more shongly assoc!
ated with psychological well-being than general
forms of BJW (Dalbert,2009). Furthermore, the
relation between personal forms of BfW and well-
being appears both in Western (e.g., Correia &
Dalbert, 2007; Sutton & Winnard, 2007) and col-
lectivistic cultures (e.g,, Fatima & Suhail, 2010;
Kamble & Dalbert, Zr0t2;Xie,Liu, & Gan,2011).
However, for individuals living under very adverse
circumstances, general forms of BIW may provide
more effective solace than personal forms (e.g.,
Dalbert, 1998; McParland & Knussen, 2010; Wu
et al., 201 1; but see Xie et al., 201 1).
Physical health. A few studies suggest that at
least certain forms of BJW are associated with
physical health (e.g., Agrawal & Dalal, 1993;
Lucas, Alexander, Firestone, & LeBreton, 2008).
There are several potential mechanisms underly-
ing a BJW-health relation. For example, perhaps
a strong BfW conhibutes to physical health
because it is associated with adaptive appraisals
of stressors, which lower damaging physiotogi-
cal responses to stress (see Tomaka & Blascovich,
1994). BIW might also benefit physical health
because it equips people to pursue long-term
rewards: Thus, BfW could help people to adopt
healthy behaviors and to refrain from behaviors
that damage their physical health in the long run
(see Lucas et al., 2008). Alternatively, people
with a strong BfW might accept that certain dis-
eases are preventable (see Lucas, Alexander,
Firestone, & LeBreton, 2009), which would con-
ceivably lead to appropriate action to prevent
such diseases.
Studies on BJW and risk suggest that BJW
could, for certain people, lead to more unhealthy
behaviors. Lambert, Burroughs, and Nguyen
(1999) found that, among individuals who are
particularly vulnerable to perceived threat, a
152
strong BJW predicted lower perceived risk of
becoming a victim of negative events, including
disease (e.g., AIDS). By protecting against fear
of future illness, BfW could in turn lead to more
risky health behaviors (see Hafer, Bogaert, & lead to adverse social outcomes such as height-
McMullen,2001).
Investment in long-term goals and
trust.
According to Lerner (1917), BJW is adaptive in
part because it encourages investment in long-
term goals. From an individual difference per-
spective, individuals who develop a strong BJW
believe they will be treated fairly and should feel
confident that, as long as they invest the resources
deemed necessary to reach long-term goals, they
will be rewarded accordingly (Dalbert, 2001;
Hafer, 2000). Indeed, researchers have found a
positive relation between BfW and perceived
liketihood of achieving one's goals (e.g., Dette
et al., 2004; Otto & Dalbert, 2005; Sutton &
Winnard, 2007). The benefits of BIW for long-
term goal pursuit might not apply universally,
however. Findings from Laurin, Fitzsimons, and
Kay (201 1) suggest that BJW encourages invest-
ment in long-term goals for members of disad-
vantaged groups, but not advantaged groups.
If BJW imbues confidence that one will be
treated fairly, it is perhaps unsurprising that BJW
is associated with indices of trust, including
interpersonal and institutional trust (e.g., Bdgue,
2002; Coneia & Vala, 2004, Study 3; Lipkus,
199 1 ). The high trust among just-world believers
can have additional benefits. For example, Lipkus
and Bissonnette (1996) found that BJW predicted
trust in intimate partners, which in turn was asso-
ciated with partners' willingness to accommodate
to each others' needs, and so to relationship
satistaction.
8.4.2 ls BJW Adaptive for SocietY?
The implications of BJW for societal-level out-
comes are more ambivalent than they are for self-
relevant outcomes. As noted in the previous
section, BJW is associated with trust, which is a
boon to social cooperation. BJW is also linked to
psychological health and pursuit of long-term
C,L. Hafer and R. Sutton
projects, and societies surely function better
when they are populated by happier, more pro-
ductive people. Yet, BJW is associated with harsh
attitudes to victims, which can be expected to
ened disadvantage and inequality'
Pro and antisocial behavior. Another way that
BJW may affect societal-level outcomes is via its
association with pro and antisocial behavior.
Because BfW entails that prosocial and antiso-
cial acts will receive the rewards or punishments
they deserve, BJW should be negatively associ-
ated with antisocial behavior and positively asso-
ciated with prosocial behavior.
With regard to antisocial behavior, Hafer
(2000) found negative correlations between BfW
and the tendency to employ antisocial means to
obtain goals (but see Cohn & Modecki, z}0fl).
Studies also show that BJW is inversely related
to positive attitudes toward bullying, as well as
bullying behavior (e.g., Correia & Dalbert, 2008;
Donat, Umlauft, Dalbert, & Kamble, Zol2;Fox,
Elder, Gater, & Johnson, 2010; but see Almeida,
Correia, & Marinho, 2010).
On the downside, BJW may support "antiso-
cial" behaviors if those behaviors are construed
as just punishment for moral violations perpe-
trated by others. General BfW appears to be
especially important in this regard, predicting
support for vengeance against the perpetrators of
terrorist attacks (Kaiser, Vick, & Major, 2004).ln
addition, studies have shown general BfW to be
positively associated with self-reported venge-
fulness against people who have wronged the
self, whereas personal BIW is positively associ-
ated with forgiveness (Lucas et al., 2011; Strelan
& Sutton, 2011). The associations with general
BJW are consistent with the previously noted
relation between general forms of BJW and
harsh, punitive responses to offenders.
As well as antisocial behavior, BJW appears
to be relevant to prosocial behavior. For example,
studies show a positive association between BJW
and donation to charity (Furnham, 1995; Kogut
& futov, 2011), helping strangers (Bierhoff,
Klein, & Kramp, l99l;Zuckerman, 1975), buy-
ing ethical products (White, MacDonnell,
 Belief in a Just World
&, Ellard, 2012), and voluntarily sharing with
others in economic games (Dalbert & Umlauft,
ZN9). As noted in the section on scale develop-
s1ent, measures of belief in ultimate justice, as
opposed to immanent justice, are more strongly
rclaled to prosocial responses to victims,
after controlling for immanent
'Interestingly, Montada and Schneider (19g9)
found evidence that BIW might be positively
(rather than negatively) related to prosocial
behavior once cognitive rationalizations related
to BJW are statistically accounted for.
Maintenance of the status quo. On balance,.the
literature on BJW andpro and antisocial behavior
suggests that BJW is adaptive for sociery. A dif-
ferent perspective (e.g., Jost & Hunyady, 2005;
Olson & Hafer, 2001; Sidanius & pratto,
views BfW as maladaptive because it legitimizes
existing societal systems, even systems that work
against the best interests of thd perceiver (e:g.,
Jost & Banaji, 1994). There is empirical evidence
that BJW is related to perceived fairness or
macy of societal systems (e.g., Bastounis et al.,
2004;Martin & Cohn, 2004; Ng & Allen, 2005;
Rubin & Peplau, 1975; Smith, 19g5). BfW hkely
leads to perceived legitimacy because it biases
one to view systems as fair or deserved, often
through the kinds of evaluations and attributions
described under "Reactions to Victims and
Beneficiaries" (see Hafer & Choma, 2OOg).
One implication of this relation between BfW
and the perceived fairness and legitimacy of
broad systems is that people witl
a strong
perceive less discrimination (e.g.,
Birt & Dion,
]?87;
cto*u et al.,2012; fipms &
1993). Anorher implication
is that BfW
tesswillingness to take action aimed at changing
the status quo, because
vtewed as unnecessary
change i,
p."ru-Iuty
(e.g., Beierlein, Werner,
& Wermuth, 2011; Hafer & Olson, 1993;
I*l-t..
Parikh er al., 20ll;
Rubin & peplau, 1973; bu,t
see LodewUkx
et al., 200g). The BJW_acrion
relation is
moderated by the perceived efficacy
oehaviors
aimed at change (e.g., Beierlein et al.,
101t,
tutotiyeddini &
Montada, 1998). For
White et at)s (Z}tZ) research suggesrs
:J,.ip].,
mat BJW predicts
greater social action when the
L*
1s3
action is viewed as efficacious (see also Miller,
1977). These flndings are consistent with the
justice motive theory claim that people will
attempt to maintain a threatened BJW through
prosocial action (rather than rationalization)
even primarily when action is a viable option.
justice.
8.4.3 What are the Bases of BJW?
An examination of the significance of BJW in
people's lives would be incomplete without
discussion of the developmental foundations of
BJW. Researchers have suggested several bases
of BIW, First, BfW is often assumed to reflect
individual differences in the need to believe in a
just world that is described in justice motive the_
1999) ory (cf. Dalbert,2009). According to the theory a
motive or need to believe in ajust world develops
as children learn to forgo immediate gratification
and instead pursue long-terrn goals. Interestingly,
placing the roots of BJW in this need to believe in
legiti- a just world is at odds with a central precept of
justice motive theory-that the need to believe
in
a just world is an intrinsic part of normal human
development and is, therefore, near-universal
(Lerner, 1980). Thus, the theory posits that virru-
ally all people should be morivared to believe thar
the world is just, and variability in the intensity of
this motive results from situational (rather than
dispositional) pressures, such as exposure to
events that threaten the notion of a just world.
Evidence that BfW arises from the need to
nfW believe in a just world is sparse. For example,
according to this perspective, BJW is ,,irraiio-
Siegler, nal," resulting less from a rational assessment of
pr.ji.r, reality and more from an intrapsychic need.
However, research does not tend to support this
view. First, researchers have found nonsignifl-
cant relations between measures of irrationaU
rational thinking and BJW (Shorkey, 19g0;
Stowers & Durm, 1998; Thalbourne, 1995).
Second, there is evidence ofreality constraints on
of BJW Those who can be expected to have experi_
ence with injustice
in the world have a lower
BfW, though results are admittedly mixed
(Schmitt; 1998). Also, there is evidence that dif_
ferences between individuals, endorsement of
7-'
:l
personal vs. general BJW are largely reality-based
(Sutton eta1.,2008; Sutton & Winnard, 2007;Wu
et a1.,2013). Note that, if the primary source of
BJW is not the motivation to believe in a just
world described in justice motive theory it is not
surprising that individual differences in BfW
rarely moderate experimental effects taken as
demonstrations of a need to believe in a just
world (see Hafer & Bbgue, 2005).
If BJW is not entirely irrational, it might
partly be based on an individual's or group's
experience with injustice. As noted above, the
evidence for a relation between experience and
BJW is mixed. Many studies investigate BJW
scores as a function of membership in relatively
disadvantaged vs. advantaged groups (e.g.,
Calhoun & Cann, 1994; Hunt, 2000; O'Connoq
Morrison, Mcleod, & Anderson, 1996): Yet, the
theoretical meaning of these demographic differ-
ences is unclear, given that demographic groups
differ on many other characteristics (e.9., educa-
tion, religiosity, culture) aside from experience
with injustice. Research using direct measures of
people's experience as a victim of injustice bet-
ter supports an experience basis for BfW (e.g.,
Adoric & Kvartuc, 2007; Fasel & Spini, 2010;
Fischer & Holz,2010; Steensma & van Dijke,
2005-06). Most of these direct-measure studies,
howeveq are cross-sectional surveys; thus, the
causal direction of associations is speculative.
Notably, people who experience injustice by vir-
tue of belonging to a group that perpetuates
injustice can also show heightened BfW, per-
haps reflecting an effort to justify their unfair
advantage (see Furnham, 1985).
Several authors have proposed social learning
origins of BJW. From this perspective, BJW is
encouraged through such processes as ideologi-
cal teachings (e.g., Dittmar & Dickinson, 1993),
popular culture (e.g., Gunter & Wober, 1983),
and parental influence (e.g., Schdnpflug & Bilz,
2004). Again, evidence is based on cross-
sectional survey studies, making causal infer-
ences impossible. Alves and Correia (2008,
2010a,2010b) suggested that BJW is valued for
its social function in enhancing productivity and
maintaining order and cohesion. Indeed, people
tend to affirm a BJW more skongly when
r!
C.L. Hafer and R. Sutton
attempting to convey a positive image to others
(e.g., Alves & Correia, 2008) and judge others
more favorably when they affirm, vs. deny, n
BJW (Alves & Correia, 2008, 2010a: see also
Testd, Maisonneuve, Assilam6hou, & Perrin,
2012). Thus, BJW may be uansmirted and main-
tained by communication processes because of
the social purposes that it serves.
More generally, societal-level factors may
be important determinants of BJW. Allen, Ng,
and Leiser (2005) found that BJW was stron-
ger among modernized and growing econo-
mies, and somewhat lower in countries that
were high in social capi[al (e.g., social ties and
cohesion). Furnham (1993) observed differ-
ences in BJW across l2 countries. These dif-
ferences were associated with variations in
power-distance norms, which are shared
beliefs that reify social hierarchy. This finding
provides evidence of a social determinant and
a social function of BfW-the need to justify
social inequality.
8.5 Summaryand Future
Directions
The study of individual differences in BfW has
continued to thrive since Rubin and Peplau,
inspired by Lerner's (1977) justice motive theory,
developed the Just World Scale in 1973. Early
critiques of the scale have spawned a number of
alternative instruments that are increasingly pop-
ular. The recent trend is toward multiple scales
assessing different forms of BJW. Personal vs.
general torms of BJW is clearly one fundamental
distinction. Other, less-researched distinctions
also show promise. Given the popularity of dual
process theories in psychology (Cawronski &
Creighton, 2013), we expect that a division
between implicit vs. explicit BIW (cf. Dalberr,
2001) will add to the roster in the future. Though
newer measures have helped refine the concept
of BJW, attempts to assess different forms of
BJW have tended to occur in isolation of one
another. Researchers should now begin to inte-
grate the forms of BJW into a coherent theoreti-
cal framework.
 6 Belief in a Just World
155

The overall concept of BIW has been well and injustice,

. social learning, and so on. Relevant
validated by studies of correlates. First, BfW future research should
include longitudinal
shows logical associations with presumed conse- designs that address developmental proc-esses,
as
quences of BJW, though research has focussed on well as tests of multiple pathways to individual
reactions to victims, neglecting implications of differences in BJW.
BfW for reactions to advantaged members of In summary, there have been several major
society. Second, BJW is conceptually and empiri- advances in research on BJW over the past 40
cally distinct from related individual differences. years. Yet, more work is needed. Given the
current
More research, however, should explore reasons momentum in the field of BfW, we expect that
for differential prediction by various forms of the next decade will be an exciting time in which
BfW. Such research will encourage theoretical researchers will considerably deepen our under_
integration of different forms of BfW. standing of the nature, foundations, and conse_
Research on the significance of BJW in peo_ quences ofBJW
ple's lives suggests that, overall, BJW beneflts
the self. Investigation of physical health benefits
of BJW is a promising avenue for further References
researcho given recent attention to the link
between poor health and perceived unfairness Adoric, V. C., & Kvartuc, T. (2007).Effects of mobbing
(e.g., Jackson, Kubzansky, & Wright,2006). The
' on justice beliefs and adjustment.
Europ"an
benefits vs. costs of BIW to society are more Psychologist, I 2, 261-21 l.
Agrawal, M., &
Dalal, A. K. (1993). Beliefs abour the
ambiguous. Certain forms of BJW seem to align world and recovery from myocardial infarction.
with benefits, and other forms with costs: mus, it JournalofSocial psychology, I33,395-394.
..
is theoretically possible to reap some of the ben_ Allen, M. W., Ng, S., & Leiser, D. (2005). Adulteconomic
efits of BfW while avoiding its pitfalls (Suton & model and values survey: Cross_national differences
in economic beliefs. Journal of Economic psychology,
Douglas, 2005), a prospect that could be exam- 26,159_185.
ined in further research. Overall, distinguishing Almeida, A., Correia, I., & Marinho, S. (2010). Moral
dis_
between various forms of BJW or ways oi b"U"r_ engagement, normative beliefs ofpeer group, and atti_
ing in a just world is crucial in studying the rela_ tudes regarding roles in bullying. Journal of School
Volence, 9,23-36.
tion between BJW and various criteria, In doino Alves, H., & Correia, I. (200g). On the normativity of
so, it is important to control or" fo.r., Sffi expressing the belief in a just world: Empirical evi_
while examining the other. For example, since "f dence. Social Justice Research, 2 l, 106_llg.
personal and general BJW are inherently Alves, H., & Correia, I.
(2010a). personal and general
corre_ belief in a just world as judgeme ntnorms.Intemitional
lated, both should be measured, and their unique
Journal of P sycho lo gy, 45, Z2L-23 l.
effects interpreted. Unless the closely relaied Alves, H., & Correia, I. (2010b). The sfategic expression
form of BfW is accounted for, researchlrs might of personal belief in a just world. Eiropean
draw unwarranted conclusion, frorn tireu aat-a] P sycholo gist, I 5, 202-210.
Ambrosio, A. L., & Sheehan, E. p. (1990). Factor analysis
Regarding, the bases of BJW, there is little of the just world scale. Journal of Social psychollgy,
empirical or theoretical support for the notion 130,413415.
that individual differences in BJW reflecr Appelbaum, L.D. (2OOZ). Who deserves help? Students,
varia_
tion in the motive to believe in a just world opinions about the deservingness of different
$oups
described by Lerner (1977). yet,
living in Germany to receive aid. Social justie
many research_ Research, I5,201-225.
ers continue to equate individual differences in Appelbaum, L. D., Lennon, M. C., & Aber, J. L.
BIW with individual differences in the need (2006). When effort is rhreatening: The influence
to
believe in a just world. A review of the belief in a just world on Americans, attitudes
incorporating an-tipoverry pohcy. political psychology,
unpublished data that is nonsupportive !"1vild_
ofequiva_ 27,387-402.
lence might help end this Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims. H. p., Jr. (1993).
ongoing confusi,on in
the librature. More plausibt" Justice and organizational punishment: Anitudinal
Uuse, of individual oui-
differences comes of disciplinary events. Social Justice Research,
in BfW are exnerience with justice
6,39-67 .
 C.L. Hafer and R. Sutton
156

(2007)' Belief in a just world'

Bastounis, M., Leiser, D., & Roland-L6vy,
c. (2004). *
correia, I., & Dalbert, c'
*liil);",flr"#'io":f
Psychosocial variables involved in-the
constructions
*t:::"
schoors European rournat fi#,ti":;
or Psvchotosv or ,i
!ia

ffflffii?lJ['3:l?i:::XlJli::#1TJ:::"T
of Economic Psychotogy' 25i' iiu'otion' 22' 42143.. '
*
,i
national suley.Journal
C'i"A'{- *oalbert' C' (2008)' School bullying belief in
263-278. -"'"-p.r*"rl just world of bullies' victims' and defend-
ri
*
M,, &Minibas-poussard, J. (2012). Causal l
Bastounis,
t'orto Zi' f*opio'n'Psychologist' 13'248-254'
attributions of workplace gender equality' iust i., u
j' (2oo+l' netiet in a just world' sub- I
'1

belief, and the self/otner dlstinction. social

c*.i.,
Behavioi y.t]t,.
i
andPersonality,40,433452,itr.tivewell.beingandEustofyoungadults'In {
faith in.peopre: 'ii:i:y;',:*it:::l,Y:;;!"7";::!;;:"To':::"t:
,1

B.gue, L. (2002). Beriefs ln:*ti" and 'ti

"';;:"::,!i;,,)T#ilf,,,ffk;*"#T;:l?i'-iT,1 i
'.i

*"
^w: ,"g[s#*:,",*Y;:'*x;xr*;
f*" spheres of belief Co,lJr.'J-. V. ?iSgti Anotttet psvchometric evaluation of
82'
I
l

BEgue, L., & Bastounis, frn. iiOOli Reports'

in justice: Extensive support for the. bidimensio.nai
'iuiot tit lry yorld scale' Psychological
;*#I;il. or Personatitv,
,rl3X';r1]i3*rl;1,."1., a just worrd, weu-being. and
--toping
with'a1un'iust"fate' In L'*Montada
H+i"lrr.j",* & M' J'
Beierlein, C., Werner, C. S., Preiser, S',
& Wermuth' S' and belief
just-world beliefs compatible withjustitj- L"Jt".; Got.), 'R esponses to vicrtmizations
(2011). Are al-rosi' New York' NYI Plenum
u. u -ol- l''"'i"''
ing inequality? Collective political .tn.u.y Press'
'"'tatpp'
entot. Social Justice neseirch' 24'278-296'- . . pai""' c. (1999). The world is more iust for me than
p. (1991). Evidence "-^gt"ttaivt
Bierhoff, H. w., Klein, R., & Kramp, etout the oersonal belief in a just world
for the altruistic personality from data on-accid#
personality, 59,263-280. i"ur.'t raioitv' social Justice Research' 12'79-98'
research. Joumal of . . Dd;, c. tzotirl' The iustice motive as a personal
Moag, J. F."iifi;i. inieractional iustice: -
J., & life
Bies, R.
In R. J. I ewickj,, ,rroun": Dealing wiih chnll'ng's and critical
communication criteria of fairness. Nt* vo't' NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum'
(Eds')' n"'iii
B. H. Sheppard' A Nt' tr' s-"t*an ""'i''c-tzoo9)' Belief in a iust world' In M' R' Leary
on negotiation in orgo;irl;;n iv"i
r, pp. +:-sii.
J )' ourl.ti,
" - differ'
press. tn' H' Hoyle (EdsJ' Haidbook of individual
Greenwich, cr: JAI (pp' New York'
Birt, c. M., & Dion, r. i.irsszl. Relative
deprivation )n i, i, social behavio, 288-297)'

theory and responses io discrimination

in a gay rnale NY: Guilford Press'

and lesbian sampte. Briri;; Journal ,7 Srlirt Dalbert,C.,Fisch,U',&Montada'L'(1992)'Isinequality

Psychology,26,1,39_145,-unjustrEvaluatingwomen'scareerchances.Revue
E'i'opA"""' de Psichologie Appliquie' 42' ll-17 '
jef,ogian' A' M' (2012)' Belief in
Brzer,G.Y., Hart, J., & oulb"'t,'c', & Katona-sallai' H' ilssol' The "belief
in a
a just world -u ,".i.i'1"*""". "ri***", just in Hungary' Journal of cross'
Evidence for a mediational pathway
pr"oi.ting r,"!;- world" construct
individuTis Cultural Psvcholoet' 27'293-314'
tive attitudes *d d;;#;;;n ugui,.,*
patUert, C., Lipkus, t], SuUuy' H" & Goch' I' (2001)' A
with mental i*ness. persorz ality and. maiuii)i just.and an unjust world; Structure and validity of
dif-
Differences, 52,42g432, beliefs' Personality and Individaal
Differences in ferent world--
Calhoun, L' G', & Cann' A' (1994)'
u:"i*otriiiltt'nitlty and point of Dffirences' 30' 561-577 '
assumptions uUor,
134'765.jnl;' Daltert'
- C" Montada' L" & Schmitt' M' (1987)' Glaube
view.Journal of Social Psychology' Validierungskorrelate
Carels, R. A., Young, f' M', Wott' C'
B" Uarper' f" un"in"gt"chteweltalsMotiv:
just world: Validation cor-
fr^. zweier 5kalen [Belief in a
Gumble, ,q.., Wugn.rtffoU;r: il.' & Ctayton,^,L.' Beitrase' 2e'
two scaresl' Psvchotogische
(z,oos). inte,.nuri,io *.r#,iie;^.1*"lil*:t:f# :.j;:.;Ji justice
";:i;'n,wi:;ilr:::;::,5?:Hffij:nsao** Daiberr, c,
& umrauft, S (200e): rheroleof-the
of
motive in-"tonon''it decision making' Journal
B., Hafer, C. L', Crosby, F J" & Foster' M' D'
Choma, Economic Psvchologv' 30' 172-180'
(2012). Percepti"", ;f;;;;;ar *e* oisctiminaiion' c., & YamauJhi, L' A' (1994)' Belief in a
just
The role of betief in i iust world and .itrutioiai Dalbert,

ambiguitv. tou,noi" i:'io'ioi r'v'notosv"7'i)" ;::*':ll:'Xffif jilfit]Htffi:::lil"'ttrlii

24'
568-5 85.
R., & Marek,
p. of lpplied social Psvchologv'
g:yu:y:!**al
christopher, A. N., Zabel, K. L., Jones, J. 1612-1626'
(2008)' Protestant ethic ideology: tts multifaceted Davev' L' M" Bobocel' D' R'' Son Hing' L' s''
&za'ld0a'
o"til;;;;;
relationships wittriuiiw-o'rJttri;i" *otiur p. qSS)'-neference for the merit principle scale:
uuttoritu,iuJr*. f,i. (f
orientarion, and right-wing An individual difference measure of distributive
jus-
personality and Individial Differences, 45,4n;;. Research' 12'
Cohn, E. S., & Modecki, K' L' (200?)' Cenaet
OfferJnces tice -preferences' Social Justice

in predicting Otfinq'ltnt utttu'ioi: Do individual

dif- 223-240'
*tj,t;*:tn[:*'1,$tli;f;,t:i:l]"":""Y;ffii:,11
rerences *u,t",t soii'ii'i'"ii"*ap*'onotiit'"ii'
359-374.
 g Belief in a Just World
C. Dalbert & H. Sallay (Eds.), I&e justice motive in
ado I e s c e nc e and y oun g adultho o d : O ri g ins and c ons
quences (pp. 231-247). New York, NY: Routledge.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive jtntice: A social psychologi-
cal perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1987). Belief in a just world
and physical attractiveness stereotyping. Journal of
Pe r s onality and S o c ial P sy cholo gy, 5 2,'7 7 5 -7 80.
Diftmar, H,, & Dickinson, J. (1993). The perceived rela-
tionship between the belief in a just world and sociopo-
litical ideology. Social Justice Research, 6,257-272.
Donat, M., Umlauft, S., Dalbert, C., & Kamble, S. V.
(2012). Belief in a just world, teacher justice, and bul-
lying behavior. A ggressive Behavior; J8, 85-193.
Duckjn, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational
theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in expeimental social psychology CVol. 33,
pp. 4l-1 I 3). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Ebneter, D. S., Latner, L D., & O'Brien, K. S; (2011). Just
world beliefls, causal beliefs, and acquaintance:
Associations with stigma toward eating disorders and
obeslty. Personality and Individual Dffirences, 51,
618-622.
Ellard, J. H., & Bates, D. D. (1990). Evidence for the role
of the justice motive in status generalization pro-
cesses. Social Justice Research, 4, L15-134,
Ellard, J. H., Harvey, A., & Callan, M. i. (2016). The jus-
tice motive: History theory, and research. In
C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social
justice theory and research (pp.127-143). New York,
NY: Springer.
Fasel, R., & Spini, D. (2010). Effects of victimization on
the belief in a just world in four ex-Yugoslavian coun-
ties. Soc ial Justic e Re s e arch, 2 3, 17 -j 6.
Fatima, I., & Suhail, K. (2010). Belief in a just world and
subjective well-being: Mothers of normal and down
syndrome children. International Joumal of
P sycho lo gy, 4 5, 461468.
Fischer, A. R., & Holz, K. B. (2010). Testing a model
women's personal sense of justice, control, well-
being, and dishess in the context of sexist discrimina-
tion. Psychology of Women QuanerLy, i4,297_310.
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. Bririsft
- l ou mal of Educational P sychology, 80, I 83- 198.
Furnham, A. (1985). Just world Uel.iefs in an unjust soci-
ety: A cross-cultural comparison. European Journal of
Sr4inl Psychology, l'5,363-366.
-
t'urnham, A. ( I 993). Just world beliefs in twelve
societies.
The Journal of SociaL Psychology, 1jj,317-329.
^
nurnham, A. (1995). The just world, charirable giving
and
attitudes to disability. Personality and Individual
Difle rences. I 9. 577-583.
Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research
progess over the past decade. Personality and
Individual Dffirences, 34, jgs-glj.
^l'urnham. A., & Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world:
Reviep and critique of the individual diflerence lirerature.
Eritish Joumal of Sociat Psychology, 28,365-384.
l&
157
Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1992). Sphere-speciflc just
e - world beliefs and attitudes to AIDS. Human Relations,
45,265-280.
Gawronski, B., & Creighton, L. A. (2013). Dual-process
theories. In D. E. Carlston(Ed.),The Oxford. handbook
of social cognition (pp. 282-312). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Ghorpade, J., Lackritz, J., & Singh, G. (2006). Correlates
of the protestant ethic of hard work: Results from a
diverse ethno-religious sanple. Jounml of Applied
S oc ial P sy cholo gy, 3 6, 2449-247 3.
Gunter, B., & Wober, M. (1983). Television viewing and
public trust. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22,
174-176.
Hafer, C. L. (2000). Investment in long-term goals and
commitment to just means drive the need to believe in
a just world. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 1059-1073.
Hafer, C. L., & BEgue, L. (2005). Experimental research
on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and
future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 13l,
128-167.
Hafer, C. L., Bogaert, A. F., & McMullen, S. (2001).
Belief in a just world and condom use in a sample of
gay and bisexual mer. Jountal of Applied Social
Psychology, 3 I , 1892-1910.
Hafer, C. L., & Choma, B. L. (2009). Belief in a iust
world, perceived fairness, and justiflcation of the sta-
tus quo. In J. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.),
Social and psychological bases ofideology and system
justification (pp. 107-125). New York, NY: Oxford
Universiry Press.
Hafer, C. L., & Coney, B. L. (1999). Mediators of the
relation between beliefs in a just world and emotional
responses to negative outcomes. social Justice
Research, t2,189-204.
Hafer, C. L., & Gosse, L. (2010). Preserving the belief in
a just world: Wlen and for whom are different strate-
of gies preferred? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P.
Zmna, &J. M. Olson @ds.),The psychology of justice
and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vo1. 11,
pp.79-102). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (1989). Beliefs in a just world
and reactions to personal deprivation. Journal of
Pe rs on ality, 57, 7 99-823.
Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (1993); Beliefs in a just
world, discontent, and assertive actions by working
women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
19, 30-38.
Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (1998). Individual differences
in the belief in a just world and responses to personal
misfortune. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.),
Responses to victimizatiois and belief in a just world
(pp. 65-86). New,York, NY: Plenum Press.
Hagedoorn, M., Buunk, B. P.,& Van de Vliert, E. (2002).
Do just world believers process unfair authoritative
decisions differently? Applied Psychology: An
httemational Review, 51 , 126-145.
Hellman, C. M., Muilenburg-Trevino, E. M., & Worley, J. A.
(2008). The belief in a just world: An examination of
'158
reliability estimates affoss three measures. Journal oJ
Personality As ses sment, 90, 39940 l.
Henderson-King, D., Henderson-King' E., Bolea, B"
Koches, K., & Kauffman, A. (2004). Seeking under-
standing or sending bombs: Beliefs as predictors of
responses to terrorism. Peace andConflict: Journal of
1 0, 67 -84.
Peace P sychologY,
Hunt, M. O. (2000). Status, religion, and the "belief in a
just world": Comparing African Americans, Latinos,
and Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 81,325-343'
Jackson, B., Kubzansky, L. D., & Wright' R. J' (2006)'
Linking perceived unfairness to physical health: The
perceived unfairness model. Review of General
Psychology, 10,2140.
Jost, J. T. (2009). "Elective affinides": On the psychologi-
ca1 bases of left-right differences. Psychological
Inquiry, 20,129-141.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyp-
ing in system-justification and the production of false
consciousness. British Jounml of Social Psychology,
33, L-21 .
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005)' Antecedents and conse-
quences of
system-justifying ideologies' Cttrrent
i) i re c t io ns in al S c ie nc e, I 4, 260-265'
P sy cho I o g ic
Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S. 8., & Major, B. (2004). A prospec-
tive investigation of the relationship between just-
world beliefs and the desire for revenge after
September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15,
503-506.
Kamble, S. V., & Dalbert, C. (2012). Belief in a just world
and wellbeing in Indian schools. International Jountal
of Psychology, 47, 269-2'18.
Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Psychological resources
and attitudes toward people with physical disabilities'
J o um al of Ap pti e d S o c ial P sy chol o gy, 4 0, 389 401'
Kielcolt-Glaser, I. K., & Williams, D. A. (1987). Self-
blame, compliance, and distress among burn patients'
JoumaL of Personality and Social Psychology, 5j,
r8'7-193.
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2011). 'Protective donation' When
iefusing a request for a donation increases the sense of
rf
vulnerability. Joumal Experimental Social
P sychology, 47, 1059'1069.
Lambert, A. J., Burroughs, T., & Nguyen, T. (1999)'
Perceptions of risk and the buffering hypothesis: The
role ofjust world beliefs and right-wing authoritarian-
ism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
643-656.
Laurin, K., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Social
disadvantage and the seif-regulatory function of jus-
tice beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social
P sy cholo gy, I 00, 1 49-17 1.
Lemer, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as
to its origins atdforms. Joumal of Personality, 45,1-52'
Lerner, M. J. (1978). "Belief in a just world" versus the
"authoritarianism" syndrome... but nobody liked the
Indians. Ethnicity, 5, 229-237.
Lerner, M. i. ( 1980). The belief in a just world: A funda-
mental delusion New York, NY: Plenum Press'
C.L. Hafer and R. Sutton
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The socialpsychology
of procedural jusrice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary vali-
dation of a global belief in ajust world scale and the
exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in
a just world scale. Personality and Individual
Dffi renc e s, I 2, ll7 l-ll7 8'
Lipkus, L, & Bissonnette, V. L' (1996). Relationships
in a just world, willingness to accom-
among belief
modate, and marital well-being. Personality and
Social P sychology Bulletin, 22, 1043-1056.
Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The
importance of distinguishing the belief in ajust world
for self versus for others: Implications for psychologi-
cal well-being. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22,666417.
Lipkus, L M., & Siegler, I. C. (1993). The belief in a just
world and perceptions of disoriminatiort- Joumal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 127,
465474.
Lodewijkx, H. F. M., Kersten' G' L. E.' & van Zomeren,
M. (2008). Dual pathways to engage in 'silent
marches' against violence: Moral outrage, moral
cleansing and modes of identification. Joumal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18,
I53- I 67.
a just world: Support for inde-
Loo, R. (2002a). Belief in
pendent just world and unjust world dimensions.
Pe r s o nal ity and Indiv idaal D ffi renc e s, 3 3, 7 03-:7 | 1.
Loo, R. (2002b). A
psychometric and cross-national
examination of a belief in a just world scale. Journal
of Apptied Social Psychology, 32, 1396-1406.
Lucas, T., Alexander, S., Firestone, I., & LeBreton, J. M.
(2007). Development and initial validation of a proce-
dural and distributivejust world measure' Personaliry
and Indiv idual Differenc e s, 4 3,'l 7-82.
Lucas, T., Aiexander, S., Firestone, I., & LeBreton, J' M'
(2008). Just world beliefs, perceived sffess, and health
behavior: The impact of a procedurally just world.
P syclulogy & Health, 23, 849-865.
Lucas, T., Alexander, S., Firestone, I., & LeBreton, J. M.
(2009). Beliefin ajust world, social influence, and ill-
ness attributions: Evidence of a just world boomerang
effect. Joumal of Health Psychology, 14,258-266.
Lucas, T., Zhdanova, L., &
Alexander, S. (2011)'
Procedural and distributive justice beliefs for self and
othels. Joumal of hdividual Differences, 32, l+25'
Maes, J. (1998a). Eight stages in the development of
research on the construct of the belief in ajust *orld'
In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to
victimizations andbetief in a justworld(pp. 163-185)'
New York, NY: Plenum hess.
Maes, J. (1998b). Immanent justice and ultimate justice:
Two ways of believing in justice. In L. Montada &
M. J. Lemer (Eds.), Responses to victimizations atxd
belief in a just world (pp. 9-40). New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Maes, J., & Schmitt, M. (1999). More on ultimarc and
immanent justice: Results from the research project
 8 Belief in a Just World
"Justice as a problem within reunified Germany,'.
Social Justice Research, 12,6518.
Martin, T. A., & Cohn, E. S. (2004). Anitudes toward rhe
criminal legal system: Scale development and predic-
tors. Psychology, Crime & lnW 10,367-391.
McParland, J. L., & Knussen, C. (2010). Just world beliefs
moderate the relationship ofpain intensity and disabil-
ity with psychological distress in chronic pain support
group member s. Euro p e an J o untal of pain, I 4, 7 1-:7 6,
Mil1er, D. T. (1977). Altruism and threat ro a belief in a
jlstwotld. Joumal of Experimental Social psychology,
13, tt3-124.
Mohiyeddini, C., & Montada, L. (1998). BJW and self-
efficacy in coping with observed victimization:
Results from a study about unemployment. In
L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to vic-
timizations and belief in a just world (pp. 4l-54).
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Montada, L., & Schneider, A. (1989). Jusrice and emo-
tional reactions to the disadvantaged,. Social Justice
Research, 3,313-344.
Montada, L. (1998). Justice: Just a rational choice? Social
Justice Research, I 1, 81-l}l.
Ng, S. H., & Allen, M. W. (2005). Perception of economic
distributive justice: Exploring leading theories,,locial
e havior and Personality, 3 3, 435454.
B Political ideology, personaiity, and life satisfaction.
Nudelman, G. (2013). The belief in a just world and per-
sonality: A meta-analysis. Social Jusice Research,26,
105-1 I9.
Nudelman, G., & Shiloh, S. (2011). Who deserves to be
sick? An exploration of the relationships between
belief in a just world, illness causal attributions and
their fairness judgements. Psychology, Health &
Medicine, 16,675485.
O'Connor, W. E.. Morrison, T. G., Mcleod, L. D., &
Anderson, D. (1996). A meta-anal1tic review of therela-
tionship between gender and belief in a just world.
Journal of Social Behavior & personality, I 1,141_14g.
O'Connor, W E., Monison, T. G., & Mbrrison, M. A.
(1996). The reliability and factor structure of the
global belief in a just world scale. Journal of Social
P sy cholo gy, I 3 6, 667
-668.
Oldmeadow, J., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). System-justifying
ideologies moderate status competence stereotypei:
=
Roles for beliefin a just world and social dominance
orientation. European Joumal of Social psychalogy,
J7. I t35_l t48.
Olson, J. M., & Hafer, C. L. (2001). Tolerance ofpersonal
deprivation. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psy-
chology oflegitimacy: Emerging perspectives on iie-
ology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 157-175).
New York, NY: Cambridge University press.
^
Otto. K.. & Dalbert, C. (200i). Belief in just
a world and
its functions for young prisoners. Journal of Researclt
i n Pe rs onality,
39, 559-57 3.
Puikh. S. B., Poit, p., & Flo*".s,
C. (201 I ). Relationship
between a belief in a just world and social justicl
advocacy attitudes of school counselors. Couiseling
and Values, 56, 5i-72.
159
Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child
(M. Gabain, Trans.). New York, Ny: The Free press.
(Original work published 1932)
Reser, J. P., & Muncer, S. (2004). Sense-making in the
wake of September ltth: A network analysis of lay
understandings. British Journal of psychology, 95,
283_296.
Rubin,2., & Peplau, A. (1973). Belief in a just world and
reactions to another,s lot: A study ofparticipants in the
national draft lottery. Jountal of Social Issues, 29,
73-93.
Rubin,2., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a jusr
world? Joumal of Social Issues, 3 I, 65_g9,
Rtisch, N., Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Corrigan,
P. W. (2010). Do people with mental illness deserve
what they get? Links between meritocratic world_
views and implicit versus explicit stigma. European
Archiv e s of P sy chi atry & Clin ic al N e uro s c ie nc e,
26 0,
617-625.
Sakalli-Ugurlu, N,, Yalgrn, Z. 5., & Glick, p. (2007).
Ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and empa_
thy as predictors of Tukish shrdents, attitudes toward
rape victims. Sex Roles,5Z 889-895.
Schlenker, B. R., Chambers, J. R., & Le, B. M. (2OlZ).
Conservatives are happier than liberals, but why?
Journal of Research in PersonaLity, 46, l}1,-146.
Schmitt, M. J. (1998). Methodological strategies in
research to validate measures of belief in a jusi world.
In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to
victimizations and belief in a just world(pp.187_215).
New York, NY: Plenum press.
Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D.
(2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in
the personality space. European Journal ol
Psychological Assessment, 2 t , ZOZ-211.
Schrinpflug, U., & Bilz, L. (2004). Transmission of the
belief in a just world in the family. In C. Dalbert &
H. Sallay (Eds,), The justice motive ilt adolescence
and young aduhhood: Origins and consequences
(pp.43-63). New York, Ny Routledge.
Shorkey, C. T. (1980). Relationship between rational
thinking and belief in a just world. psychological
Reports,46, 16l-162.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An
intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression.
New York, NY: Cambridge University press.
Smith, K. B. (1985). Seeing justice in poverty: The belief
in a just world and ideas about inequalities.
Sociological Spectum, 5, 17*Zg.
Smith, L., Mao, S., Perkins, S., & Ampuero, M. (2011).
The relationship of clients' social class to early thera-
peutic impressions. Counselling psychology
Quarterly, 24, 15-27 .
Steensma, H., & van Dijke, R. (2005-06). Attributional
styles, self-esteem, and just world belief of victims of
bullying in Dutch organizations. Interuational
Quarterly of Community Health Education, 25,
381-392.
160
Stowers. D. A,, & Durm, M. W. ( 1998). Is belief in a just
worid rational ? P s yt'h o ct gic a I Rep on s. 83. 423426.
I and conelates of belief in the paranormal. Journal of
Strelan. P.. & Suuon. R. M. (201 l). When jusr-world
beliefs promote and when they inhibit tbrgiveness.
Pe rs ona litt, an d I ndi v idu al D iffe rc nc e s, 50, I 63-1 68.
Sutton. R. lvl., & Douglas. K. N{. (2005). Justice fbr all. or
just for me? More evidence of the importance of the
sell'-other disdnction in jusr-wor1d beiiefs. Pe rs o na li t t
artd I nd it, idu a L D iffe re n c e,s, 3 9. 6 -17
Sutton. R. M.. Douglas. K. M., Wilkin, K.. Elder. T. J..
Cole. J. M., & Stathi. S. (2008). Justice for whom.
exactly? Beliefs in justice for the self and various orh-
ers. Personali* and Stxial P.sv.hology Bulletin, 34,
528-541.
Sutton, R. M.. & Winnard . E. J. (2007). Seeing the future
through lenses ofjustice: The relevance ofjust-world
belief's to intentions and confidence in the future.
Briti.slt Jcturnal of Social Pstc.luilog1,, 46.649-666.
Taylor, S. E.. & Brown. G. (1988). lllusion and well-
being: A social psychological perspective on mental
health. Ps.vc*o/ o g i c a I B ul I e r h, I 0 3. 193 -21 0,
Testd, 8.. Maisonneuve, C,, Assilamdhou, Y.. & Perrin. S.
(2012). What is an "appropriate" migrant? Impact of
the adoption of meritocratic worldviews hy potential
nelvcomers on their perceived ability to integrate into
a Western society. Eurutpean Jr,,urual of Social
P s.tcho I t gv, 4 2. 261- )68.
r
clL Haf:: and ,: t:llon
Thalboume, M. A. ( 1995). Further studies of rhe measuremenr
the Atnerican Soc'ieq, .for Ps1t6!1irn1 Research, 89.
233-247.
Tomalia, J.. & Blascovich. J. (1994). Effecrs of.iustice treliets
on cognitive appraisal of and subjective, physiological.
and behavioral responses to potential stress..loumal 14
Pe rs onal i 4, an d S od a I P w c hokt g y, 67, 7 32-'7 40.
-645. White. K.. MacDonnell. R.. & Ellard, J. H. (2012). Belief
in a just world: Consumer intentions and behaviors
toward ethical products. Jounnl of Marketing, 76.
103-t 18.
Wu, M. S.. Sutton, R. M., Yan, X., Zhou, C,. Chen, y..
Zhu.2., & Han. B. (2013). Time frame and justice
motive: Future perspective moderates the adaptive
function of general belief in a just world. PLOS ONE.
8(11), e80668.
Wu. M. S., Yan, X.. Zhou, C.. Chen, Y., Li,l..Zhu.Z., ..
Han, B. (2011). General belief in a jusr world and
resilience: Evidence from a collectivistic culture.
Eu ro p e an J ou rn a I r t f Pe rx nalit1,, 2 5, 13 -442. 1
Xie. X., Liu. H., & Gan, Y. (201 I ). Betief in a just wortu
when encountering the 5/12 Wenchuan earthquak!..
Enyi ronnrcnt and Behavior: 4 3, 566-586.
Zuckerman, M. (1975). Belief in a just world and altruistj,
behavior. Jounr al of Personality and Social Psttcholog...
-11.972-976.