define just world hypothesis

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Sweepstakes
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

What Is the Just-World Phenomenon?

Blaming victims to rationalize why bad things happen

alfexe/Getty Images

Cause of Victim-Blaming
Explanations
Pros and Cons
How to Avoid

In psychology, the just-world phenomenon is the tendency to believe that the world is just and that people get what they deserve. Because people want to believe that the world is fair, they will look for ways to explain or rationalize away injustice, often blaming the person in a situation who is actually the victim.

Melvin J. Lerner proposed the just-world theory (also called the just-world hypothesis) in the 1960s. He noticed that people often thought of the world as fair and just in order to make sense of or cope with various injustices.

The just-world phenomenon helps explain why people sometimes blame victims for their own misfortune, even in situations where people have no control over the events that befall them.

At a Glance

The just world phenomenon explains why people often blame people for their own misfortunes. Rather than considering external factors and feeling empathy, we often leap to conclusions and try to make people "deserve" what's happened to them.

If you notice this tendency in yourself, becoming aware of it is the first step toward making a change.

Just-World Phenomenon and Victim-Blaming

The just-world theory suggests that when people do fall victim to misfortune, others tend to look for things that might explain their circumstances. In other words, people tend to look for something or someone to blame for unfortunate events.

But rather than simply attributing a bad turn of events to bad luck or forces beyond someone's control, people tend to look at the individual's behavior as a source of blame.

This belief also leads people to think that when good things happen to people it is because they are good and deserving of their happy fortune. People who are extremely fortunate are often seen as more deserving of their good luck.

Rather than attributing their success to luck or circumstance, people tend to ascribe their fortune to intrinsic characteristics of the individual. These people are often seen as being more intelligent and hard-working than less fortunate people.

Examples of the Just-World Phenomenon

A classic example of this tendency is found in the Bible's Book of Job. In the text, Job suffers a series of terrible calamities. At one point, his former friend suggests that Job must have done something terrible to have deserved his misfortunes.

Research has shown a strong link between the just-world viewpoint and religiosity.

More modern examples of the just-world phenomenon can be seen in many places. Victims of sexual assault are often blamed for their attack, as others suggest that it was the victim's own behavior that caused the assault.

Discrimination

Another example of the just-world phenomenon is when people blame the victims of hate crimes. For instance, in cases of police violence against Black individuals, some say there are just "a few bad apples" in the police force. But this denies the reality of the victim's experience and the role systemic racism plays in the violence.

Moral Judgements

The just-world phenomenon is also apparent in discrimination and moral judgment against people with HIV or AIDS. Some people believe that those living with HIV or AIDS do not deserve access to high-quality healthcare, for instance, because they are "to blame" for their illness.

People living in poverty often face prejudice and are blamed for their circumstances. If the world is fair, people living without adequate resources are simply not doing something right.

However, this outlook ignores the factors that contribute to poverty, including economic inequalities, lack of access to resources, and the effects of trauma and racism.

Explanations of the Just-World Phenomenon

So, why do people use the just-world phenomenon? There are a few different explanations that have been proposed for it:

Fear of Vulnerability

People do not like to think about being the victims of a violent crime. So when they hear about an event such as an assault or a rape, they may try to assign blame for the event to the victim's behavior.

Essentially, the just world phenomenon allows people to believe they can avoid being victims of crime by these behaviors. They mistakenly believe that they can protect themselves from becoming victims by avoiding the behaviors they blame for causing the events.

A Desire to Minimize Anxiety

Another possible explanation for the just-world phenomenon is that people want to reduce the anxiety that is caused by the world's injustices. Believing that the individual is completely responsible for their misfortune, people are able to go on believing that the world is fair and just.

Pros and Cons of the Just-Word Phenomenon

The just world phenomenon causes problems and distortions, but it can also provide some benefits.

The just-world phenomenon does have some benefits. Like other types of cognitive bias , this phenomenon:

Protects self-esteem
Helps control fear
Allows people to remain optimistic about the world

Obviously, this tendency also has some major downsides. By blaming victims, people fail to see how the situation and other variables contributed to another person's misfortunes.

Additionally, research has shown a link between belief in the just-world theory and dishonest behavior.

Instead of expressing empathy , the just-world phenomenon sometimes causes people to be disinterested or even scorn troubled individuals.

How to Avoid the Just-World Phenomenon

While it's beneficial to be optimistic about the world around you, there are times when the just-world phenomenon might prevent you from seeing reality. These are some tips to help avoid the just-world phenomenon:

Practice Empathy

Instead of stewing in anger or irritation about someone else's situation, try having compassion for what they're going through. Understanding others' emotions may actually lower your own stress levels as well.

Avoid Victim-Blaming

Victim-blaming is something many of us do without realizing it. But remember, only the perpetrator of a crime is responsible for their actions. There are also many external factors that contribute to homelessness and poverty, for instance.

Don't assume you know why negative things happen to someone.

Learn About Social Injustice

By educating yourself on social inequalities, you'll find that people are subjected to harsh realities every day. Our biases and prejudices can keep us from seeing the truth.

When you find yourself judging someone's situation, ask yourself if your outlook is affected by racism, sexism, ageism , or discrimination of any kind .

Consider the Source

When you hear a story on the news, asking yourself some of the following questions can shift your perspective: Whose story is being told? Am I hearing more than one perspective or only one person's viewpoints? Is it possible I'm not hearing the full story or all of the details?

Explore Your Emotions

Underneath your judgment of someone else's circumstance, you might find fear and anxiety because you worry that what happened to them can happen to you, too. Process your emotions and be gentle with yourself.

It isn't easy to face the fact that the world can be an unfair place. But by doing so, you'll be able to show more kindness to others and even to yourself when negative things happen.

What This Means For You

The just world phenomenon might explain why people sometimes fail to help or feel compassion for people who are unhoused, people experiencing addiction, or victims of violence. By blaming them for their own misfortunes, people protect their view of the world as a safe and fair place, but at a significant cost to those in need.

This cognitive bias can be challenging to overcome, but awareness can help. When making attributions, focus on looking at all elements of the situation. This includes accounting for a person's behavior and things such as environmental factors, societal pressures, and cultural expectations.

APA Dictionary of Psychology. Just-world hypothesis . American Psychological Association.

Wenzel K, Schindler S, Reinhard MA. General belief in a just world is positively associated with dishonest behavior . Front Psychol . 2017;8:1770. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01770

Fox CL, Elder T, Gater J, Johnson E. The association between adolescents' beliefs in a just world and their attitudes to victims of bullying . Br J Educ Psychol . 2010;80(Pt 2):183-98. doi:10.1348/000709909X479105

Kaplan H. Belief in a just world, religiosity and victim blaming . Arch Psychol Relig . 2012:34(3):397-409. doi:10.1163/15736121-12341246

Sullivan AC, Ong ACH, La Macchia ST, et al. The impact of unpunished hate crimes: When derogating the victim extends into derogating the group . Soc Just Res. 2016;29:310–330. doi:10.1007/s11211-016-0266-x

Kontomanolis EN, Michalopoulos S, Gkasdaris G, Fasoulakis Z. The social stigma of HIV-AIDS: society's role . HIV AIDS (Auckl) . 2017;9:111-118. doi:10.2147/HIV.S129992

Kimera E, Vindevogel S, Reynaert D, et al. Experiences and effects of HIV-related stigma among youth living with HIV/AIDS in Western Uganda: A photovoice study . Taggart T, ed. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):e0232359. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232359

Shildrick T, MacDonald R. Poverty talk: How people experiencing poverty deny their poverty and why they blame ‘the poor .' Sociol Rev. 2013;61(2):285-303. doi:10.1111/1467-954x.12018

Nartova-Bochaver S, Donat M, Rüprich C. Subjective well-being from a just-world perspective: A multi-dimensional approach in a student sample . Front Psychol . 2019;10:1739. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01739

Tollenaar MS, Overgaauw S. Empathy and mentalizing abilities in relation to psychosocial stress in healthy adult men and women . Heliyon . 2020;6(8):e04488. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04488

Suarez E, Gadalla TM. Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths . J Interpers Violence. 2010;25(11):2010-2035. doi:10.1177/0886260509354503

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Effectiviology

The Just-World Hypothesis: Believing That Everyone Gets What They Deserve

The just-world hypothesis is the mistaken belief that actions always lead to morally fair consequences, so good people are rewarded and bad people are punished. For example, a person is displaying the just-world hypothesis when they assume that if someone experienced a tragic misfortune, then they must have done something to deserve it.

The just-world hypothesis is also called the just-world fallacy , just-world bias , just-world thinking , and belief in a just-world ( BJW ).

This cognitive bias can affect people’s thoughts and actions in many domains, so it’s important to understand it. As such, in the following article you will learn more about the just-world hypothesis, understand why people display it, and see what you can do to account for this phenomenon in practice.

Examples of the just-world hypothesis

An example of the just-world hypothesis is the belief that if someone had something bad happen to them, then they must have done something wrong to deserve it . For instance, if someone is struggling with a rare disease, then they must have done something evil for which they are now being punished.

Beliefs like this are associated with the tendency to blame victims of illness , abuse , and assault for their suffering. They’re also associated with negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups, like poor people experiencing discrimination, and are used to justify the status quo in unequal societies.

Another example of the just-world hypothesis is the belief that if someone had something fortunate happen to them, then they must have done something morally good previously to deserve it. For instance, if someone’s investment earned a lot of money, then it must be because they’re a good person who’s now being rewarded.

Beliefs like this can lead people to admire those they perceive as successful, like political leaders and existing social institutions.

Just-world thinking is also reflected to varying degrees in a number of idioms, like “what goes around comes around”, “everything happens for a reason”, “you get what you give”, “everyone gets what they deserve”, and “you reap what you sow”.

Lerner’s experiments

The scientific formalization of the just-world hypothesis is attributed to Professor Melvin J. Lerner, who discovered evidence for it in the 1960s.

In the first of his studies on the topic , people observed a pair of workers who were trying to complete a certain task. The observers were told that one of the workers was selected at random to receive a sizable monetary reward for his efforts, while the other worker was selected, also at random, to receive nothing. The observers were also told that the workers were ignorant of this random selection process, and that both had agreed to do their best on the task.

However, once the task was completed and the payoff delivered to the lucky worker, the observers tended to persuade themselves that the worker who received the money did so because he earned it, rather than because he was chosen by chance.

In another study , students observed a supposed peer who was participating in a learning task. The peer, who served as the victim in the experiment, appeared to receive painful electric shocks as punishment for making errors in the task.

When describing the suffering victim after watching her perform the task, the observers tended to reject and devalue her, by saying that she deserved what was happening. This happened in cases where they were led to believe that they would continue to see her suffer in another session, and in cases where they felt powerless to alter her fate.

Furthermore, the tendency to reject and devalue the victim was strongest when the victim was viewed as suffering for the sake of the observers. This “martyr” condition occurred when observers were led to believe that the victim only agreed to continue the experiment so that they could earn their course credits.

Psychology and causes of the just-world hypothesis

The just-world hypothesis is used by people to justify many of the positive and negative outcomes that they and others experience, by suggesting that there must be a direct, absolute, and moral-based link between those outcomes and people’s actions. This belief can influence people’s thinking even when it’s contradicted by evidence showing that there’s no link between the morality of someone’s actions and the outcomes they experience.

Accordingly, just-world thinking represents a flaw in causal attribution , since it involves assuming that the morality of people and their actions necessarily determines associated outcomes, even though that’s not the case.

Beyond general issues in judgment and decision-making that can lead to flawed causal reasoning, like the tendency to rely on mental shortcuts ( heuristics ), there are some specific reasons why people may be motivated to believe in a just world:

It can help them cope with everyday struggles. For example, it can help people feel that others who treat them poorly will eventually be punished for it.
It can help them cope with existential issues. For example, it can help people feel that their actions have meaning , and provide them with a sense of purpose in life, while also helping them deal with things like fear of death.
It can help them feel in control. For example, it can make people feel less vulnerable to tragedies that hurt others, by convincing them that there’s a certain way to avoid those tragedies.

Accordingly, belief in a just world can help people feel safe, in control, and optimistic, and can lead to positive outcomes , in terms of factors like people’s mental health , emotional wellbeing , and life satisfaction . In addition, this belief can also encourage various forms of positive behaviors, like pursuing long-term goals and acting in a prosocial way by charitably helping others . However, this belief can also be detrimental , for example if someone believes that it’s their fault that something happened to them, even if that’s not the case.

Various personal factors—like ethnicity , religion , and personality — affect the likelihood that people will display just-world beliefs, and the degree to which they will display them. Similarly, various situational factors can also play a role in this; for example, social support can increase belief in a just world, while experiencing negative life events (e.g., traumatic bullying ) can decrease it , and being in a bad mood increases people’s tendency to blame innocent victims .

In addition, people can also use the just-world fallacy in their arguments for rhetorical purposes , even if they don’t actually believe it. For example, someone might argue against a certain group by saying that if they’re struggling financially then it must be entirely their fault, even if the person saying this knows that this argument is false.

Types of just-world beliefs

There are several types of just-world beliefs, which are categorized based on several criteria :

Intrapersonal / interpersonal bias. An intrapersonal bias is the expectation of a just world with regard to yourself (e.g., “I’ll get what I deserve”), while an interpersonal bias is the expectation of a just world with regard to someone else (e.g., “they’ll get what they deserve”). There’s also an associated distinction between personal belief in a just world (“I get what I deserve”), and a general belief in a just world (“people get what they deserve”).
Retrospective/prospective bias. A retrospective bias is the expectation of a just world with regard to past events (e.g., “you got what you deserved”), while a prospective bias is the expectation of a just world with regard to future events (e.g., “you will get what you deserve”).
Positive/negative bias . A positive bias is the expectation of a just world with regard to positive actions (e.g., “this good deed will be rewarded”), while a negative bias is the expectation of a just world with regard to negative actions (e.g., “this evil deed will be punished”).

People can be prone to different types of just-world beliefs, in an asymmetric manner . For example, some people might display these beliefs only toward themselves or only toward others. However, the different types of just-world beliefs are associated , so people who display one type of this belief are also more likely to display others .

Differences in these beliefs can affect people’s behavior in different ways . For example, belief in a just world for others can reduce the likelihood that people will donate to a street beggar in situations, whereas belief in a just world for the self can do the opposite .

Just-world beliefs and religion

Just-world thinking often occurs as a result of an underlying belief in a divine or supernatural force that is responsible for justice and moral balance in the world. This belief can be either conscious or unconscious, and a conscious belief in a just world is an integral part of many religions.

This type of belief is often operationalized through concepts like karma , a form of spiritual medium through which an individual’s actions influence their future. Good deeds contribute to positive karma, which brings happiness and success, while bad deeds contribute to negative karma, which brings suffering and misery.

Contrasting beliefs

Belief in a random world.

Belief in a random world is the expectation that there’s no consistent relationship between the morality of behaviors and the quality of associated outcomes , so people sometimes don’t get what they deserve or get what they don’t deserve . Essentially, this belief assumes that good/bad deeds don’t have an inherent association with rewards/punishments.

This belief is sometimes also referred to as belief in an unjust world , though this term can also have a different meaning.

Belief in an unjust world

Belief in an unjust world reflects the expectation that there’s a reverse link between the morality of behaviors and the quality of associated outcomes , so good deeds are punished while bad deeds are rewarded . Essentially, this belief assumes that people get the opposite of what they deserve.

However, this term is sometimes also used to refer to belief in a random world.

How to deal with just-world thinking

There are several things you can do to reduce biased just-world thinking:

Assess the causality. For example, try to explicitly explain how a certain behavior could have caused a bad outcome for someone. This might help you see that there’s no reasonable causal relation between that behavior and the outcome.
Consider alternative hypotheses. For example, try to come up with alternative explanations for why someone experienced a certain outcome, without relying on the morality of their behavior. You can also ask yourself how likely those explanations are, especially compared to the explanation supported by just-world thinking.
Consider counter-examples. For example, consider a situation where someone else acted in a morally similar way, but experienced a very different outcome. The goal of this is to identify relevant cases where people were not influenced by their actions as would be expected based on the just-world hypothesis, to understand the issues with it.
Change the frame. For example, if you’re assuming that a certain misfortune someone is experiencing was necessarily their fault, consider how you would feel if someone displayed the same type of thinking toward a similar misfortune that you experienced .
Address the causes of the bias. For example, if you realize that you’re engaging in just-world thinking because you want to feel more in control of your situation, acknowledge this, and try finding other ways to feel in control, such as identifying ways you can overcome potential obstacles.
Use general debiasing techniques . For example, you can take the time to slow down your reasoning process, so you can rely on more analytical reasoning .

You can use these techniques to address any of the following:

Your own bias toward your own outcomes.
Your own bias toward other people’s outcomes.
Other people’s bias toward their own outcomes.
Other people’s bias toward other people’s outcomes.

You can adapt the specific approach that you use based on the specific form of the just-world bias that you’re trying to address. For example, when reducing your own bias toward others (e.g., your expectation that if someone is suffering then it must be their fault), you can focus on counter-examples from your past, which might help you empathize with the people this bias is being displayed toward. Conversely, if you’re trying to reduce someone else’s bias toward others in a similar situation, you can focus on counter-examples from that person’s past.

When dealing with this bias, remember that completely ignoring the link between actions and consequences can also be problematic. For example, this happens when people wrongly attribute their failures to factors outside their control in order to defend their ego, which can prevent them from learning from their mistakes. This is particularly an issue when the morality of people’s actions did influence their outcomes, through mechanisms like social punishment from people who disapproved of it.

Finally, in cases where you don’t try to reduce this bias directly, it can still be useful to account for it, in order to understand and predict people’s behavior. For example, accounting for this bias can help you predict that someone will blame others for misfortunes that those people aren’t actually responsible for, because this person wants to feel better about their own situation.

Summary and conclusions

The just-world hypothesis is the mistaken belief that actions always lead to morally fair consequences, so good people are rewarded and bad people are punished.
People can display this bias toward themselves or others, toward past or future events, and toward good or bad outcomes.
This reasoning can help people cope with struggles and feel in control, and is associated with various positive outcomes, like improved emotional wellbeing and increased prosocial behavior.
This reasoning can also lead to various issues, like incorrectly blaming victims for misfortunes that they’re not responsible for.
To reduce this bias, you can do things like show that people’s behavior couldn’t have affected a specific outcome they experienced, consider alternative explanations for what happened, and identify relevant counter-examples.

Why do we believe that we get what we deserve?

Just-world hypothesis, what is the just-world hypothesis.

The just-world hypothesis refers to our belief that the world is fair, and consequently, that the moral standings of our actions will determine our outcomes. This viewpoint causes us to believe that those who do good will be rewarded, and those who exhibit negative behaviors will be punished.

Where it occurs

Imagine that it is a Friday evening and you and your friends are leaving your favorite restaurant. Spirits are high as you walk back to the side street where you parked your cars. Your friend Paul’s lively demeanor quickly changes as his car comes into view with the passenger door wide open. He runs to assess the damage, finding that his car radio and laptop have been stolen. You console Paul and ask how this could have happened, and he says he has no idea. You continue to comfort your friend, but you can’t help but feel that he must have left his doors unlocked and laptop in plain sight. You start to think about how Paul is always so absent-minded and maybe needed a bit of a wake-up call.

Here we can see how the just-world hypothesis can shape our perception. You assume that what goes around comes around, and thus, rationalize Paul’s misfortune as a consequence of his negative actions or characteristics. You even distort your perception of Paul to find a reason that he was robbed instead of you.

Related Biases

Illusion of Control
Cognitive Dissonance

Individual effects

On an individual level, there are ups and downs to the just-world hypothesis (also referred to as the just-world bias or just-world fallacy ). Belief in a just world can motivate us to act with morality and integrity, which is commonly thought of as ‘keeping good karma’. However, the world is not always as righteous as we would hope. By holding tightly to the just-world hypothesis in the face of injustice, we are susceptible to making inaccurate conclusions and judgments about the world around us. UCLA social psychologists Zick Rubin and Letitia Ann Peplau aptly state, “People often exert tremendous effort in order to help right social wrongs and thus help restore justice in the world. At other times, however, people’s desire to live in a just world leads not to justice but to justification”. 1 The firm belief in a just world yields a cognitive bias and can result in us justifying a person’s suffering through painting them negatively or minimizing their suffering altogether.

Let’s look at how this could apply in our everyday lives. For example, we might look at someone with a low-paying job and assume they are less hard-working than someone deemed more successful. Our judgments may ignore socioeconomic barriers that this person may face, as well as the long, hard hours they may work. We create these false narratives to protect our world theory. We want to believe that the world is fair and if you work hard you will get ahead, It can be easier to label someone as lazy or unmotivated rather than admit that the world can be unfair.

We can see in this example how this outlook is also driven by the fundamental attribution error , which refers to our tendency to focus on people’s traits rather than situational factors. This causes us to assume that those who deserve success will achieve it, but forget that the playing field is not always even.

Systemic effects

The way we decide what deserves punishment and what merits reward dictates how we see the world. This outlook, shared by most people to varying degrees, has significant effects on political and legal outcomes. Individual variances in the cognitive strength of the just-world hypothesis (how much we believe that the world is truly just) and response to apparent injustices (i.e. rationalizing, ignoring, or intervening) are echoed in political opinions, especially regarding attitudes towards political leaders, attitudes towards victims, and attitudes towards social activism. Research by Rubin and Pelau showed an inverse correlation between the just-world hypothesis and social activism. 1 If you believe the world is fair as it is, you will be less likely to take action and fight for change.

Why it happens

We are socialized to believe that good is always rewarded and evil is punished. From early childhood, we read stories of courageous heroes saving the day and being rewarded with keys to the city, while villains are slain or banished. In these stories, the characters always reap what they sow. Rubin and Peplau cite research in childhood development, stating that we develop this sense of justice expected to be inherent in the world relatively early on. 2

As humans, we are often faced with an overwhelming amount of information. To make sense of our surroundings, we construct cognitive frameworks to guide our decision-making and predict outcomes. The just-world hypothesis serves as one of these frameworks, creating an understanding of positive and negative occurrences by attributing them to a larger karmic cycle.

Belief in a just world creates a seemingly predictable environment

Social psychologist and pioneer of just world research, Dr. Melvin J Lerner, describes how the just-world hypothesis installs an image of a “manageable and predictable world [which are] central to the ability to engage in long-term goal-directed activity”. 3 Basically, we are more likely to work towards our goals if we feel like we can predict the result. Also, studies have shown that viewing the world as predictable and fair also protects people from helplessness, which is detrimental to human psychological and physical well-being. 4

We often avoid or distort information that challenges our cognitive framework

When we feel physically uncomfortable, it is almost second nature to do whatever it takes to put ourselves at ease. This happens mentally too. We can all probably relate to the feeling of discomfort when our beliefs are challenged or we are proved wrong. Sometimes this can cause us to get defensive or find ways to invalidate opposing information. Social psychologist Leon Festinger coined this phenomenon as cognitive dissonance , stating that, “ if a person knows various things that are not psychologically consistent with one another, he will, in a variety of ways, try to make them more consistent” 5 . The just-world hypothesis causes mental distortions in order to cope with the apparent inconsistencies of the world.

Why it is important

How strongly the just-world hypothesis manifests in us can truly shape our entire understanding of the world. It changes our perception of others. It creates certain expectations for ourselves. The desire for justice is not the same as the belief that the world is just. To create social change, we must have the clarity to see where a situation may be unfair or take the time to truly understand someone’s circumstances before casting judgment. The just-world hypothesis can create harmful and delusional modes of thinking with serious consequences socially, politically, and legally.

How to avoid it

Lauded behavioral scientists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky propose two disparate modes of thinking 6 . System 1 refers to our knee-jerk responses, our quickly-made judgments, our emotional reactions. System 2 refers to a slower, more rational, more calculated thinking process. Many of our biases are elicited through System 1 thinking , including the just-world hypothesis.

By understanding the two systems of thinking, we are better equipped to resist biases

Understanding the dual-processing mode of thinking can help us consciously hone in on the more analytic, System 2 type of thinking. A survey of various debiasing techniques found that they all shared a common thread of deliberately moving from System 1 thinking to System 2. 7 Slowing down the process by which we make our judgments and considering all of the information at hand allows us to make better decisions.

With the just-world hypothesis, System 2 thinking means taking a step back to prevent ourselves from making distorted assessments. Sometimes after looking at the full picture we will still support our initial conclusion. Maybe we still feel that the punishment or reward at hand was warranted, and that is okay too. Working on de-biasing the just-world hypothesis does not mean telling ourselves that the world is never just. What we want to open our minds to is a new way of dealing with cognitive dissonance instead of always taking the easiest route. By simply using System 2 thinking, we can think critically, rather than instinctually. This will allow us to clearly see injustices and better prepare ourselves and the world around us to combat them.

So how do we slow down and start using System 2 thinking? Well, the answer to this is less clear-cut. Just like when we are learning a new physical skill, building positive mental practices takes time and repetition. We now know what the just-world hypothesis is and how it happens, so we can be more aware of it in ourselves. At first, we might retroactively realize when we are thinking in a biased manner, per se making a quick judgment about someone. Through examining our intuitive judgments and looking at the larger picture, we can cultivate proactive System 2 thinking.

We can fight victim-blaming tendencies by cultivating empathy

One tool we can use to combat the negative attitudes towards victims sometimes unknowingly yielded by the just-world hypothesis is empathy. In one experiment led by researchers Aderman, Brehm, and Katz from Duke University, participants were asked to watch a video of a woman receiving electric shocks based on her performance in a learning task. 8 Before watching this tape, participants were either asked to imagine themselves in the scenario or just asked to simply watch the woman in the tape. Those who were in the empathy-inducing group were much less likely to derogate the victim, demonstrating less influence of the just-world hypothesis. So, if we can remember to think critically rather than instinctually, and put ourselves in the shoes of others, we can more accurately assess the situation.

How it all started

Dr. Melvin J Lerner was the first to explicitly define and research the just-world hypothesis. Lerner was doing his postdoctoral work in clinical psychology at a major mental institution when he discovered an interest in the phenomena. 9 He worked alongside psychologists and therapists as they cared for patients and assessed if the patients were ready to be reintegrated into society. Yet, he noticed an unsettling pattern in the attitudes of the workers towards their patients. He saw these medical professionals relentlessly cross-examining patients in therapy sessions, which caused emotional distress, and he would hear them talking about patients in an incredibly derogatory manner.

After watching these strange behaviors elicited by otherwise compassionate and intelligent people, Lerner came to an interesting conclusion. Lerner found that the psychologists and therapists’ demeaning attitude towards patients functioned as a defense mechanism against feeling the patients were helpless. It also allowed them to cope with the patients’ suffering. From these observations and additional experimental research, Lerner formulated the just-world hypothesis as a way of “making sense of how people make sense of the world”.

Example 1 - Reactions to luck

In one study by Rubin and Peplau, participants’ responses to drawings of the National Draft Lottery for the Vietnam War were recorded and analyzed. 10 Groups of drafted men were asked to listen to the live broadcast in which their lottery numbers were assigned either high priority or low priority. Those with high priority lottery numbers were more likely to be inducted and face a more dangerous fate than those with low priority numbers. The drawings were entirely random, thus, no predetermining factors indicated the mens’ outcomes.

They found that for the most part participants acted with sympathy towards those with a high priority drawing. However, the results differed in those who scored highly for the just-world hypothesis. These participants had more resentment for the losers (those who received a high priority number and were more likely to be sent into war), even though the losers were entirely victims of circumstance . The researchers suggested that this resentment was yielded by the need to “justify an underlying moral order”.

Example 2 - Perceptions of leaders

In a 1973 study at UCLA, Peplau investigated how the just-world hypothesis influenced political attitudes. 11 They found that high scores in belief in a just world indicated higher approval ratings for major political institutions, such as the “US Congress, Supreme Court, military, big business, and labor unions”.

Incidentally, this study took place during the Watergate Scandal, where the Nixon administration was accused of organizing a break-in to the Democratic National Committee office. The researchers ended up finding that participants scoring highly on a measure for strength of the just-world hypothesis were less likely to believe that President Nixon was guilty. These participants associated such high levels of success with a strong character and moral compass, thus, they did not believe that Nixon was capable of such deceptive acts.

The just-world hypothesis refers to the belief that the world is fair and how morally we act will determine our outcomes. With the just-world hypothesis comes a tendency to rationalize information around us to fit this belief.

For us, a just world is a predictable world; we expect a reward when we work hard and we expect punishment for wrongdoings. The just-world hypothesis is a lens for understanding the world around us that provides stability. So when we are faced with a situation that seems unjust, this results in cognitive dissonance between our beliefs about the world and reality. We mitigate this dissonance by finding ways to justify the injustice.

Example 1 – How the just-world hypothesis changes our reaction to situations of luck

In a study done on the drawing of priority numbers for men drafted into the Vietnam War, men with high scores for the just-world hypothesis were more likely to have negative feelings towards those who had a higher chance of being sent to war.

Example 2 – How the just-world hypothesis can skew our perception of leaders

Those who have a strong belief in a just world may have higher approval for political leaders due to the assumption that you achieve success through high merit and moral strength. In a study surveying political attitudes during the Watergate Scandal, the participants with high scores for the just-world hypothesis were more likely to deny Nixon’s guilt.

We can learn to avoid judgments clouded by the just-world hypothesis by moving from System 1 thinking (quickly made, intuitive responses) to System 2 (slower, analytical processing). Additionally, we can visualize ourselves in someone else’s position to encourage empathy and prevent victim-blaming.

Case studies

From insight to impact: our success stories, is there a problem we can help with.

Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who Believes in a Just World? Journal of Social Issues , 31 (3), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World . Springer US.

About the Authors

A man in a blue, striped shirt smiles while standing indoors, surrounded by green plants and modern office decor.

Dan is a Co-Founder and Managing Director at The Decision Lab. He is a bestselling author of Intention - a book he wrote with Wiley on the mindful application of behavioral science in organizations. Dan has a background in organizational decision making, with a BComm in Decision & Information Systems from McGill University. He has worked on enterprise-level behavioral architecture at TD Securities and BMO Capital Markets, where he advised management on the implementation of systems processing billions of dollars per week. Driven by an appetite for the latest in technology, Dan created a course on business intelligence and lectured at McGill University, and has applied behavioral science to topics such as augmented and virtual reality.

A smiling man stands in an office, wearing a dark blazer and black shirt, with plants and glass-walled rooms in the background.

Dr. Sekoul Krastev

Sekoul is a Co-Founder and Managing Director at The Decision Lab. He is a bestselling author of Intention - a book he wrote with Wiley on the mindful application of behavioral science in organizations. A decision scientist with a PhD in Decision Neuroscience from McGill University, Sekoul's work has been featured in peer-reviewed journals and has been presented at conferences around the world. Sekoul previously advised management on innovation and engagement strategy at The Boston Consulting Group as well as on online media strategy at Google. He has a deep interest in the applications of behavioral science to new technology and has published on these topics in places such as the Huffington Post and Strategy & Business.

We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy

Our insights are leveraged by the most ambitious organizations.

I was blown away with their application and translation of behavioral science into practice. They took a very complex ecosystem and created a series of interventions using an innovative mix of the latest research and creative client co-creation. I was so impressed at the final product they created, which was hugely comprehensive despite the large scope of the client being of the world's most far-reaching and best known consumer brands. I'm excited to see what we can create together in the future.

Heather McKee

BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST

GLOBAL COFFEEHOUSE CHAIN PROJECT

OUR CLIENT SUCCESS

Annual revenue increase.

By launching a behavioral science practice at the core of the organization, we helped one of the largest insurers in North America realize $30M increase in annual revenue .

Increase in Monthly Users

By redesigning North America's first national digital platform for mental health, we achieved a 52% lift in monthly users and an 83% improvement on clinical assessment.

Reduction In Design Time

By designing a new process and getting buy-in from the C-Suite team, we helped one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world reduce software design time by 75% .

Reduction in Client Drop-Off

By implementing targeted nudges based on proactive interventions, we reduced drop-off rates for 450,000 clients belonging to USA's oldest debt consolidation organizations by 46%

Why does spacing out the repetition of information make one more likely to remember it?

Law of the instrument, why do we use the same skills everywhere, less-is-better effect, why do our preferences change depending on whether we judge our options together or separately.

Eager to learn about how behavioral science can help your organization?

Get new behavioral science insights in your inbox every month..

Clearer Thinking Team
Dec 31, 2020

Just-World Hypothesis: Definition, Examples and Effects

The Just-World Hypothesis is a psychological concept that suggests people tend to believe the world is fair and that people get what they deserve. This hypothesis has been studied for decades and has been found to have a significant impact on how people view the world. In this blog post, we will explore the definition, examples, and effects of the Just-World Hypothesis.

Definition: The Just-World Hypothesis is a psychological concept that suggests people tend to believe the world is fair and that people get what they deserve. This hypothesis is based on the idea that people have an innate need to believe that the world is a just place, and that bad things only happen to bad people. This belief is often used to explain why people may feel less empathy for those who have suffered misfortune.

Examples: There are many examples of the Just-World Hypothesis in action. For example, when someone is the victim of a crime, people may be more likely to blame the victim for their misfortune rather than the perpetrator. Additionally, people may be more likely to believe that those who are poor or homeless are responsible for their own situation, rather than attributing it to systemic issues.

Effects: The Just-World Hypothesis can have a significant impact on how people view the world. It can lead to a lack of empathy for those who have suffered misfortune, as well as a tendency to blame victims for their own misfortune. Additionally, it can lead to a lack of understanding of systemic issues and a lack of willingness to address them. Ultimately, this can lead to a world where those who are disadvantaged are not given the same opportunities as those who are more privileged.

Overall, the Just-World Hypothesis is an important concept to understand, as it can have a significant impact on how people view the world. It is important to be aware of this concept and to strive to create a more just and equitable world.

Do you want to expand your knowledge on this topic? Read our full in-depth article on cognitive biases.

Do you have extra 15 minutes today? Take our fun and interactive quiz to learn which of 16 reasoning styles you use , your overall level of rationality, and what you can do now to improve your rationality skills.

Just World Hypothesis

What is just world hypothesis.

The Just World Hypothesis is a way of thinking that tells us people believe the world is fair and that everyone ends up with what they deserve. In simple terms, it’s the idea that good things happen to good people and bad things to bad people. This belief helps our brains make sense of the confusing and sometimes unfair things that happen around us.

This hypothesis acts like a lens through which we see the world. It’s the inner voice that whispers, “If you do good, good comes back to you” or “Bad things happen to people who do bad.” While this idea seems comforting, it doesn’t always match up with what really happens in life, and that’s where things can get tricky.

How Does Just World Hypothesis Affect Us?

The Just World Hypothesis shapes how we think and act. It can lead us to quick judgments about others based on their circumstances, even if we don’t have the full story. Here’s how this thinking appears in our everyday lives:

Victim Blaming: When someone is harmed or suffers a loss, like being robbed or hurt in an accident, we might think it was somehow their fault. We assume this because our brains try to make sense of why it happened, even without enough information.
Success Attribution: If we see someone doing well, we might think they worked hard and deserved it. This might ignore other factors like luck or help they got, which can also be important to their success.
Personal Justification: Often, we like to think our own success comes from hard work and our own efforts, making us less understanding of other people who haven’t been as successful.
Policy Support: Believing in a just world might make us think certain policies are right or wrong. For instance, some might not support helping the poor with welfare because they believe people should earn their way and if they’re poor, it’s because they didn’t work hard enough.

An example could be a student who gets a bad test score. The teacher might think the student didn’t study, and other students might assume they’re not smart, but the real reason could be that the student was busy helping their sick parent and couldn’t study for the test.

Dealing with Just World Hypothesis

Since the Just World Hypothesis can lead to unfair thoughts and actions, it’s good to know how to handle it. Here are some ways to manage it:

Seek more information: Before deciding why something happened to someone, try to find out more about what they might be going through.
Consider other perspectives: Think about other possible explanations for an event that don’t just assume the world is always fair.
Reflect on personal biases: Think about times when luck or other people helped you succeed, not just when it was your own hard work or skills.
Empathize with others: Try to understand what other people are facing by imagining yourself in their place. This can make it less likely for you to blame them for their tough times.
Cultivate humility: Remember that success isn’t always about deserving it, and failure isn’t always from not trying. Accepting this can prevent us from oversimplifying people’s situations.

Why is it Important?

Understanding the Just World Hypothesis is vital because it helps us see that life isn’t always fair despite how much we might want it to be. When we’re aware of this, we can make judgments about others that are more just, instead of jumping to conclusions based on incomplete information. It encourages us to be more caring and helps us work towards a society that doesn’t just accept things as they are but seeks to make things right.

Lets you imagine you’re walking down the street and see a homeless person. If you think the world is just, you might blame that person for their situation. But if you remember that things aren’t always fair, you’ll be more open to understanding the challenges they face, like not being able to find a job or dealing with health problems. This perspective is important in everyday life because it affects how we treat people, what we believe is right and wrong, and how we act as part of a community.

The Just World Theory

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
Ethics Resources
Ethical Decision Making

The need to see victims as the recipients of their just deserts can be explained by what psychologists call the Just World Hypothesis. According to the hypothesis, people have a strong desire or need to believe that the world is an orderly, predictable, and just place, where people get what they deserve.

Afterwards, they said that the 22-year-old woman was bound to attract attention. She was wearing a white lace miniskirt, a green tank top, and no underwear. At knife-point, she was kidnapped from a Fort Lauderdale restaurant parking lot by a Georgia drifter and raped twice. But a jury showed little sympathy for the victim. The accused rapist was acquitted. "We all feel she asked for it [by] the way she was dressed," said the jury foreman.

The verdict of the jurors in the Fort Lauderdale rape trial may have been influenced by a widespread tendency to believe that victims of misfortune deserve what happens to them. The need to see victims as the recipients of their just deserts can be explained by what psychologists call the Just World Hypothesis . According to the hypothesis, people have a strong desire or need to believe that the world is an orderly, predictable, and just place, where people get what they deserve. Such a belief plays an important function in our lives since in order to plan our lives or achieve our goals we need to assume that our actions will have predictable consequences. Moreover, when we encounter evidence suggesting that the world is not just, we quickly act to restore justice by helping the victim or we persuade ourselves that no injustice has occurred. We either lend assistance or we decide that the rape victim must have asked for it, the homeless person is simply lazy, the fallen star must be an adulterer. These attitudes are continually reinforced in the ubiquitous fairy tales, fables, comic books, cop shows and other morality tales of our culture, in which good is always rewarded and evil punished.

Melvin Lerner, a social psychologist, has conducted a series of experiments to test this hypothesis. In an impressive body of research, he documents people's eagerness to convince themselves that beneficiaries deserve their benefits and victims their suffering. In a 1965 study, Lerner reported that subjects who were told that a fellow student had won a cash prize in a lottery tended to believe that the student worked harder than another student who lost the lottery. In another study a year later, Lerner and a colleague videotaped a simulated "learning" experiment in which it appeared that the "participants" were subjected to electric shocks. Lerner found that subjects who observed the videotapes tended to form much lower opinions of these "victimized" participants when there was no possibility of the victim finding relief from the ordeal, or when the victim took on the role of "martyr" by voluntarily remaining in the experiment despite the apparent unpleasantness of the experience. Lerner concluded that "the sight of an innocent person suffering without possibility of reward or compensation motivated people to devalue the attractiveness of the victim in order to bring about a more appropriate fit between her fate and her character."

If the belief in a just world simply resulted in humans feeling more comfortable with the universe and its capriciousness, it would not be a matter of great concern for ethicists or social scientists. But Lerner's Just World Hypothesis, if correct, has significant social implications. The belief in a just world may undermine a commitment to justice.

Zick Rubin of Harvard University and Letitia Anne Peplau of UCLA have conducted surveys to examine the characteristics of people with strong beliefs in a just world. They found that people who have a strong tendency to believe in a just world also tend to be more religious, more authoritarian, more conservative, more likely to admire political leaders and existing social institutions, and more likely to have negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups. To a lesser but still significant degree, the believers in a just world tend to "feel less of a need to engage in activities to change society or to alleviate plight of social victims."

Ironically, then, the belief in a just world may take the place of a genuine commitment to justice. For some people, it is simply easier to assume that forces beyond their control mete out justice. When that occurs, the result may be the abdication of personal responsibility, acquiescence in the face of suffering and misfortune, and indifference towards injustice. Taken to the extreme, indifference can result in the institutionalization of injustice. Still, the need to believe that the world is just can also be a positive force. The altruism of volunteers and of heroes who risk their lives to help strangers in need is a result of people trying to restore justice to insure that the world remains just. As Melvin Lerner writes, "We have persuasive evidence that people are strongly motivated by the desire to eliminate suffering of innocent victims."

Neither science nor psychology has satisfactorily answered the question of why the need to view the world as just exerts such a powerful influence on human behavior and the human psyche. But the research suggests that humans have a need to bring their beliefs about what is right into conformity with the objective reality they encounter--and that they will work to achieve consistency either by modifying their beliefs or attempting to modify that reality. By becoming more conscious of our own tendencies, we may be more inclined to take the latter approach.

The need to see victims as the recipients of their just deserts can be explained by what psychologists call the "Just World Hypothesis."

Just-World Hypothesis

Just-world hypothesis definition.

Just-World Hypothesis Background and History

The seminal experiment illustrating this phenomenon was conducted by Melvin Lerner and Carolyn Simmons in the 1960s. In this experiment, people watched on a television monitor a woman who appeared to be receiving painful electric shocks from a researcher. In actuality, the footage was prerecorded and the events were only simulated by actors. As the woman did nothing to deserve the shocks she was receiving, she can be seen as suffering unjustly. People who watched this unjust suffering described the victim’s character quite negatively if they could not compensate her (or at least were not sure they could compensate her) and if they thought that they would continue to see her suffer. People described the victim’s character most negatively when they also believed that she was behaving altruistically; that is, she chose to suffer for their sake. The findings were explained by suggesting that people have a strong need to believe that the world is a just place in which individuals get what they deserve. Victims who continue to suffer through no fault of their own (and especially very good people, like the altruistic woman in the early experiment) threaten this belief in a just world. As a way of dealing with that threat and maintaining a belief in a just world, people may try to restore justice by helping or compensating victims. When it is not possible to help or compensate victims, people may reinterpret the situation by, for example, claiming that a particular victim is a bad or otherwise unworthy person. By devaluing or derogating the victim in this way, his or her fate seems more deserved and people’s sense of justice is maintained.

There was much controversy about how to interpret the results of the original experiment. For example, some researchers suggested that people devalued the victim to reduce their own feelings of guilt at letting her continue to suffer. However, further experiments showed that people sometimes devalue a victim of injustice even when they could not have played any role in the victim’s situation. This and other proposed alternatives were, for the most part, dealt with through further study and argumentation, leading to a general acceptance of the notion that people will sometimes devalue a victim of injustice because they need to believe in a just world.

More Recent Research on Just-World Hypothesis

Since the early period of experimentation in the 1960s and 1970s, social psychologists have continued to conduct research on the just-world hypothesis. There have been two main traditions in this later research. First, researchers have continued to conduct experiments to study how people respond when they see, read about, or are otherwise exposed to victims who presumably threaten the need to believe in a just world. This research has tended to focus on victims of HIV/AIDS, rape, and cancer. Although some researchers have claimed that a number of these experiments have flaws that make it difficult to interpret the results, there is agreement that several of the investigations generally support the just-world hypothesis.

Another tradition in the later research on the just-world hypothesis has involved using a questionnaire to measure the extent to which people actually believe that the world is a just place. Researchers then test whether people who believe more strongly in a just world, according to the questionnaire, hold certain attitudes. These studies have shown, for example, that the more people claim that they believe the world is just, the more negative attitudes they have toward the poor, groups of people who are discriminated against in society, and other people who might be seen as victims of injustice. These findings are consistent with the just-world hypothesis.

Just-World Hypothesis Implications

The just-world hypothesis has several important implications for reactions to victims of injustice. For example, the research suggests that if people feel they cannot help or compensate victims of injustice who continue to suffer, they may react defensively. They may reason that the victims deserved their fate either because of the kind of people they are or because of the way they behaved. If people respond in this way, they may be less likely to react in a more positive manner, like working toward minimizing injustice or offering emotional support.

It is important to note that the just-world hypothesis is actually part of a broader theory called justice motive theory or just-world theory. The theory includes propositions about how and why a belief in a just world develops in children, the different forms that a belief in a just world might take, the many strategies (aside from blaming and derogating victims of injustice) that people use to maintain a belief in a just world, and the various ways in which justice is defined for different kinds of social relationships.

References:

Hafer, C. L., & Begue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just-world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.

Subscriber Services
For Authors
Publications
Archaeology
Art & Architecture
Bilingual dictionaries
Classical studies
Encyclopedias
English Dictionaries and Thesauri
Language reference
Linguistics
Media studies
Medicine and health
Names studies
Performing arts
Science and technology
Social sciences
Society and culture
Overview Pages
Subject Reference
English Dictionaries
Bilingual Dictionaries

just world hypothesis

Quick reference.

The widespread but false belief that the world is essentially fair, so that the good are rewarded and the bad punished. One consequence of this belief is that people who suffer misfortunes are assumed to deserve their fates: a person involved in a traffic accident must have been driving carelessly, a victim of burglary could not have taken adequate precautions, a woman who was raped must have acted provocatively and led her attacker on, and so on, and even the victims often blame themselves. This phenomenon, which is usually interpreted as a consequence of the illusion of control, was first identified and named by the Canadian psychologist Melvin J. Lerner (born 1929) in an article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1965. See also blaming the victim, Just World Scale.

From: just world hypothesis in A Dictionary of Psychology »

Subjects: Science and technology — Psychology

Understanding The Just-World Hypothesis Explained

Have you ever thought about why people often blame victims for their troubles? They must have done something wrong, right? This idea comes from the Just-World Hypothesis , a bias that says we live in a world where our actions have fair consequences. This belief changes how we see justice and morality, affecting our social lives and how we see ourselves.

This belief not only shapes our ideas of fairness but also leads to blaming victims. It moves blame from outside forces to the victims themselves. By looking into its history, how it works in our minds, and its effects on society, we can grasp its impact. We’ll see how this logical-sounding belief can cause us to act irrationally and question our beliefs about fairness.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

The Just-World Hypothesis suggests a link between moral actions and outcomes.
It often leads to blaming victims, changing how society views them.
This belief can make us feel less helpless but can also make us less caring about injustice.
Knowing about biases like the Just-World Hypothesis can make us more empathetic.
Understanding these biases helps fight their effects and promote social responsibility.

What is the Just-World Hypothesis?

The Just-World Hypothesis is a way of thinking that says people believe in a fair and just world. It suggests that good actions lead to good results, and bad actions lead to punishment. This idea helps people make sense of the world and their place in it.

It helps people feel like things happen for a reason. They use this idea to explain why things happen to them and others. It’s a way to make sense of life and the actions of others.

Definition and Key Concepts

Also known as the Just World Fallacy, this idea says people get what they deserve because of their actions. Phrases like “You got what was coming to you” show this belief. Experts like Melvin Lerner have shown how this belief helps people see events as fair.

This makes things simpler and easier to understand. It helps people see who is responsible for what happens.

The Role of Cognitive Bias

This bias changes how people see the outcomes of others’ actions. People with strong beliefs in a just world often blame others for bad outcomes. They don’t see the bigger picture or the reasons behind those outcomes.

In Western societies, this can lead to blaming victims for their troubles. This shows a big misunderstanding of the real reasons behind events. Beliefs like these are more common in religious people.

Cognitive Bias Characteristics	Examples	Impact
Intrapersonal Bias	Belief that one’s own actions directly lead to outcomes	Increases self-reflective justification
Interpersonal Bias	Assuming others deserve their fates	Encourages victim-blaming attitudes
Retrospective Bias	Looking back at past events and attributing outcomes	Skews perception of fairness over time
Prospective Bias	Believing future actions will lead to predetermined outcomes	Affects decisions based on anticipated justice

Historical Background of the Just-World Hypothesis

The just-world hypothesis has deep roots in our understanding of justice and morality. It started with philosophical discussions, showing our desire for fairness. Over time, it became a big topic in social psychology , helping us understand how people see justice and its effects on behavior.

Emergence of the Concept

The just-world belief says people want to see their world as fair and just. This means they often make sense of events based on what they think is right. Early discussions on justice set the stage for deeper studies in psychology.

Melvin J. Lerner and Early Research

Melvin J. Lerner is key to understanding the just-world hypothesis. In the 1960s, he studied how people deal with injustices. His work showed how believing in a just world helps people cope with tough situations like HIV/AIDS or cancer.

His research found a strong link between believing in a just world and how people see others. Those who believed more in justice often had negative views on groups they saw as different. This shows how strong beliefs can change how we see right and wrong.

The Mechanisms Behind the Just-World Hypothesis

The Just-World Hypothesis shows how our minds work with social views. It’s about how we blame victims to make things seem fair. This makes us think people get what they deserve.

Cognitive Distortions and Justification

Cognitive distortions come in many forms, like overgeneralizing or picking out certain details. These tricks help us make moral judgments and feel things are fair. When we see injustice, we might change our view to keep believing in a just world.

This means we think our life events come from our own actions or traits, not from things we can’t control.

Attribution Theory and Its Role

Attribution theory helps us figure out why things happen. It says we blame outcomes on either ourselves or the situation. This idea is key to the Just-World Hypothesis.

People who believe in a just world tend to blame victims. This makes them think victims got what they deserved. Studies show these people often ignore the bigger picture, leading to unfair judgments.

Moral Judgments and Fairness Perception

How we judge others and see fairness affects our beliefs. Those with strong biases might see victims harshly, supporting their belief in a just world. In unfair situations, they might excuse bad actions by thinking victims were to blame.

This way, they avoid understanding others and empathy , keeping injustice going.

Victim Blaming and Its Implications

Victim blaming shows how society views people who face bad luck. It’s linked to the just-world hypothesis. This idea makes people think victims must have done something wrong. It happens in many areas, like crime , domestic violence, and with groups that are often ignored.

This blaming can lead to more injustice and ignores the real pain of victims.

Understanding Victim Blaming in Social Contexts

People often blame victims because they believe in justice. They think victims must have done something wrong to deserve their fate. Studies in social psychology show that culture and values affect how we see victims.

For example, those with strong moral values might blame victims. This is clear in cases like sexual assault. Here, society often blames the victim instead of the attacker.

Consequences of Victim Blaming

Victim blaming does more harm than just hurting the victims’ feelings. It makes things worse for everyone and slows down justice. A study found that focusing on the attacker, not the victim, changes how people see blame.

This shows how important it is to tell stories that focus on the attacker, not the victim. Victim blaming hurts society and makes it harder for victims to heal.

For example:

Context	Victim Blaming Behaviors	Impact on Victims
Intimate Partner Violence	Blame assigned based on perceived actions or choices	Increased isolation and reduced support
Sexual Assault	Focus on victim’s attire or behavior	Diminished likelihood of reporting incidents
Homicide	Scrutiny over victims’ life choices	Emotional burden on surviving family members
Sex Trade Workers	Perceptions of worthlessness and blame	Increased vulnerability and stigmatization

Just-World Hypothesis in Social Psychology

The Just-World Hypothesis is key in social psychology . It affects how people act and what they think about society. It shows how believing in justice changes actions and how communities work together.

Impact on Individual Behavior

People who believe in a just world act more ethically. They want to be moral and fair. Research shows they believe this to deal with feelings of helplessness and insecurity when they see injustice.

Believing in justice makes people more aware of social injustices. They work for fair outcomes in social situations. They also act more kindly, building trust and peace in communities.

But, not everyone with a just world belief acts kindly. Some can be very hard on others. Studies link this belief to breaking rules and acting out.

Systemic Effects on Society

The Just-World Hypothesis also affects society as a whole. Those who strongly believe in a just world might not want to change things to help victims. They think the victims don’t deserve help because they believe the world is just.

This can keep social inequalities going and stop efforts to change things. Beliefs tied to religion can make these views stronger. This leads to a society where some groups are judged harshly.

Beliefs about justice can make it hard for people to understand others. This can lead to more antisocial behavior, especially if people don’t feel sorry for those they see as undeserving.

Aspect	Positive Correlation	Negative Correlation
Personal	Prosocial Behavior, Interpersonal Trust	Dishonesty, Antisocial Tendencies
General	Harsh Social Attitudes	Social Activism,
BJ for Others	Delinquent Behavior Intentions	Support for Victims

Real-Life Examples of the Just-World Hypothesis

The just-world hypothesis shows up in everyday life, making us think about justice and our moral duties. It helps us understand how people see crime and poverty. By looking at these examples, we see how this bias affects our beliefs and actions.

Case Study: Societal Reactions to Crime

When crimes happen, people often blame the victims. They think the victims must have done something wrong. This way, they keep believing that bad things don’t go unpunished.

As a result, people might not feel sorry for the victims. They think the victims got what they deserved because of their choices or flaws.

Illustration: Perception of Poverty and Hard Work

Looking at poverty, many believe hard work leads to success. They ignore the big problems that stop people from getting ahead. This view makes it seem like those in poverty just didn’t try hard enough.

It overlooks the big economic barriers that make it hard for some to succeed. This view helps keep the idea that the poor are just not trying hard enough.

Critiques and Alternatives to the Just-World Hypothesis

The Just-World Hypothesis has been widely studied in social psychology. Critics have questioned its accuracy over time. They suggest that victim blaming might not just come from believing in a just world.

Alternative Explanations for Victim Derogation

Victim blaming can also come from a need to ease personal discomfort . Seeing someone suffer can make us feel guilty or empathetic. To cope, we might blame the victim.

Lerner’s research showed that people tend to blame victims more when they see their suffering. But, this blame drops if the victim is expected to get compensation. This shows that blaming victims might be a way to protect ourselves emotionally, not just about believing in justice.

Challenges to the Just-World Belief

Studies show that how we view victims can be influenced by our biases. Many studies find that people often blame victims, no matter the situation. Surprisingly, only 3% of people think the world is “very just,” showing doubt in just-world beliefs.

Most people see the bad guys as fully to blame, but they don’t see the bigger picture. They often ignore the role of society and inequality. This leads to a wrong view of justice.

Aspect	Just-World Hypothesis	Critiques
Reasoning Behind Victim Blaming	Belief in deserved outcomes	Alleviating personal
Public Perception of Justice	Majority believe in justice	Only 3% view world as “very just”
Attribution of Blame	Victims are responsible	Observers downplay systemic issues
Perpetrators’ Accountability	Perceived as less culpable	Almost everyone sees them as responsible

Psychological and Emotional Impacts

The just-world hypothesis affects how we think and feel. It can make us feel safe and happy. But, it can also cause deep emotional pain.

People react differently when they see injustice. This shows how complex this idea is.

Effects on Personal Well-Being

Believing in a just world can make us feel better. We think good things happen to good people. This belief can make us happier and more trusting of others, especially when we’re young.

But, when reality is tough, we might feel confused and upset. Seeing bad things happen to good people goes against our beliefs. This can make us feel torn between what we want to believe and what’s really happening.

The Role of Guilt and Discomfort

Feeling guilty is often linked to believing in a just world. When we see people suffering, we might blame them to keep our beliefs intact. This blaming can make us feel guilty because it challenges our view of the world.

This guilt can stop us from truly understanding others’ feelings. It makes it harder to connect with people. Guilt is a big part of how we deal with seeing injustice. It affects how we react and our mental health.

How to Counteract the Just-World Hypothesis

To fight the just-world hypothesis, we need a mix of empathy and critical thinking . These practices help break down biases that lead to blaming victims. They help us understand injustice better.

Emphasizing Empathy and Compassion

Empathy helps us see things from another person’s point of view, especially those who face hard situations. By valuing compassion, we move away from blaming victims. This way, we start to see the full story, not just the simple idea that bad things only happen to those who deserve it.

This change is key to fighting the just-world bias. It helps build a caring community.

Encouraging Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is vital to question our quick judgments based on the just-world hypothesis. It makes us look deeper into why things happen. By thinking critically, we can challenge our own biases and get a clearer view of justice.

This helps us not to confuse someone’s actions with their situation. It cuts down on blaming victims.

The Just-World Hypothesis deeply affects how we see fairness and justice. Melvin J. Lerner’s work showed us how people often blame victims, keeping the belief in justice alive. This bias makes us think victims of hard times, like those with HIV/AIDS, are to blame for their troubles.

This blaming can lead to a false view of the world. It makes us less caring towards those in need. This can make things worse for groups already facing a lot of challenges.

To build a kinder society, we must question our beliefs. We need to think more deeply and feel for others. This can help stop blaming victims and make us see the real issues of justice and equality.

By changing how we think about social psychology, we can work towards a fairer world. We can make a place where kindness wins over the idea of a perfect, unfair system.

The eSoft Editorial Team, a blend of experienced professionals, leaders, and academics, specializes in soft skills, leadership, management, and personal and professional development. Committed to delivering thoroughly researched, high-quality, and reliable content, they abide by strict editorial guidelines ensuring accuracy and currency. Each article crafted is not merely informative but serves as a catalyst for growth, empowering individuals and organizations. As enablers, their trusted insights shape the leaders and organizations of tomorrow.

How to Negotiate Using Your Personality Strengths

Craft your negotiation style by leveraging your personality strengths, connecting authentically, and securing advantageous deals – discover how in this insightful guide.

Brian Chesky Personality Type

Fueled by creativity and collaboration, Brian Chesky's personality type promises a captivating journey into innovative leadership.

ESTP – The Dynamo Personality Traits & Insights

Welcome to our insightful exploration of the ESTP personality type, also known as The Dynamo. ESTPs are extraverted, sensing, thinking, and perceiving individuals who thrive in dynamic, fast-paced environments. They possess a tactical, action-oriented mindset and have a natural ability to adapt and think on their feet. If you are someone who enjoys being hands-on…

Arnold Schwarzenegger Personality Type

Oscillating between strength and charm, Arnold Schwarzenegger's personality type intrigues with a unique blend of qualities – delve deeper to uncover the enigmatic layers within.

Understanding Personality Disorders: Key Insights

Personality disorders are complex mental health conditions that can significantly impact a person’s life. They are characterized by long-lasting, disruptive patterns of thinking, behavior, mood, and relating to others. If you or someone you know is experiencing symptoms of a personality disorder, it is important to understand the different types, their symptoms, and available treatment…

Exploring the Benefits of Ayahuasca Therapy

Discover the transformative power of Ayahuasca therapy and how it can unlock profound healing and personal growth in our in-depth guide.

Just-World Hypothesis & Examples of How It Fools You

Post author: Janey Davies, B.A. (Hons)
Post published: May 4, 2020
Reading time: 6 mins read
Post category: Psychology & Mental Health

Do you think that life is fair and that generally speaking, people get what they deserve? If so, you may have fallen victim to the Just-World Hypothesis .

What Is the Just-World Hypothesis?

The just-world hypothesis is a tendency to believe that the world is a just place and that we all end up with what we deserve. It theorises that because we think the world is a just place, we look for reasons to explain away injustice.

This effort on our part to rationalise injustice in this way often leads to us blaming the victims of injustice. We do this even when the victim could not have any control over their own misfortune. This automatic tendency of ours to blame the victim makes us question the victim’s behaviour , instead of looking at the circumstances befalling them.

It is easy to see how some people could fall into this trap of a mental bias . It fits in with our memories of childhood. As children, we were always told ‘ work hard and you’ll achieve successes ’, ‘ eat all your greens and you’ll grow up big and strong ’. We believe our fate to be in our own hands.

But not only that, but we also believe that good things come to those who are good . Consequently, bad things happen to bad people . It fits in nicely with our narrative of the world.

So we automatically assume that good people have earned their success. They deserve their good luck. We label good people with other good attributes, such as hard-working, honest, and intelligent. On the other hand, bad people will get what they deserve. After all, you get out of life what you put in. We label these bad people as lazy, stupid, and dishonest.

Examples of Just-World Hypothesis

We blame women for their own sexual assaults because of what they were wearing at the time of the attack, where they were at the time of the attack, or their previous sexual behaviour is called into question.

We look at homeless people and think to ourselves ‘ that would never happen to me ’, they must have done something to get to this situation. Not realising that the majority of us are just 3 pay months away from becoming homeless ourselves. Addicts are blamed for their addictions without us knowing the full background of the individual. And despite us knowing that addiction is a disease, not a choice.

We view poor people as lazy and without ambition . They are deemed to have just as many chances to succeed in life, but they chose not to study. We don’t even think about how money affects families and that many poorer children don’t have the opportunity to go to university because they are helping with household bills.

Where Does the Just-World Hypothesis Come from?

Melvin Lerner is a social psychologist and coined the term Just-World Theory or Hypothesis . He took the research of Stanley Milgram one step further. You’ll remember that Milgram conducted the now infamous ‘ Obedience to Authority ’ study. Lerner wanted to find out how people came to agree with cruel regimes that promoted suffering, and why they were willing to accept laws and norms in society that lead to a miserable outcome for many.

Lerner expanded Milgram’s’ experiments . In his study , he gave a woman electrical shocks for making mistakes on a memory task. The woman was his accomplice and no actual shocks were administered. However, two groups watched the woman. Some groups could help the woman whereas others could not.

Lerner found consistently that the group who could do something to alleviate the woman’s suffering were much more sympathetic to her ordeal. The group that could only watch had a far lower opinion of the woman.

“The sight of an innocent person suffering without the possibility of reward or compensation motivated people to devalue the attractiveness of the victim in order to bring about a more appropriate fit between her fate and her character.” Lerner et al.

Why Do We Believe in a Just World?

We have control over our lives.

No one likes to hear about suffering around the world , or indeed in our own neighbourhood. So when we do come across something disturbing, it is easier to blame the victim for their fate. That way, we have control over what happens to us. We are not vulnerable in the same way that the victims are.

For example:

Walk through the park late at night and you’ll be assaulted.
Buy a house in that area and you’ll be flooded.
Wear that short shirt out and you’re asking to be raped.

It makes us feel safe

When there’s nothing we can do about a situation, we try to rationalise in our heads so it makes sense. In other words, ‘ There’s no such thing as an innocent victim ’. By doing this, we reduce any anxiety we may have felt. We feel secure again because once we know that those victims ‘deserved’ what was coming to them we don’t need to feel fearful anymore.

After all, only bad things happen to bad people, right? And we are nothing like these bad people, so we are going to be ok. Moreover, we need the world to be a just and safe place . Because the alternative is just too scary for us to comprehend.

When we feel powerless to do something about a wrong, we turn to the next best thing and blame the victim. We want to think that things happen for a reason . It gives us a sense of control over the world.

Final Thoughts

We need to understand that life isn’t fair . However, this unfairness is foisted upon us for no apparent reason. It matters not whether you’re a good or bad person. There is no rhyme or reason for why bad things happen, but it does happen to all of us.

Unfortunately, there’s only so much you can do to avoid the unfair nature of life. But at least, we’re all in it together.

Like what you are reading? Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss new thought-provoking articles!

Share this story share this content.

Opens in a new window Facebook
Opens in a new window X
Opens in a new window LinkedIn
Opens in a new window Reddit
Opens in a new window Tumblr

Spirituality

The psychological consequences of believing in a just world, what is the impact of being taught as kids that the world is inherently just.

Posted September 19, 2019 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

By Richard LeBeau, Ph.D.

Most children growing up in Western cultures are taught from a young age that “good things happen to good people” and “bad things happen to bad people.” They hear the message from their parents, schools, religious organizations, and the media.

It makes sense why we, as a society, would want to instill the belief that the world is just in children. We want them to behave in moral and ethical ways, so we shape them to expect rewards (good things) for displaying such behaviors and punishment (bad things) when they do not. Most of us also want to believe it ourselves.

Unfortunately, there is a significant problem with this so-called “just world belief”—it is, by and large, not rooted in reality. Sure, there are psychological, social, and physical benefits of “good” behaviors like altruism , empathy, and exercise. And conversely, there are negative psychological, social, and physical consequences of “bad” behaviors like lying , stealing, and being violent towards others. But a great deal of the good and bad things that happen to us occurs with no relationship to how we behave, let alone how good or bad a person we truly are. Tragedies like mass shootings , natural disasters, serious accidents, fatal illnesses, and sexual assaults typically afflict people with little rhyme or reason.

So, what happens when a person who firmly holds a belief in a just world experiences a tragedy?

If they believed they were a bad person before the traumatic event, they would likely view the tragedy as some form of karmic intervention, a punishment for their perceived misdeeds. If they believed they were a good person before the event, they are faced with a conundrum. Some people respond by engaging in assimilation, in which they try to twist the events to fit their pre-existing beliefs (e.g., “If something bad happened to me, then I must be bad or have done something bad”). This often manifests itself in the form of self-blame (e.g., “The assault was my fault because I drank too much alcohol at the party”). Others engage in over-accommodation and dramatically change their beliefs in damaging ways (e.g., “If bad things happen to me despite me being a good person, nothing in the world is fair or safe.”) This often manifests in lack of trust, isolation, and avoidance (e.g., “I can no longer go to any place where anyone may be drinking alcohol because I will likely get attacked again if I do.”)

Both of these response types—assimilation and over-accommodation—are associated with difficulty recovering from a traumatic event. As such, it forms the basis for an evidence-based psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder called Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT; Resick & Schnicke, 1993). This treatment helps trauma survivors achieve the desired outcome of accommodation, in which they rationally alter their beliefs to accommodate the reality of what happened to them (e.g., “Certain situations have the potential to be risky no matter what I do, so I should exercise caution when going out partying.”) The treatment achieves its goals by educating people about how traumatic events influence belief systems and emotional responses, helping people learn to identify and challenge unhelpful and distorted beliefs that are contributing to their suffering. Ultimately, it helps them fully process the trauma in a way that facilitates recovery.

It is important to note, however, that the just world belief does not only adversely affect the mental health of those exposed to trauma. There is considerable evidence that this belief also has many negative consequences for society. It is highly associated with “victim-blaming,” or the tendency to see victims of circumstances such as violent crime , serious illness, and financial hardship as having deserved these outcomes due to personal moral failing or illicit behavior (Furnham, 2003). It is also related to the ideology of right-wing authoritarianism, which advocates for hostile, punitive measures taken against those who do not adhere to social conventions and norms (Lambert, Burroughs, and Nguyen, 1999). Victim-blaming and right-wing authoritarianism are, in turn, associated with harsh legal sentencing, prejudice toward minorities, radical military action, and the preservation of rigid social hierarchies (Altemeyer, 1996).

We know that the belief in a just world is inaccurate and associated with many negative things, yet we continue to instill it in our children. Why?

Well, in large part we do this because having children who conform to social norms and rules and are obedient to authority leads to significantly smoother functioning at home, school, and in other contexts. We also know that belief in a just world is associated with factors that are deemed quite positive by many Westerners, including Protestant work ethic and religiosity (Begue, 2002). Some evidence suggests it is also associated with greater levels of well-being and less depressive symptoms (Lipkus, Dalbert, & Siegler, 1996). In that way, it can be understood as a positive illusion (an unrealistic belief that serves to maintain self-esteem and a sense of control over the world). We also know that the opposite belief—that the world is inherently unjust—is associated with poor mental health and criminal behavior (Lench, 2007).

The prevalence and popularity of the belief in a just world in Western culture all but ensures that it will endure. But that does not mean we are powerless to its negative effects. Increased awareness of our tendency to engage in this distorted belief system can go a long way in helping us increase the rationality of our thinking and our compassion toward our self and others. And perhaps it can allow us to help the children in our lives develop more helpful and rational belief systems as they mature—so that if hardship does fall upon them, they can better adapt and recover.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bègue, L. (2002). Beliefs in justice and faith in people: Just world, religiosity and interpersonal trust". Personality and Individual Differences, 32(3): 375–382.

Forbes, D., Lloyd, D., Nixon, R. D. V., Elliott, P., Varker, T., Perry, D., ... & Creamer, M. (2012). A multisite randomized controlled effectiveness trial of cognitive processing therapy for military-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(3), 442-452.

Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5): 795-817.

Lambert, A. J., Burroughs, T., & Nguyen, T. (1999). Perceptions of risk and the buffering hypothesis: The role of just world beliefs and right wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6): 643–656.

Lench, C. (2007). Belief in an unjust world: When beliefs in a just world fail". Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(2): 126–135.

Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief ina just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7), 666–677.

Resick, P. A., & Schnicke, M. K. (1993). Cognitive processing therapy for rape victims: A treatment manual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Emanuel Maidenberg, Ph.D. , is a clinical professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA with a focus on coping with fear and uncertainty.

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Self Tests NEW
Therapy Center
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

12.1 What Is Social Psychology?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Define social psychology
Describe situational versus dispositional influences on behavior
Describe the fundamental attribution error
Explain actor-observer bias
Describe self-serving bias
Explain the just-world hypothesis

Social psychology examines how people affect one another, and it looks at the power of the situation. According to the American Psychological Association (n.d.), social psychologists "are interested in all aspects of personality and social interaction, exploring the influence of interpersonal and group relationships on human behavior." Throughout this chapter, we will examine how the presence of other individuals and groups of people impacts a person's behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. Essentially, people will change their behavior to align with the social situation at hand. If we are in a new situation or are unsure how to behave, we will take our cues from other individuals.

The field of social psychology studies topics at both the intra- and interpersonal levels. Intrapersonal topics (those that pertain to the individual) include emotions and attitudes, the self, and social cognition (the ways in which we think about ourselves and others). Interpersonal topics (those that pertain to dyads and groups) include helping behavior ( Figure 12.2 ), aggression, prejudice and discrimination, attraction and close relationships, and group processes and intergroup relationships.

Social psychologists focus on how people conceptualize and interpret situations and how these interpretations influence their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Thus, social psychology studies individuals in a social context and how situational variables interact to influence behavior. In this chapter, we discuss the intrapersonal processes of self-presentation, cognitive dissonance and attitude change, and the interpersonal processes of conformity and obedience, aggression and altruism, and, finally, love and attraction.

Situational and Dispositional Influences on Behavior

Behavior is a product of both the situation (e.g., cultural influences, social roles, and the presence of bystanders) and of the person (e.g., personality characteristics). Subfields of psychology tend to focus on one influence or behavior over others. Situationism is the view that our behavior and actions are determined by our immediate environment and surroundings. In contrast, dispositionism holds that our behavior is determined by internal factors (Heider, 1958). An internal factor is an attribute of a person and includes personality traits and temperament. Social psychologists have tended to take the situationist perspective, whereas personality psychologists have promoted the dispositionist perspective. Modern approaches to social psychology, however, take both the situation and the individual into account when studying human behavior (Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey, 2010). In fact, the field of social-personality psychology has emerged to study the complex interaction of internal and situational factors that affect human behavior (Mischel, 1977; Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003).

Fundamental Attribution Error

In the United States, the predominant culture tends to favor a dispositional approach in explaining human behavior. Why do you think this is? We tend to think that people are in control of their own behaviors, and, therefore, any behavior change must be due to something internal, such as their personality, habits, or temperament. According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state . This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977; Riggio & Garcia, 2009). To better understand, imagine this scenario: Jamie returns home from work, and opens the front door to a happy greeting from spouse Morgan who inquires how the day has been. Instead of returning the spouse’s kind greeting, Jamie yells, “Leave me alone!” Why did Jamie yell? How would someone committing the fundamental attribution error explain Jamie’s behavior? The most common response is that Jamie is a mean, angry, or unfriendly person (traits). This is an internal or dispositional explanation. However, imagine that Jamie was just laid off from work due to company downsizing. Would your explanation for Jamie’s behavior change? Your revised explanation might be that Jamie was frustrated and disappointed about being laid off and was therefore in a bad mood (state). This is now an external or situational explanation for Jamie’s behavior.

The fundamental attribution error is so powerful that people often overlook obvious situational influences on behavior. A classic example was demonstrated in a series of experiments known as the quizmaster study (Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz, 1977). Student participants were randomly assigned to play the role of a questioner (the quizmaster) or a contestant in a quiz game. Questioners developed difficult questions to which they knew the answers, and they presented these questions to the contestants. The contestants answered the questions correctly only 4 out of 10 times ( Figure 12.3 ). After the task, the questioners and contestants were asked to rate their own general knowledge compared to the average student. Questioners did not rate their general knowledge higher than the contestants, but the contestants rated the questioners’ intelligence higher than their own. In a second study, observers of the interaction also rated the questioner as having more general knowledge than the contestant. The obvious influence on performance is the situation. The questioners wrote the questions, so of course they had an advantage. Both the contestants and observers made an internal attribution for the performance. They concluded that the questioners must be more intelligent than the contestants.

The halo effect refers to the tendency to let the overall impression of an individual color the way in which we feel about their character. For instance, we might assume that people who are physically attractive are more likely to be good people than less attractive individuals. Another example of how the halo effect might manifest would involve assuming that someone whom we perceive to be outgoing or friendly has a better moral character than someone who is not.

As demonstrated in the examples above, the fundamental attribution error is considered a powerful influence in how we explain the behaviors of others. However, it should be noted that some researchers have suggested that the fundamental attribution error may not be as powerful as it is often portrayed. In fact, a recent review of more than 173 published studies suggests that several factors (e.g., high levels of idiosyncrasy of the character and how well hypothetical events are explained) play a role in determining just how influential the fundamental attribution error is (Malle, 2006).

Is the Fundamental Attribution Error a Universal Phenomenon?

You may be able to think of examples of the fundamental attribution error in your life. Do people in all cultures commit the fundamental attribution error? Research suggests that they do not. People from an individualistic culture , that is, a culture that focuses on individual achievement and autonomy, have the greatest tendency to commit the fundamental attribution error. Individualistic cultures, which tend to be found in western countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, promote a focus on the individual. Therefore, a person’s disposition is thought to be the primary explanation for her behavior. In contrast, people from a collectivistic culture , that is, a culture that focuses on communal relationships with others, such as family, friends, and community ( Figure 12.4 ), are less likely to commit the fundamental attribution error (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 2001).

Why do you think this is the case? Collectivistic cultures, which tend to be found in east Asian countries and in Latin American and African countries, focus on the group more than on the individual (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). This focus on others provides a broader perspective that takes into account both situational and cultural influences on behavior; thus, a more nuanced explanation of the causes of others’ behavior becomes more likely. Table 12.1 compares individualistic and collectivist cultures.

Individualistic Culture	Collectivistic Culture
Achievement oriented	Relationship oriented
Focus on autonomy	Focus on group harmony
Dispositional perspective	Situational perspective
Independent	Interdependent
Analytic thinking style	Holistic thinking style

Masuda and Nisbett (2001) demonstrated that the kinds of information that people attend to when viewing visual stimuli (e.g., an aquarium scene) can differ significantly depending on whether the observer comes from a collectivistic versus an individualistic culture. Japanese participants were much more likely to recognize objects that were presented when they occurred in the same context in which they were originally viewed. Manipulating the context in which object recall occurred had no such impact on American participants. Other researchers have shown similar differences across cultures. For example, Zhang, Fung, Stanley, Isaacowitz, and Zhang (2014) demonstrated differences in the ways that holistic thinking might develop between Chinese and American participants, and Ramesh and Gelfand (2010) demonstrated that job turnover rates are more related to the fit between a person and the organization in which they work in an Indian sample, but the fit between the person and their specific job was more predictive of turnover in an American sample.

Actor-Observer Bias

Returning to our earlier example, Jamie was laid off, but an observer would not know. So a naïve observer would tend to attribute Jamie’s hostile behavior to Jamie’s disposition rather than to the true, situational cause. Why do you think we underestimate the influence of the situation on the behaviors of others? One reason is that we often don’t have all the information we need to make a situational explanation for another person’s behavior. The only information we might have is what is observable. Due to this lack of information we have a tendency to assume the behavior is due to a dispositional, or internal, factor. When it comes to explaining our own behaviors, however, we have much more information available to us. If you came home from school or work angry and yelled at your dog or a loved one, what would your explanation be? You might say you were very tired or feeling unwell and needed quiet time—a situational explanation. The actor-observer bias is the phenomenon of attributing other people’s behavior to internal factors (fundamental attribution error) while attributing our own behavior to situational forces (Jones & Nisbett, 1971; Nisbett, Caputo, Legant, & Marecek, 1973; Choi & Nisbett, 1998). As actors of behavior, we have more information available to explain our own behavior. However as observers, we have less information available; therefore, we tend to default to a dispositionist perspective.

One study on the actor-observer bias investigated reasons male participants gave for why they liked their girlfriend (Nisbett et al., 1973). When asked why participants liked their own girlfriend, participants focused on internal, dispositional qualities of their girlfriends (for example, her pleasant personality). The participants’ explanations rarely included causes internal to themselves, such as dispositional traits (for example, “I need companionship.”). In contrast, when speculating why a male friend likes his girlfriend, participants were equally likely to give dispositional and external explanations. This supports the idea that actors tend to provide few internal explanations but many situational explanations for their own behavior. In contrast, observers tend to provide more dispositional explanations for a friend’s behavior ( Figure 12.5 ).

Self-Serving Bias

We can understand self-serving bias by digging more deeply into attribution , a belief about the cause of a result. One model of attribution proposes three main dimensions: locus of control (internal versus external), stability (stable versus unstable), and controllability (controllable versus uncontrollable). In this context, stability refers to the extent in which the circumstances that result in a given outcome are changeable. The circumstances are considered stable if they are unlikely to change. Controllability refers to the extent to which the circumstances that are associated with a given outcome can be controlled. Obviously, those things that we have the power to control would be labeled controllable (Weiner, 1979).

Following an outcome, self-serving biases are those attributions that enable us to see ourselves in a favorable light (for example, making internal attributions for success and external attributions for failures). When you do well at a task, for example acing an exam, it is in your best interest to make a dispositional attribution for your behavior (“I’m smart,”) instead of a situational one (“The exam was easy,”). Self-serving bias is the tendency to explain our successes as due to dispositional (internal) characteristics, but to explain our failures as due to situational (external) factors. Again, this is culture dependent. This bias serves to protect self-esteem. You can imagine that if people always made situational attributions for their behavior, they would never be able to take credit and feel good about their accomplishments.

Consider the example of how we explain our favorite sports team’s wins. Research shows that we make internal, stable, and controllable attributions for our team’s victory ( Figure 12.6 ) (Grove, Hanrahan, & McInman, 1991). For example, we might tell ourselves that our team is talented (internal), consistently works hard (stable), and uses effective strategies (controllable). In contrast, we are more likely to make external, unstable, and uncontrollable attributions when our favorite team loses. For example, we might tell ourselves that the other team has more experienced players or that the referees were unfair (external), the other team played at home (unstable), and the cold weather affected our team’s performance (uncontrollable).

Just-World Hypothesis

One consequence of westerners’ tendency to provide dispositional explanations for behavior is victim blame (Jost & Major, 2001). When people experience bad fortune, others tend to assume that they somehow are responsible for their own fate. A common ideology, or worldview, in the United States is the just-world hypothesis. The just-world hypothesis is the belief that people get the outcomes they deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978). In order to maintain the belief that the world is a fair place, people tend to think that good people experience positive outcomes, and bad people experience negative outcomes (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). The ability to think of the world as a fair place, where people get what they deserve, allows us to feel that the world is predictable and that we have some control over our life outcomes (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). For example, if you want to experience positive outcomes, you just need to work hard to get ahead in life.

Can you think of a negative consequence of the just-world hypothesis? One negative consequence is people’s tendency to blame poor individuals for their plight. What common explanations are given for why people live in poverty? Have you heard statements such as, “The poor are lazy and just don’t want to work” or “Poor people just want to live off the government”? What types of explanations are these, dispositional or situational? These dispositional explanations are clear examples of the fundamental attribution error. Blaming poor people for their poverty ignores situational factors that impact them, such as high unemployment rates, recession, poor educational opportunities, and the familial cycle of poverty ( Figure 12.7 ). Other research shows that people who hold just-world beliefs have negative attitudes toward people who are unemployed and people living with AIDS (Sutton & Douglas, 2005). In the United States and other countries, victims of sexual assault may find themselves blamed for their abuse. Victim advocacy groups, such as Domestic Violence Ended (DOVE), attend court in support of victims to ensure that blame is directed at the perpetrators of sexual violence, not the victims.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Psychology 2e
Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-1-what-is-social-psychology

© Jun 26, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

By visiting our site, you agree to our privacy policy regarding cookies, tracking statistics, etc.

The Stoic Optimizer

Rethinking Human Flourishing in the Age of AI

Human Bugs & Features
Optimal Solutions

The Just-World Hypothesis or Why You Believe the Universe Is Fair

September 17, 2022

minute read

Be good and good things will happen to you; be evil and you will attract misfortune. I bet you didn’t even blink while reading that because it sounds so common sense.

Not so fast. It turns out that agreeing with the previous statement is a good indication that you have fallen for the just-world hypothesis , a common cognitive bias which may lead to a lack of empathy for the suffering of others and a tendency to overestimate the morality of your own deeds. (And let’s face it, nobody wants that.)

Keep reading to find out what the just-world fallacy is, how it can lead to undesirable behavior such as victim blaming and what you can do to fight it most effectively and improve your critical thinking skills.

What is the just-world hypothesis? A definition from psychology

The just-world hypothesis (also known as the just-world fallacy) is the belief that everything happens for a reason and that the Universe is inherently fair. It implies that bad people will receive appropriate retribution for their actions, while good people will be rewarded for their behavior. While there is sometimes an observable connection between behavior and reward, this fallacy can make people jump to inaccurate conclusions about the world and pass wrongful moral judgments based on opinion rather than evidence.

Where does the just-world hypothesis come from?

The just-world hypothesis was studied for the first time by the psychologist Melvin J. Lerner in the 1960s, who was prompted to investigate justice beliefs by the Milgram experiment , which had proved that humans are capable of causing suffering to others when instructed to do so, despite being aware of the effects of their behavior. He noticed that even the most intelligent of his colleagues had a tendency to blame their patients for their mental health struggles, which made him believe there was something larger at play than just the behavior of a few heartless individuals.

Lerner is credited with proving that the just-world fallacy exists and is also the one who named it the ‘justice motive’. However, this only clears up the terminology side of the equation and does not address the real source of the bias. So where does it really come from? Are we born with it or is the just-world fallacy a cultural or even religious phenomenon?

While religious belief correlates with buying into the just world hypothesis (more on that later) and might be one of the main reinforcers of this bias, most people acquire this erroneous thinking pattern during childhood.

Almost every form of media, be it books or movies, drills into us the idea that good always prevails and evil is defeated. (I challenge you to find a fairytale in which this is not the case.)

As with all cognitive biases, the just-world fallacy is simply a shortcut that our brain develops in order to make decisions faster. However, the situations in which we have acquired this shortcut may be vastly different from those in which we try to apply it, thus making their conclusions wrong and causing us more harm than good.

Being repeatedly exposed to the narrative that good always triumphs over evil creates a connection between morality and good outcomes (“good karma”), as well as a tendency to believe that villains “have it coming”.

What is an example of the just-world hypothesis?

To better understand how the just world hypothesis can lead critical thinking astray, let’s look at Helen and her friend Tim as an example.

Tim is a highly organized type A person. He never misses a deadline, misplaces his keys or arrives late for an appointment. (We all know a Tim and we secretly admire and hate them all at the same time.) Helen is the exact opposite: although she has a big heart, she’s clumsy and forgetful and tends to do everything at the last minute.

After spending a lovely evening together, Tim was walking Helen to her car when they noticed a tree branch had fallen on the roof of the vehicle causing massive damage. While Helen started crying worrying about how she would pay the repair bills, Tim callously noted: “If you would have gotten here in time, you would have found a spot in the nearby parking lot and this would have never happened!”

Needless to say that the remark upset Helen even more, as it lacked any kind of empathy towards her bad luck. This couldn’t have been her fault - if they had chosen another restaurant which didn’t have a parking lot nearby, a tree could have just as well fallen on Tim’s car, despite his careful parking habits. While his intention was not to offend Helen, having fallen prey to the just-world fallacy he attributed the car damage to her general clumsiness and ended up hurting his relationship.

This anecdote shows that ironically, the more righteous your own behavior, the more likely you are to believe that people who fall short of your standards receive appropriate punishment in every situation, so you should be especially wary of this fallacy if you identify as an ambitious type A.

Is the just-world hypothesis wrong?

If you’re still doubting that the just-world hypothesis is not true, consider the following quote:

“Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you're a good person is like expecting a bull not to attack you because you're a vegetarian.” – Dennis Wholey

The just-world hypothesis is wrong because it fails to take into account a fundamental truth about the world: that randomness exists and seeps into every aspect of one’s life. The existence of randomness invalidates the belief that ‘everything happens for a reason’ because it implies that some things happen only by chance and are not caused by any obvious external factors.

Assuming a die that is not rigged, it is not up for debate that rolling it means there is a chance it will land on any of its 6 faces; this is a fact. Looking back at our previous example, believing that Helen’s car being hit by a tree is retribution for her negligence is the same as believing that getting a 3 on a die roll is due to the weather being bad today.

There *might* be some correlation, if the window was open and the wind was strong enough to oppose resistance during the roll and make the die fall on a 3, but correlation is not causation. Similarly, being careless might increase your chances of bad things happening to you, but it is not a guarantee.

There is a big difference between believing that a certain type of behavior increases the chances of something bad happening and accepting this as a certainty. In other words, the just-world hypothesis might be true in some instances, but it is surely not true in all of them.

The connection between just-world fallacy and other cognitive biases

Bad things come in twos (or threes) , or so the Asian proverb goes. In the case of cognitive biases this is definitely the case, as some of them tend to cluster and reinforce each other to cloud our judgment. Let’s look at how the just-world fallacy, self-serving bias and fundamental attribution error relate to each other to better understand how we can recognize them for what they are (predictable, reproducible thinking errors) even when they act together to mislead us.

Self-serving bias vs. just-world hypothesis

The self-serving bias is the human tendency to believe that our accomplishments owe to our skill, while our failures happen invariably due to luck. The just-world hypothesis reinforces this bias by adding an implicit moral judgment to events, even when there is none.

How does this work?

Since our egos are always trying to preserve our self-esteem, we naturally gravitate towards thinking that we are good people and tend to ignore any evidence to the contrary. Due to the just-world fallacy, we believe that our accomplishments represent a reward for our virtuous character, which makes us less likely to analyze when we win simply due to the randomness of the Universe and not due to our actions. This is why the 2 cognitive biases form a self-reinforcing loop that does not allow us to appraise our efforts effectively.

Fundamental attribution error vs. just-world hypothesis

There is a 3rd bias that extends the aforementioned loop, called the fundamental attribution error. This fallacy represents the belief that everyone else’s success is simply a fluke, while their failures are a reflection of their (bad) character. In a way, the fundamental attribution error is the opposite of self-serving bias and is influenced by the just-world hypothesis in a similar way.

The Just-world hypothesis and philosophy

The just-world hypothesis relies on the assumption that everything is predetermined (“everything happens for a reason”), rather than the product of randomness acting in the Universe. As such, the difficulty of opposing this bias is related to your view of this philosophical question.

The major religions have certainly been a significant reinforcer of the just-world hypothesis, as they all disregard the existence of randomness in the world and attribute all possible outcomes to the decisions of a Higher Power. Using their individual terminology, they all promise retribution for those who behave immorally and rewards for those who follow their prescribed path.

Since philosophy is rooted in rationality and not belief, it is very different in how it addresses the existence of randomness in the Universe. The Stoics in particular have been known to recognize the chaotic nature of the world, with Seneca famously saying:

“Whatever can happen at any time can happen today.” – Seneca

Religion tends to explain randomness away by stating that it is still the result of the decisions of a Higher Power, but whose logic we humans are simply too limited to understand. In other words, even the things that appear to be random are not. (Note that the simple fact that they even provide an explanation for randomness implicitly confirms its existence and observability.)

Certainly, accepting the existence of randomness is uncomfortable because it puts all of our actions into perspective: they are nothing but small efforts in the face of chance, which could steam-roll them whenever it pleases.

This perhaps explains why people prefer to adopt the just-world heuristic and take a fatalistic stance. This is not without peril: the cost of not fighting this fallacy is that you will be less effective in steering your efforts correctly when you attempt to reach your goals because you are not able to identify the causality between what you do and the results you see.

Why is the belief in a just-world a defensive belief?

It could be argued that the just-world hypothesis has emerged as a defensive belief, since expecting that the world will treat us fairly helps us remain optimistic about the future.

Believing that everything happens for a reason gives us (an arguably irrational) confidence that the world is predictable, which makes us more likely to set goals and follow through on achieving them.

On the other hand, recognizing that randomness exists in the Universe necessarily implies that despite our best efforts, we might not succeed in our endeavors. This thought could lead some people to inaction because they might view any effort as futile.

You can see why Mother Nature would try to bias us towards action by any means possible: it ensured the survival of our ancestors when they were chased by dangerous predators, for example. This further supports the existence of the just-world fallacy as a defensive belief.

If there were absolutely no correlation between your actions and their results, you would never attempt anything significant. However, if there’s anything I want you to take away from this post, it’s this: everything you do or observe around you is a bet. You can increase your odds of winning, but you can never guarantee the outcome. You also cannot derive a completely certain conclusion about what led to a specific result without knowing all the variables involved.

The problem with just-world hypothesis

If you think that aside from a loss of personal agency, there is no risk in believing that everything happens for a reason, you’ll be surprised to learn that victim blaming and the persistence of social inequality owe a lot of their prevalence to the just-world hypothesis. Here’s why.

What is the connection between the just-world hypothesis and victim blaming?

Victim blaming is the act of holding the victim of a crime partially or completely responsible for the crime that they fell victim to.

The just-world hypothesis can be a reason for which victim blaming occurs because it makes people more likely to believe that bad things only happen to bad people and thus to believe that the victim ‘had it coming’.

Between this erroneous thought and finding some obvious (but wrong) reason for which the victim was subject to the crime there is just a small step. Consider the case of a woman being assaulted. A person reading about this crime in the news and looking at a picture of the victim might be tempted to think that this happened to the woman because she was wearing a mini skirt and somehow invited the aggressor to attack her. This obviously cannot be the justification for the crime, but so many people stop questioning their logic and proceed to victim blame due to their own incapacity (or even unwillingness) to be rational and see through their biases.

How might the just-world hypothesis allow for the continuation of social inequalities?

In a similar fashion, the just-world fallacy can allow for the continuation of social inequalities, since believing that everything happens for a reason will also make people prone to believe that the underprivileged are in their current condition due to some kind of retribution from the Universe, when in fact they have just been unlucky to be born poor.

How can you fight against the just-world fallacy?

The first step to counteracting any cognitive bias is awareness. You’re already doing well on that front because you’ve read this post so good on you! (Don’t forget to share it with your friends so they can be better critical thinkers too! 😉 )

Since you know how the just-world fallacy manifests, you are more likely to notice it as it starts to get a grip of your thoughts and stop it before it leads you astray. Remember its main cue: the (fatalistic) thought that everything happens for a reason.

The best thing you can do to fight this heuristic is to turn “everything happens for a reason” into an opportunity for curiosity and rationality. You can do this by trying to identify the reason for which something happens using the scientific method . By making a conscious effort to understand the world, you will increase your chances of making better decisions and succeeding in anything you set out to do.

If you’d like an even more action-focused approach to fighting this bias, I suggest you do some journaling. Write why you think various things happened to you and those you know, whether you feel that they were fair or not, and read those reflections later after their impact is no longer so fresh in your memory. You might discover that a little distance helps see them more objectively and allows you to recognize whether you have been ignoring the impact of randomness in your life.

If this is the first time you hear of cognitive biases and their detrimental impact on your decision-making abilities, it’s time to read up on more to stay ahead of your peers. How about this post about the self-serving bias ?

Liked this post? Share it with your friends!

cognitive biases

A Just World

by Jonah Lehrer

I’m still trying to shake some haunting thoughts of Cameron Todd Willingham, the Texas man who now appears to have been executed for a crime he didn’t commit. I linked yesterday to David Grann’s exhaustive New Yorker article , which chronicles the chronic incompetence of his criminal prosecution.

These stories of a failed justice are important, and not just because they expose specific errors. (Such as: arson investigators who got every important fact wrong, psychiatric diagnoses based on music posters and juries that should have been more skeptical.) Instead, I think these harrowing tales need to be told because they contradict a powerful moral intuition we all share, which can unfortunately lead us to turn a blind eye: Because we believe in justice, we ignore stories of injustice.

I’m talking about the Just World Hypothesis, a scientific theory first developed by the social psychologist Melvin Lerner. Consider this clever experiment, conducted in 1965: Several volunteers are told that they are about to watch, on closed circuit television, another volunteer engage in a simple test of learning. They see the unlucky subject - she is actually a graduate student, working for Lerner - being led into the room. Electrodes are attached to her body and head. She looks a little frightened.

Now the test begins. Whenever the subject gives an incorrect answer, she is given a powerful jolt of electricity. The witnesses watching on television see her writhe in pain and hear her scream. They think she is being tortured.

One group of volunteers is now given a choice: they can transfer the shocked subject to a different learning paradigm, where she is given positive reinforcements instead of painful punishments. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of people choose to end the torture. They quickly act to rectify the injustice. When asked what they thought of the "learner," they described her as an innocent victim who didn't deserve to be shocked. That's why they saved her.

The other group of subjects, however, isn't allowed to rescue the volunteer undergoing the test. Instead, they are told a variety of different stories about the victim. Some were told that she would receive nothing in return for being tortured; others were told that she would be paid for her participation. And a final group was given the martyr scenario, in which the victim submits to a second round of torture so that the other volunteers might benefit from her pain. She is literally sacrificing herself for the group.

How did these different narratives affect their view of the victim? All of the volunteers watched the exact same video of torture. They saw the same poor woman get subjected to painful shocks. And yet the stories powerfully influenced their conclusions about her character.

Here the most disturbing data point: the less money the volunteer received in compensation for her suffering the more the subjects disliked her. The people explained the woeful injustice by assuming that it was her own fault: she was shocked because she wasn't paying attention, or was incapable of learning, or that the pain would help her perform better. The martyrs fared even worse. Even though this victim was supposedly performing an act of altruism - she was suffering for the sake of others - the witnesses thought she was the most culpable of all. Her pain was proof of her guilt. Lerner's conclusion was unsettling: "The sight of an innocent person suffering without possibility of reward or compensation motivated people to devalue the attractiveness of the victim in order to bring about a more appropriate fit between her fate and her character."

The moral of the Just World Hypothesis is that people have a powerful intuition that the world is just and that people get what they deserve. While I’m sure this instinct makes all sorts of social contracts possible, it also leads to one very troubling tendency: we often rationalize injustices away, so that we can maintain our naive belief in a just world. This, I believe, is what happens when we read about innocent people getting sent to Guantanamo, or the wrong immigrant getting waterboarded, or why it’s so easy to brush aside calls for prison reform. We might acknowledge the awfulness of the error, but then quip that he shouldn’t have been hanging around with the Taliban, or that the guy who got sent to prison for a crime he didn’t commit was still a creep, or that the Madoff victims should have known their money manager was a fraud. In other words, we act like the subjects in the Lerner experiment blaming the innocent volunteer, as we search for reasons why the wrongfully treated deserved what they got. Subsequent studies have found that people with "a strong tendency to believe in a just world" tend to exhibit certain characteristics: they're much more likely to admire political leaders and existing social institutions, and have negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups. Furthermore,they "feel less of a need to engage in activities to change society or to alleviate plight of social victims."

Is there any way out of this cognitive trap? The only thing I can think of is education: people are shocked out of their complacence. After all, if an honest man can get executed than maybe the world isn’t so just.

About the Author

IMAGES

PPT
PPT
PPT
PPT
Social perception
What is Just-world Hypothesis? [Definition and Example]

VIDEO

Just World Hypothesis
What is the just world hypothesis? Cognitive Biases Explained #6
Just world hypothesis
What is RNA World Hypothesis?
Pap Attack: Republican Fear Leads to Victim-Blaming
The Just World Hypothesis #cognitivebias #philosophy #psychology #criticalthinking

COMMENTS

Just World Phenomenon: Definition, Examples, and Why It Happens
Another example of the just-world phenomenon is when people blame the victims of hate crimes. For instance, in cases of police violence against Black individuals, some say there are just "a few bad apples" in the police force. But this denies the reality of the victim's experience and the role systemic racism plays in the violence.
The Just-World Hypothesis: Believing That Everyone Gets What They
The just-world hypothesis is the mistaken belief that actions always lead to morally fair consequences, so good people are rewarded and bad people are punished. For example, a person is displaying the just-world hypothesis when they assume that if someone experienced a tragic misfortune, then they must have done something to deserve it. The ...
Just-world fallacy
The just-world fallacy, or just-world hypothesis, is the cognitive bias that assumes that "people get what they deserve" - that actions will necessarily have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. For example, the assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil actions will eventually be punished fall under ...
Just-World Hypothesis
Just-world Hypothesis is a concept comparable to what the Western world describe as "karma". It is this tendency to find reasons of moral fairness. ... Dr. Melvin J Lerner was the first to explicitly define and research the just-world hypothesis. Lerner was doing his postdoctoral work in clinical psychology at a major mental institution when he ...
Just-World Hypothesis: Definition, Examples and Effects
The Just-World Hypothesis is a psychological concept that suggests people tend to believe the world is fair and that people get what they deserve. This hypothesis has been studied for decades and has been found to have a significant impact on how people view the world. In this blog post, we will explore the definition, examples, and effects of the Just-World Hypothesis.Definition: The Just ...
Just World Hypothesis: Explanation and Examples
The Just World Hypothesis is a way of thinking that tells us people believe the world is fair and that everyone ends up with what they deserve. In simple terms, it's the idea that good things happen to good people and bad things to bad people. This belief helps our brains make sense of the confusing and sometimes unfair things that happen ...
The Just World Theory
Nov 13, 2015. --. The need to see victims as the recipients of their just deserts can be explained by what psychologists call the Just World Hypothesis. According to the hypothesis, people have a strong desire or need to believe that the world is an orderly, predictable, and just place, where people get what they deserve.
Just-World Hypothesis
Definition. The just-world hypothesis is a cognitive bias that suggests that people get what they deserve in life, leading to assumptions that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. Related terms. Fundamental Attribution Error: ...
Just-World Hypothesis
Definition. The Just-World Hypothesis is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency of individuals to believe that the world is inherently just and that people ultimately get what they deserve. Key Points. Belief in a Just World: The hypothesis suggests that individuals have a desire to see justice prevail, ...
Just-World Hypothesis
The just-world hypothesis is the belief that, in general, the social environment is fair, such that people get what they deserve. The concept was developed in part to help explain observations that to preserve a belief that the world is a just place, people will sometimes devalue a victim. A just world is defined as a world in which people do ...
Just-World Hypothesis
The Just-World hypothesis, or the Just-World phenomenon, is a concept in psychology. Essentially, it refers to the belief that many people hold that the world is ultimately a just place ...
APA Dictionary of Psychology
just-world hypothesis. Share button. Updated on 11/15/2023. the idea that the world is a fair and orderly place where what happens to people generally is what they deserve. In other words, bad things happen to bad people, and good things happen to good people. This view enables an individual to confront their physical and social environments as ...
Just world hypothesis
just world hypothesis n. in A Dictionary of Psychology (3) Length: 137 words. The widespread but false belief that the world is essentially fair, so that the good are rewarded and the bad punished. One consequence of this belief is that people who suffer misfortunes are assumed to deserve their fates: a person involved in a traffic accident ...
Understanding The Just-World Hypothesis Explained
The Just-World Hypothesis is a way of thinking that says people believe in a fair and just world. It suggests that good actions lead to good results, and bad actions lead to punishment. This idea helps people make sense of the world and their place in it. It helps people feel like things happen for a reason.
Is It Dangerous to Believe in a Just World?
The Just World Bias First studied by social psychologist Melvin Lerner, "just world hypothesis" or the "just world bias " refers to people's inherent tendency to believe in a greater ...
Just-World Hypothesis & Examples of How It Fools You
The just-world hypothesis is a tendency to believe that the world is a just place and that we all end up with what we deserve. It theorises that because we think the world is a just place, we look for reasons to explain away injustice. This effort on our part to rationalise injustice in this way often leads to us blaming the victims of ...
What is Just-world Hypothesis? [Definition and Example ...
Get the paperbacks or the FREE audiobooks with the links below:Buy the Books on Amazon US - Art of Thinking Clearly - https://amzn.to/2Kv1jZiThinking Fast an...
18.8: The Just World Hypothesis
This page titled 18.8: The Just World Hypothesis is shared under a CC BY-NC 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason Southworth & Chris Swoyer via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform.
Is It Dangerous to Believe in a Just World?
The Just World Bias. Have you ever heard of the "just world hypothesis" or the "just world bias"? First studied by social psychologist Melvin Lerner, it refers to people's inherent ...
The Psychological Consequences of Believing in a Just World
Perceptions of risk and the buffering hypothesis: The role of just world beliefs and right wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6): 643-656. Lench, C. (2007).
12.1 What Is Social Psychology?
Just-World Hypothesis. One consequence of westerners' tendency to provide dispositional explanations for behavior is victim blame (Jost & Major, 2001). When people experience bad fortune, others tend to assume that they somehow are responsible for their own fate. A common ideology, or worldview, in the United States is the just-world hypothesis.
The Just-World Hypothesis: On Believing the Universe Is Fair
A definition from psychology. The just-world hypothesis (also known as the just-world fallacy) is the belief that everything happens for a reason and that the Universe is inherently fair. It implies that bad people will receive appropriate retribution for their actions, while good people will be rewarded for their behavior.
A Just World
I'm talking about the Just World Hypothesis, a scientific theory first developed by the social psychologist Melvin Lerner. Consider this clever experiment, conducted in 1965: Several volunteers ...

What Is the Just-World Phenomenon?

At a Glance

Just-World Phenomenon and Victim-Blaming

Examples of the Just-World Phenomenon

Discrimination

Moral Judgements

Explanations of the Just-World Phenomenon

Fear of Vulnerability

A Desire to Minimize Anxiety

Pros and Cons of the Just-Word Phenomenon

How to Avoid the Just-World Phenomenon

Practice Empathy

Avoid Victim-Blaming

Learn About Social Injustice

Consider the Source

Explore Your Emotions

What This Means For You

The Just-World Hypothesis: Believing That Everyone Gets What They Deserve

Examples of the just-world hypothesis

Lerner’s experiments

Psychology and causes of the just-world hypothesis

Types of just-world beliefs

Just-world beliefs and religion

Contrasting beliefs

Belief in an unjust world

How to deal with just-world thinking

Summary and conclusions

Other articles you may find interesting:

Why do we believe that we get what we deserve?

Where it occurs

Related Biases

Individual effects

Systemic effects

Why it happens

Belief in a just world creates a seemingly predictable environment

We often avoid or distort information that challenges our cognitive framework

Why it is important

How to avoid it

By understanding the two systems of thinking, we are better equipped to resist biases

We can fight victim-blaming tendencies by cultivating empathy

How it all started

Example 1 - Reactions to luck

Example 2 - Perceptions of leaders

Example 1 – How the just-world hypothesis changes our reaction to situations of luck

Example 2 – How the just-world hypothesis can skew our perception of leaders

Case studies

About the Authors

Dr. Sekoul Krastev

We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy

OUR CLIENT SUCCESS

Increase in Monthly Users

Reduction In Design Time

Reduction in Client Drop-Off

Why does spacing out the repetition of information make one more likely to remember it?

Eager to learn about how behavioral science can help your organization?

Just-World Hypothesis: Definition, Examples and Effects

Recent Posts

Just World Hypothesis

How Does Just World Hypothesis Affect Us?

Dealing with Just World Hypothesis

Why is it Important?

Related Topics and Concepts

The Just World Theory

Just-World Hypothesis

Just-World Hypothesis Background and History

More Recent Research on Just-World Hypothesis

Just-World Hypothesis Implications

References:

Recently viewed (0)

Related Content

just world hypothesis

Related content in Oxford Reference

Understanding The Just-World Hypothesis Explained

Key Takeaways

What is the Just-World Hypothesis?

Definition and Key Concepts

The Role of Cognitive Bias

Historical Background of the Just-World Hypothesis

Emergence of the Concept

Melvin J. Lerner and Early Research