Belief in a just world: research progress over the past decade

Abstract

This paper reviews the literature on just world beliefs (BJW) and updates two previous reviews Lerner & Miller (1978), Furnham & Proctor (1989). Four broad areas of development were identified. First, critiques of self-report questionnaires and the development of new and psychometrically improved measures of BJW and related concepts were reviewed. Second, an extension of the studies of victim derogation and devaluation, particularly to those with AIDs and those who have experienced traumatic events such as rape, were discussed. Third, comparative recent research looking at BJW as a coping mechanism that may both buffer stress and facilitate achievement striving was reviewed. This focused on both the function and potential benefits of the BJW. Fourth an examination of cultural and demographic differences in the distribution of BJW was reviewed. There seems to be a movement from stressing the negative consequences of the BJW to understanding its psychological beneficial functions. It is concluded that the new direction in BJW research will ensure survival of research into the phenomenon for many years to come.

Introduction

It is over 35 years ago since Lerner (1965) first introduced The Belief in a Just World (BJW) concept and 20 years since his experimental monograph appeared (Lerner, 1980, Lerner, 1991). The BJW asserts that, quite justly, good things tend to happen to good people and bad things to bad people despite the fact this is patently not the case. Questionnaire studies of the BJW have been conducted for over 25 years (Rubin & Peplau, 1973, Rubin & Peplau, 1975) and BJW have been shown to be stable and cross-culturally generalizable. Every decade or so, reviews have appeared on research into the BJW (Furnham & Proctor, 1989, Lerner & Miller, 1978). Furnham and Proctor (1989) reviewed the literature up to the beginning of the 1990s. This paper focuses primarily on the research published in the 1990s and shows a new direction for the research.

Searching out the salient literature on various databases, over 70 peer reviewed journal articles were identified and examined along with over a dozen book chapters. This is very similar to the number published in the 1980s (Furnham & Proctor, 1989) and the 1970s (Lerner & Miller, 1978). Maes (1998) looked up Psyclit and German databases on the BJW from 1965 to 1994. It showed that from 1990 to 1994 (half of the period in this review) just under 100 articles made clear reference to the BJW even if they were not explicitly about it. A PsychInfo search on “just world” from 1960 to 1999 identified 606 articles in English. A similar search for papers published in 2000 and 2001 referred to over 40. It represents a very steady interest in the concept and its measurement which is consistent in amount, if not content, of studies. The range of topics investigated which have used BJW measures remains considerable (Begue & Fumey, 2000, Coviati et al., 2001, Craig et al., 2000, Hafer, 2000a, Hafer et al., 2001, Hunt, 2000, Jost & Burgess, 2000, Kurst et al., 2000, Lane, 2001, McGraw & Foley, 2000, Neville et al., 2000). This paper attempts a review of the current state-of-the-art BJW concept.

The essence of the BJW hypothesis or theory was succinctly summarized by Lerner and Miller (1978) thus:

Individuals have a need to believe that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve. The belief that the world is just enables the individual to confront his physical and social environment as though they were stable and orderly. Without such a belief it would be difficult for the individual to commit himself to the pursuit of long range goals or even to the socially regulated behaviour of day to day life. Since the belief that the world is just serves such an important adaptive function for the individual, people are very reluctant to give up this belief, and they can be greatly troubled if they encounter evidence that suggests that the world is not really just or orderly after all (pp. 1030–1031).

Thus, the BJW seems to provide psychological buffers against the harsh realities of the world as well as personal control over one’s own destiny. It is a way of eliminating injustice by victim derogation. People feel less personally vulnerable and have lower perception of risk because they believe they have done nothing to deserve negative outcomes. Furthermore, the developmental and life-span literature suggests that it is fairly stable across the life-span.

Earlier reviews concluded that the tendency to devalue victims in order to maintain BJW belief have major, significant, social effects. Nearly all of this work concentrated on the negative side of the BJW namely victim derogation. A major difference in the more recent research has been a shift to see BJW as a healthy coping mechanism with many positive psychological benefits.

The aim of this review is to update the BJW literature by looking at research published in the 1990s. Lerner (1998) has himself reflected on BJW over a quarter of a century after he began writing about it. His thesis is that adults express two forms of the BJW: one conscious which is about conventional rules, morality and social judgements, the other preconscious which includes primitive rules of blaming and automatic emotional consequences. A central concern is whether the BJW is a child’s fairy tale or a fundamental delusion. The consistent and powerful dynamics associated with the way in which people protect their BJW would suggest it is not simply a child’s fairy tale. Further, the fact that injustices are normalized means for people no injustice has occurred. This neutralizing of injustice by implying it is a common everyday occurrence means their is no injustice, no cruelty, nor need to defend the BJW. Further religious beliefs flourish and serve to explain the problem of evil or why bad things happen to good people. Lerner (1998) was also concerned to attempt to explain self blame and posits very plausible motives for this action. He continues to stress the powerful psychological functions of the BJW.

Lerner (1998) argues that people care more about justice than they think they do or admit to: it is an omnipresent force in most peoples’ lives. Further, it is an inevitable consequence of the desire for a stable environment. There is abundant evidence that people create a stable conception of their environment and imbue objects in that world with value. For Lerner (1998) the BJW remains a fundamental delusion: ‘fundamental’ in that it seems essential for most people’s sense of sanity and security, and ‘delusion’ in the sense that it is a factually false belief that is motivationally defended.

An overview of the research conducted in the 1980s shows four things. First, concern with measuring BJW by self-report and the development of new and better validated questionnaires to measure the belief system. Indeed Hafer (2000a) has successfully used a modified Stroop task to show how innocent victims threaten BJW. Second, a continuing of the exploration of victim blame particularly with rape and diseases such as AIDs. Most of these studies clearly showed BJW associated with conservatism and authoritarianism; as an anti-social (even evil) belief system that functioned to devalue and derogate innocent victims. However the single individual difference variable that it seemed most closely correlated with was internal locus of control which is nearly always conceived as psychologically healthy and adaptive. A third, relatively new strand of research, has examined the BJW as a “personal resource” or coping strategy, which can both act as a buffer against stress but also enhance achievement behaviour. This partly explains the motivational force of BJW and also why people are so reluctant to change these beliefs. Finally there has been a continuous interest in the distribution of beliefs in different cultures and specific demographic groups. One factor that fuels this particular issue is the aetiology of BJW and also if earned, how they can be unlearned. Yet there still remains very little work on BJW among children.