just world hypothesis in psychology

Is It Dangerous to Believe in a Just World?

Beliefs in universal justice or karma may lead to destructive behaviours..

Posted October 6, 2022 | Reviewed by Michelle Quirk

• The "just world bias" is rooted in a desire to create a predictable world, where good people get rewarded and bad people get punished.
• Disasters can challenge beliefs in justice and create feelings of cognitive dissonance because existing beliefs don’t match reality.
• Consequences may include engaging in victim blaming to restore a sense of justice.

Do you remember the day of Lady Diana’s tragic death? The Princess of Wales, first wife of King Charles III, died more than 25 years ago from the injuries she sustained in a terrible car accident. Chased by photo-hungry paparazzi, her limousine collided with the pillar of a Parisian car tunnel, killing all passengers apart from Princess Diana’s bodyguard.

The public outrage following the accident was unparalleled and, even a quarter of a century later, the sad story continues to fascinate. Interestingly, people’s opinions about the event were highly divided. Many people showed an outpouring of compassion and support for the “People’s Princess,” which ultimately resulted in the organisation of a large state funeral and changes to the rights of the press. By contrast, many other members of the public engaged in derogatory comments about Diana’s character and went as far as blaming the Princess for her own tragic demise. A private secretary of Diana's even published an insulting personal account of the Princess, in which he accused her of "stupidity" and the "occasional downright wickedness."

How can we explain these opposing reactions?

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 justice of the universe. The phenomenon is comparable to a belief in a divine entity that rights each wrong or to a belief in universal karma, which people accrue based on their previous actions. In line with popular proverbs such as “You reap what you sow” or “What goes around comes around,” it entails an understanding that good people are generally rewarded with good fortunes, while bad people receive the punishment they deserve.

The just world hypothesis is likely to have developed as a response to the challenges of daily life, which holds many unforeseen disasters and hardships. A sense of universal justice can help people to create a more predictable environment and establish a sense of control that increases personal feelings of self-efficacy . Put simply, believing in a just world is likely to make people feel in charge of their own destiny, and motivate them toward positive behaviours.

It is intuitively obvious why believing in a just world provides comfort and predictability. Sadly, an objective look at the world today tells an undeniable truth: Justice doesn’t always prevail. Innocent children are orphaned in war, millions of people suffer unfair victimisation in modern slavery, and many kind and caring people experience severe hardship on a regular basis. This leaves us with the regrettable conclusion that the belief in a just world constitutes a systematic error or bias in thinking.

The Dangers of Just World Bias

As with most biases, the just world bias affects the way people make judgments and impairs subsequent choices. This becomes evident in the context of disasters or tragedies such as Princess Diana’s untimely death. Witnessing disproportionate or unexpected hardships is in conflict with any beliefs in a just, predictable world. When bad things happen to good people, we are likely to experience feelings of inconsistency and internal dissonance in beliefs, which typically result in unease or distress. Most people use one of two coping strategies to resolve such difficult situations:

• Victim compensation. This strategy involves participating in compensatory action, which aims to restore justice by supporting the victim and righting the wrong that occurred. In the context of Diana’s death, many people tried to compensate the royal family for their suffering by offering public support and attending the state funeral. Public pressure to make changes to press rights aimed to prevent future tragedies.
• Victim blaming or derogation. The second strategy involves blaming or defaming the victim in question, again with the aim to resolve cognitive dissonance and confirm the existing belief in a just world. By picturing the victim as a bad person who deserved a terrible fate, it is possible to restore a sense of fairness and predictability of the world. Again, evidence for this strategy was found after Princess Diana’s accident, when many people turned against the royal icon and accused her of inappropriate conduct or mistreatment of the media.

Curiously, the two coping strategies have very different consequences, and the choice of strategy often depends on people’s perceptions of their own power to make a difference. If they feel incapable of making a meaningful compensation to the victim, it can be easier to opt for the alternative strategy and seek responsibility with the person who suffered.

How to Beat Just World Bias

Public blaming and shaming are deeply destructive social behaviours that often affect those who deserve it least. Princess Diana’s teenage sons undoubtedly suffered greatly under the public speculations surrounding their mother's mental health, with Harry stating in an interview that he'd been “very close to a complete breakdown” following the many “lies and misconceptions” circulated about his mother.

This leads to one important question: How can we minimise the destructive coping strategies associated with just world bias?

One of the most promising ways to beat victim blaming is to put yourself into the other person’s shoes and actively try to imagine how they must have experienced the situation. This action of perspective taking is likely to encourage empathy, may put things into perspective, and could help to maintain realistic perceptions of a difficult situation.

How would you have felt or acted in Princess Diana’s situation?

Eva Krockow, Ph.D. , is a researcher in decision making at the University of Leicester.

• 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

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

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.

• Belief in a Just World: The hypothesis suggests that individuals have a desire to see justice prevail, leading them to actively seek out and interpret information in a way that confirms their belief in a just world.
• Victim Blaming: The Just-World Hypothesis often results in victim-blaming, where individuals blame victims of misfortune or injustice for their own situation, in order to maintain the belief that the world is fair and that such events could not happen randomly or undeservedly.
• Psychological Coping Mechanism: It serves as a psychological coping mechanism, as believing in a just world can help individuals maintain a sense of control and security in a world that can appear chaotic and unpredictable.
• Consequences: The Just-World Hypothesis can have detrimental consequences, such as reinforcing and perpetuating social inequalities, overlooking systemic factors causing injustice, and reducing empathy towards those who are suffering.
• Critical Examination: It is important to critically examine the Just-World Hypothesis and recognize its limitations in order to promote fairness, empathy, and social justice in society.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

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.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Belief in a just world, perceived control, perceived risk, and hopelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from a globally diverse sample

Gözde kiral ucar.

1 Department of Psychology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University (COMU), Çanakkale, Turkey

Matthias Donat

2 Department of Educational Psychology, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/Saale, Germany

Jonathan Bartholomaeus

3 School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Kendra Thomas

4 Hope College, Holland, MI USA

Sofya Nartova-Bochaver

5 Department of Psychology, HSE University, Moscow, Russia

Associated Data

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Not applicable.

The purpose of this study was to understand the complex relationships between belief in a just world (BJW), perceived control, perceived risk to self and others, and hopelessness among a globally diverse sample during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The just-world hypothesis suggests that people need to believe in a just world in which they get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Studies have shown that believing in a just world has an adaptive function for individuals. Samples from six countries completed an online questionnaire. A total of 1,250 people participated (934 female) and ages ranged from 16 to 84 years old ( M  = 36.3, SD  = 15.5). The results showed that, when controlling for gender, age, country of residence, and being in a risk group for COVID-19 (e.g., smoker, old age, chronic disease etc.), a stronger personal and general BJW and higher perceived control over the COVID-19 pandemic predicted lower levels of hopelessness. How at-risk participants perceived themselves to be for COVID-19 positively predicted hopelessness, but how risky participants perceived the disease to be for others negatively predicted hopelessness. This study highlights how the distinction between self and others influences hopelessness and how BJW, especially personal BJW, can serve as a psychological resource during times of historic uncertainty.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-03172-1.

Since the first case of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was reported in December 2019, the number of cases rapidly increased (World Health Organization, 2020 ). From its earliest days, researchers have been trying to understand how this global pandemic impacts the psychological state of mind. This study aimed to understand the meaning of believing in a just world as a psychological resource for individuals’ coping processes even in a pandemic.

Belief in a Just World

The Just-World Hypothesis (Lerner, 1980 ) suggests that individuals tend to believe that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Believing in a just world provides individuals with some benefits, first and foremost they can believe that they live in an orderly, controllable, and predictable world (Lerner, 1980 ). Thus, researchers proposed that this belief serves important psychological functions (see Dalbert, 2001 ).

First, belief in a just world (BJW) helps individuals interpret their life events in a meaningful way. Through the so-called assimilation function , strong just-world believers, when confronted with an injustice, restore justice psychologically through mechanisms such as victim-blaming, thus maintaining their belief in a just world (Dalbert, 2001 ). In line with this reasoning, individuals who strongly endorsed BJW felt more justly treated by others. For example, students with a strong BJW rated their classmates and teachers as fair (e.g., Correia & Dalbert, 2007 ; Münscher et al., 2020 ) and BJW was especially important for disadvantaged students in evaluating their teachers as more just over time (Kiral Ucar & Dalbert, 2020 ).

Second, the trust function reflects people’s conviction that they will be treated justly by others (Dalbert, 2001 ) and that they will be rewarded for their efforts. Therefore, they can feel confident that they will get what they deserve in the future (Dalbert, 2001 ; Lerner, 1980 ). This confidence also enables optimism, maintains well-being and mental health, and provides motivation to invest in long-term goals (e.g., Hafer, 2000 ). For example, studies showed that BJW was associated with interpersonal (e.g., Bègue, 2002 ) and institutional trust (e.g., Thomas & Mucherah, 2018 ).

Researchers (e.g., Dalbert, 1999 ; Lipkus et al., 1996 ) argue that it is necessary to differentiate the personal BJW from the general BJW. Personal BJW refers to the belief that one’s own life is just, whereas general BJW reflects the belief that the world is a just place broadly (Dalbert, 1999 ). Personal BJW has been more strongly associated with adaptive outcomes than general BJW (for recent reviews see Bartholomaeus & Strelan, 2019 ; Dalbert & Donat, 2015 ). The personal BJW’s protector characteristic for well-being has been documented in many different samples and circumstances, for example, victims of disasters (Otto et al., 2006 ) or other injustices (e.g., Dzuka & Dalbert, 2007 ), employed (Nudelman et al., 2016 ) or unemployed samples (Otto et al., 2009 ), school students (e.g., Correia & Dalbert, 2007 ), university students (e.g., Münscher et al., 2020 ), and elderly samples (e.g., Dzuka & Dalbert, 2006 ). Moreover, personal BJW shows similar associations across countries. For instance, personal BJW is associated with perceived control to a similar extent across samples from the USA (Fischer & Bolten Holz, 2010 ), Turkey (Kiral Ucar et al., 2019 ), and Germany (Donat et al., 2016 ). It is also associated similarly with indices of mental health across these same samples. Importantly, personal BJW has been associated with positive future orientation in samples from Turkey (Şeker, 2016 ), Germany (Christandl, 2013 ), and Brazil (Thomas et al., 2019 ). General BJW, on the other hand, has been more associated with maladaptive social outcomes such as harsher attitudes towards refugees (Khera et al., 2014 ).

Despite these differences in personal and general BJW, researchers (e.g., Hafer et al., 2020 ) increasingly emphasize the necessity to consider both dimensions simultaneously in studies because they may have their own valuable contribution to individuals’ adaptive functioning, particularly in mental health. That is why, in the present study, we examined the meaning of both personal and general BJW for individuals in how they process and cope with the pandemic.

BJW and Hopelessness

The future is uncertain; however, there is a psychological benefit to approaching the future with confidence and not constantly expecting injustice (Lerner, 1980 ). Accordingly, studies (e.g., Hafer, 2000 ) indicate that individuals need to believe in a just world to invest in their future; therefore, any potential threat to this belief could instigate the need to defend it. BJW is positively associated with positive future expectations (e.g., Sutton & Winnard, 2007 ) and hope (e.g., Xie et al., 2011 ) and negatively correlated with hopelessness (e.g., Kiral Ucar et al., 2019 ).

During one of the most serious global crises of recent history, the future became even more uncertain. It is not surprising that individuals felt vulnerable and confronted despair (Walsh, 2020 ). However, being hopeful about the future plays a key role in maintaining well-being in a pandemic (e.g., Yıldırım & Arslan, 2020 ). In the present study, we aimed to examine if strong just-world believers have a psychological advantage since BJW would serve as a personal resource to cope with hopelessness.

BJW and Perceived Control

A strong BJW supports individuals’ belief that they live in a controllable world (Lerner, 1980 ). Those with high BJW default to the assumption that their world has consistent rules and the events in their life are outcomes of their own actions. As long as the outcomes are the results of their own actions, their experiences are predictable, not random, thus, maintaining a sense of control. In such a world, they hope that being a good person brings good things and a good future (see Dalbert, 2001 ; Lerner, 1980 ). Studies have also revealed that a sense of control is adaptive for individuals’ coping during a pandemic (Zheng et al., 2020 ). The present study aimed to determine if BJW helps individuals strengthen their feelings of control.

BJW and Perceived Risk

A strong BJW also enables individuals to trust that they will not fall victim to an unfortunate life event. Thus, they perceive lower levels of risk (Dalbert, 2001 ; Dalbert & Donat, 2015 ). Lambert et al. ( 1999 ) were the first to examine the hypothesis that individuals with a strong BJW perceive lower levels of risk than individuals with a lower BJW. They observed that strong BJW provided a buffering effect to those who perceived the world as dangerous and this buffer was evidenced in both perceived risk for the self and others. Dalbert ( 2001 ) extended these results and showed that BJW served as a buffer especially for external risks (e.g., robbery). The COVID-19 pandemic also represents such an external risk, and recent studies (e.g., Malesza & Kaczmarek, 2021 ) indicate that greater perceived risk of infection is associated with maladaptive consequences for individuals such as greater anxiety. The current study hypothesizes that BJW will help individuals cope with the pandemic threat by reducing their risk perception.

Perceived Control, Perceived Risk, and Hopelessness

When individuals trust that they have some control over the outcomes in their life and feel safe from future risks, they tend to expect a better future. There is substantial literature demonstrating that decreased control perception (for a meta-analysis see Gallagher et al., 2014 ) and increased risk perception (e.g., Malesza & Kaczmarek, 2021 ) are strongly associated with negative psychological outcomes. Moreover, recent studies show that, in a pandemic, losing a sense of control (e.g., Godinic et al., 2020 ) and having higher levels of perceived risk (e.g., Yıldırım & Güler, 2021 ) might be maladaptive and prevent people from expecting a positive future. Therefore, the hypothesis of the present study is that individuals’ lower levels of perceived control and higher levels of perceived risk will be predictive of higher levels of hopelessness.

Based on the theoretical framework, we examined how at-risk participants perceived themselves to be for COVID-19 (perceived COVID-19 specific risk-self), how risky participants perceived the disease to be for others (perceived COVID-19 specific risk-others), participants’ perception of control over the COVID-19 pandemic (perceived COVID-19 specific control), hopelessness, and how all of these related to BJW. The study was conducted with a globally diverse sample during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We hypothesized that BJW and perceived COVID-19-specific control would negatively relate to hopelessness, and perceived COVID-19 specific risk-self and -others would positively relate to hopelessness. We expected that BJW would positively relate to perceived COVID-19 specific control, but negatively to perceived COVID-19 specific risk -self and -others. We hypothesized that these associations would be significant even after controlling for gender, age, country of residence, and concrete risk factors. Figure  1 depicts a conceptual diagram of these hypotheses.

A conceptual model of the associations being tested in this study

Participants

In our study, N  = 1,264 participants from six countries answered online surveys. Complete observations and reasonable group sizes were required to run the statistical model; therefore, n  = 14 observations ( n  = 2 gender diverse; n  = 11 did not indicate gender; n  = 1 did not indicate age) were removed, leaving a sample of n  = 1250 for analysis. Participants were n  = 934 female, n  = 316 male and were between 16 and 84 years of age ( M  = 36.3, SD  = 15.5). This sample consisted of people from Turkey ( n  = 252; n  = 185 female, n  = 67 male; M age  = 32.4, SD age  = 12.0), Australia ( n  = 207; n  = 110 female, n  = 97 male; M age  = 33.8, SD age  = 12.8), Germany ( n  = 143; n  = 102 female, n  = 41 male; M age  = 36.9, SD age  = 14.6), Russia ( n  = 270; n  = 231 female, n  = 39 male; M age  = 28.8, SD age  = 15.1), the USA ( n  = 204; n  = 162 female, n  = 42 male; M age  = 50.3, SD age  = 15.4), and Brazil ( n  = 174; n  = 145 female, n  = 30 male; M age  = 39.8, SD age  = 12.7).

All items were answered on 6-point scales ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 6 = “strongly agree” with a higher value indicating a stronger endorsement of the construct.

The Personal Belief in a Just World Scale captures the belief that people personally get what they deserve. The scale consists of seven items (original German and English version by Dalbert, 1999 ; sample item: "I believe that I usually get what I deserve"). For this study, Cronbach’s alphas were α TURKEY  = 0.87; α AUSTRALIA  = 0.83 ; α GERMANY  = 0.88 ; α RUSSIA  = 0.89; α USA  = 0.80 ; α BRAZIL  = 0.84. General BJW was measured with the 6-item General Belief in a Just World Scale (original German and English version by Dalbert et al., 1987 ; sample item: ‘‘I think basically the world is a just place’’). The personal and general BJW scales used in this study have been previously validated in German (Dalbert, 1999 ; Dalbert et al., 1987 ), Russian (Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2018 ), Portuguese (Thomas & Napolitano, 2017 ), and Turkish (Göregenli, 2003 ). For this study, Cronbach’s alphas were α TURKEY  = 0.74; α AUSTRALIA  = 0.77 ; α GERMANY  = 0.73 ; α RUSSIA  = 0.80; α USA  = 0.78 ; α BRAZIL  = 0.72.

Perceived Risk

Perceived risk for COVID-19 was evaluated for the self and others separately. Both, Perceived risk for self (sample item: “How much risk do you feel from Covid 19/Coronavirus?”) and Perceived risk for others (sample item: “How much risk do you feel others have from Covid 19/Coronavirus?”) were measured with eight items each * . Four items were taken from the scale of Han et al. ( 2014 ), developed to measure perceived risk for the H1N1 virus. Four items were included by the researchers of the present study. All Cronbach’s alphas were acceptable for both Perceived risk for self ( α TURKEY  = 0.84; α AUSTRALIA  = 0.87 ; α GERMANY  = 0.82 ; α RUSSIA  = 0.80; α USA  = 0.87 ; α BRAZIL  = 0.84), and Perceived risk for others ( α TURKEY  = 0.80; α AUSTRALIA  = 0.87 ; α GERMANY  = 0.90 ; α RUSSIA  = 0.88; α USA  = 0.88 ; α BRAZIL  = 0.74).

Perceived Control

Perceived control for COVID-19 was measured with eight items 1 (sample item: “If I take care of my personal hygiene (e.g., by washing my hands etc.), Covid 19/Coronavirus will not be transmitted to me”). Items were adapted from Çırakoğlu’s scale ( 2011 ) for the H1N1 virus and applied to COVID-19 by the researchers of the present study. For this study, Cronbach’s alphas were α TURKEY  = 0.81; α AUSTRALIA  = 0.75 ; α GERMANY  = 0.78 ; α RUSSIA  = 0.72; α USA  = 0.76 ; α BRAZIL = 0.76.

Hopelessness

Participants’ positive and negative beliefs about the future were assessed with the Beck Hopelessness Scale (English original by Beck et al., 1974 ) consisting of 20 items (sample item: “The future seems vague and uncertain to me”; Turkish version: Seber et al., 1993 ; German version: Krampen, 1979 ; Russian version: Gorbatkov, 2007 ; Brazilian version: Cunha, 2001 ). For this study, Cronbach’s alphas were α TURKEY  = 0.91; α AUSTRALIA  = 0.95 ; α GERMANY  = 0.85 ; α RUSSIA  = 0.90; α USA  = 0.90 ; α BRAZIL  = 0.84.

Demographics and Risk Factors

Demographic data on gender and age were collected. In addition, participants were asked to self-identify if they (Risk item 1: “Are you in a risk group [e.g., smoker, old, chronic disease, and so on] for Covid 19/Corona virus?”) and/or some of their friends/family members (Risk item 2: “Are some of your friends/family members in a risk group [e.g., smoker, old, chronic disease, and so on] for Covid 19/Corona virus?”) are in an at risk group and if they (Risk item 3: “To your knowledge, have you been infected with Covid 19/Corona Virus?”) and/or some of their friends/family members (Risk item 4: “To your knowledge, have some of your friends/family members been infected with Covid 19/Corona Virus?”) have been infected with Covid-19. Participants responded to these questions with “yes” or “no”.

The Board of Ethics at the first author’s university approved the study. The data collection process was conducted online. The sample was obtained by using a snowball technique via personal and professional networks of the authors. The questionnaire was distributed on Facebook and Instagram. Only for Australia, beyond the combination of snowball sampling the data were also collected through the crowd sourcing website Prolific, and respondents were restricted to people who were currently Australian residents. Participants were provided an informed consent before they responded to the scales and they were ensured that their responses would be confidential. Data was collected simultaneously across countries for a specified time frame, between 18 th of May 2020 and 16 th of July 2020 (for the infection and death rates see Table S3 ).

Statistical Analysis

In order to determine the associations between the variables, while accounting for their shared variance, we employed a correlational analysis and structural equation modelling. The lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012 ) in R version 4.0.2 was used for this analysis. We regressed hopelessness on BJW (personal and general), perceived COVID-19 specific control, and perceived COVID-19 specific risk (-self and -other). In this regression, we also controlled for the influence of country of residence, gender, age, and the four COVID risk-factors on both hopelessness and the five predictor variables. Controlling for these influences ensured that we accounted for substantive differences in participants’ circumstances across countries. All data, analysis, and survey materials are available here: https://osf.io/sjqfd/?view_only=11ef2658de814ad3a856948ac5c655fd

Zero-order correlations between study variables (personal and general BJW, perceived COVID-19 specific control, perceived COVID-19 specific risk-self and -other, and hopelessness) were analyzed (see Table ​ Table1). 1 ). The results showed that while both personal and general BJW were positively correlated with perceived COVID-19 specific control, personal BJW was negatively correlated with both perceived COVID-19 specific risk-self and -other. However, General BJW’s negative association was significant only for perceived COVID-19 specific risk-other. In addition, both personal and general BJW and COVID-19 specific control were negatively correlated with hopelessness; COVID-19 specific risk-self was positively correlated with hopelessness.

Correlations between all measured variables

Bottom triangle = zero-order correlation coefficients; top triangle = 95% confidence intervals; ** =  p  < 0.001, * =  p  < 0.01. BJW-P = personal belief in a just world, BJW-G = general belief in a just world, PC = perceived control scale, PR-self = perceived risk of COVID-19 for the self, PR-other = perceived risk of COVID-19 for others, BHS = Beck’s hopelessness scale

The model (see Table ​ Table2) 2 ) showed that personal and general BJW as well as perceived COVID-19 specific risk-other and perceived COVID-19 specific control negatively predicted hopelessness. Hopelessness further positively related to perceived COVID-19 specific risk-self: The more people perceived COVID-19 specific risk to themselves, the more hopelessness they reported. Comparing the relative size of the beta coefficients, personal BJW had the strongest negative association with hopelessness, followed by general BJW, perceived control, and finally perceived risk-other. This indicates that personal BJW played a leading role in lower hopelessness across countries.

Model estimates for the associations between BJW, risk perceptions, perceived control, and hopelessness

* = German sample acts as the comparison sample for all country comparisons. † = The reference group is female . ‡ = The reference group is Yes . BJW-P = personal belief in a just world, BJW-G = general belief in a just world, PC = perceived COVID-19 specific control, PR-self = perceived risk of COVID-19 for the self, PR-other = perceived risk of COVID-19 for others, BHS = Beck’s hopelessness scale. Risk 1 = Are you in a risk group for COVID-19?, Risk 2 = Are some of your friends/family members in a risk group for COVID-19?, Risk 3 = Have you been infected with COVID-19?, Risk 4 = Have friends/family members been infected with COVID-19?. Participants provided binary (yes/no) responses to the risk questions

The model also showed that personal BJW was significantly negatively associated with perceived COVID-19 specific risk-self and positively with perceived COVID-19 specific control but not with perceived COVID-19 specific risk-others. General BJW was negatively associated with perceived COVID-19 specific risk-other and positively with perceived COVID-19 specific control, but not with perceived COVID-19 specific risk-self.

Moreover, hopelessness was stronger among people who were younger, male, and indicated that a family member was infected with SARS-CoV-2 in contrast to their counterparts. Personal and general BJW positively related to each other as did both risk-perceptions. Moreover, perceived COVID-19 specific risk-self negatively related to perceived COVID-19 specific control. Specific estimates for the associations with control variables are reported in the supplemental material.

Additional Analyses: Differences Across Countries

To add further clarity to the results presented here we also engaged in exploratory analysis with these data which are reported in full in the supplementary material. We began by looking at the difference across countries on all measured variables. While variables were similarly distributed across countries, there was a significant difference between countries on personal BJW, perceived risk-self, and perceived risk-other. But no statistically significant difference between countries on general BJW, perceived control, or hopelessness. Turkey reported lower scores on personal BJW than all other countries. Germany scored significantly lower on perceived risk-self than all other countries except Australia, and Brazil and Turkey scored significantly higher than all other countries. Finally, Brazil scored significantly higher on perceived risk-other than all other countries and Russia scored significantly lower than all other countries (see Table S1 and Figure S1 ).

Second, we estimated the impact the infection rate and death rate of each country might exert on hopelessness. Our analysis indicated that these country-level variables did not significantly influence the individual-level variables considered in this study (see Tables S3 and S4 ). Finally, we ran the model outlined in Table ​ Table2 2 individually with the samples from each country. This fine grain analysis indicated that the regression coefficients were generally similar across countries suggesting that the overall model provides a generalizable estimation of the associations between these variables to the samples of each country (see Tables S7 to S12 ). Taken together, these supplementary analyses indicate that the findings of our central model are broadly applicable across countries.

The present study aimed to investigate if BJW is associated with adaptive outcomes for individuals during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results revealed that the more the participants endorsed personal BJW, and the more likely they perceived control over COVID-19, the less likely they perceived personal risk from COVID-19 and the less hopeless they felt. On the other hand, general BJW might prevent participants from perceiving risk for others, but it was unrelated to risk perception for the self. However, the more the participants endorsed general BJW, the more likely they perceived control over COVID-19 and the less likely they were to report hopelessness.

Overall, the results confirm that BJW can help people cope with uncertainties and experiences (Dalbert, 2001 ), such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Nudelman et al., 2021 ). BJW provides individuals with a sense of control over their life and enables them to feel confident that they will be safe from external risks (e.g., Nudelman, et al., 2016 ). Further, BJW contributes to having a positive outlook on the future (e.g., Kiral Ucar et al., 2019 ; Sutton & Winnard, 2007 ). In the present study, both general and personal BJW were associated with decreased hopelessness and increased control perception, but only personal BJW served a function for the risk perception for the self. Even though the coefficients were not tested to see if they significantly differed from each other, the magnitude of personal BJW was stronger than all others. That is, it seems that personal BJW was the most important predictor measured in this study, emphasizing that it might function as an especially crucial psychological resource helping individuals cope with the pandemic.

Hopelessness is approached as one implication of negative expectations about the future (Beck et al., 1974 ) and has been associated with future derogation of positive mental state (e.g., Alford et al., 1995 ). Recent studies (e.g., Yıldırım & Arslan, 2020 ) support this perspective by showing that being hopeful for the future is crucial to maintaining well-being in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, studies indicate that perceived COVID-19 specific risk (e.g., Malesza & Kaczmarek, 2021 ) and perceived control (e.g., Zheng et al., 2020 ) are among the factors affecting individuals’ coping. Risk perception is being observed as negatively associated with a positive outlook on the future (e.g., Yıldırım & Güler, 2021 ), similarly, losing control also might be detrimental for future expectations (e.g., Godinic et al., 2020 ). Our results support the idea that strongly believing in a just world, in which one is treated justly in particular, can serve as a personal resource in the pandemic, that is strong BJW was observed being associated with higher levels of a sense of control and lower levels of the perception of external threats. Moreover, it seems to have a similar pattern across multiple countries. Further, in our study how at-risk participants perceived themselves to be for COVID-19 positively predicted hopelessness, but how risky participants perceived the disease to be for others negatively predicted hopelessness. These results could be interpreted as a similar pattern to the differences we see in the BJW self/other paradox. In BJW research, a lower BJW-self is sometimes a predictor of lower well-being, while a lower BJW-others is typically not associated with worse personal outcomes (Bartholomaeus & Strelan, 2019 ; Dalbert, 1999 ). Seeing the risk for others potentially allows for more hope because it provides the necessary social distancing from the threat. However, to evaluate this interpretation thoroughly, more studies are needed.

Participants from Australia reported the highest level of hopelessness, followed by participants from Germany, Turkey, Russia, USA, and Brazil. These differences in hopelessness across various countries partly reflect findings of other studies in which people from the USA had the lowest levels of hopelessness compared to people from, for instance, Japan, Australia, and other Asian or European countries (Hirsch et al., 2012 ; Lamis et al., 2014 ; Lester, 2013 ), whereas people from Ghana had an even lower level of hopelessness (Eshun, 1999 ). Furthermore, some of these studies indicate that hopelessness might also impact people’s mental health differentially as its relations to depression and suicidal behavior varied (Hirsch et al., 2012 ; Lamis et al., 2014 ). However, from the perspective of this study, these differences do not reflect a systematic pattern regarding economic (e.g., Gross Domestic Product, GDP) or cultural differences (e.g., cultural mindset: individualism vs. collectivism), neither in this study nor in past studies.

The relations of hopelessness with demographics during the pandemic seem mixed. While there are studies observing hopelessness was significantly higher than males among females (e.g., Hacimusalar et al., 2020 ) there are also studies that it was significantly higher than females among males (e.g., Kaplan Serin & Doğan, 2021 ). Considering the age, in some studies, hopelessness was observed to be stronger among younger participants (Zuo et al., 2021 ), however, studies can be found observing also that hopelessness significantly increased as the age increased (e.g. Gamsızkan et al., 2021 ). In the present study, hopelessness was found to be stronger among the participants who were younger and male. Considering the risk factors, effect sizes were small and risk factors appeared to be relatively unimportant predictors of hopelessness when accounting for all our other variables.

This study is not without limitations. Data are cross-sectional, meaning that no causal conclusion can be drawn. To define the causal direction, longitudinal or experimental studies are needed. It should be noted that our sample was largely female (female = 75%), that is, the adaptive implications of a strong BJW and higher perceived control and the detrimental implications of higher perceived risk for hopelessness during the pandemic would be applicable for females. Studies with even samples are needed to generalize our results.

Although the correlations have been found in the expected direction, as seen in Table ​ Table1 1 the correlational associations are not very large. Subsequently, this study did not test mediation effects of perceived COVID-19 specific control and risk on the relation between BJW and hopelessness although such mediation might be plausible from a theoretical or even empirical perspective (e.g., Kiral Ucar et al., 2019 ). This study did not test for mediation because “cross-sectional data implicitly undermines [sic] an assumption of the statistical mediation model” (Fairchild & McDaniel, 2017 , p. 1265) and “cross-sectional examination of mediation will typically generate biased estimates” (Maxwell & Cole, 2007 , p. 39). Future studies should consider investigating mediation effects in a longitudinal design.

Furthermore, this study controlled for the concrete risk factor of age, which makes individuals more vulnerable to COVID-19. In addition to reporting their age as a continuous variable, participants also could check themselves as being in a higher risk group (being of old age). The latter variable served as a risk-group self-categorization of participants which contained several indicators such as smoking, chronic diseases, or “being of old age.” This categorization represents a more subjective measurement of risk than the question about age itself. It is likely that these variables (age and risk item 1) are partly confounded.

Additionally, this study aimed to examine if BJW has adaptive outcomes for individuals in general in these extreme times. Future studies should also examine how BJW functions for high-risk groups in particular and for those who have a weak uncertainty tolerance (e.g., Nudelman et al., 2016 ). Unfortunately, BJW is not always adaptive, a reduction of risk perception may lead to risky health behaviors (e.g., Hafer et al., 2001 ) which may be of vital importance in terms of being infected. Future studies should also examine its relation to COVID-19 specific health behaviors.

In conclusion, as shown in our study, BJW seems to provide people with benefits such as higher hope. This is in line with the trust function of BJW (e.g., Dalbert, 2001 ) in which people trust in the justice of their own fate. This trust is adaptive because it strengthens people’s confidence that they will not become victims of unexpected, adverse circumstances; it also enables them to treat stressful situations as challenging instead of threatening (e.g., Tomaka & Blascovich, 1994 ) and maintain their mental health and well-being (e.g., Otto et al., 2006 ). Without a doubt, the greatest strength of the present study is the cross-validation of the hypothesis that BJW functions adaptively not only for everyday life, but also during a pandemic and beyond national boundaries. Furthermore, this study contributes to the BJW literature by considering both BJW dimensions which is not typical in most studies.

(DOCX 458 kb)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Gamze Özdemir Planalı for helping us to collect the data.

Authors' Contributions

Corresponding author’s full name: Gözde KIRAL UCAR

Second corresponding author’s full name: Matthias DONAT

Gözde KIRAL UCAR: Conceptualization, Project administration, Resources, Methodology, Investigation (The Turkish sample), Writing—Original draft preparation, Reviewing and Editing

Matthias DONAT: Conceptualization, Resources, Methodology, Investigation (The German sample), Writing-Reviewing and Editing

Jonathan BARTHOLOMAEUS: Investigation (The Australian sample), Methodology, Formal analysis, Reviewing and Editing

Kendra THOMAS: Investigation (The Brazilian and USA samples), Reviewing and Editing.

Sofya NARTOVA-BOCHAVER: Investigation (The Russian sample), Reviewing and Editing

Data Availability

Code availability (software application or custom code), declarations.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Author Gözde Kiral Ucar declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Matthias Donat declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Jonathan Bartholomaeus declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Kendra Thomas declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Sofya Nartova-Bochaver declares that she has no conflict of interest.

1 Items can be found in the supplemental material.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Gözde Kiral Ucar, Email: moc.liamg@larikedzog , Email: rt.ude.umoc@larikedzog .

Matthias Donat, Email: [email protected] .

• Alford BA, Lester JM, Patel RJ, Buchanan JP, Giunta LC. Hopelessness predicts future depressive symptoms: A prospective analysis of cognitive vulnerability and cognitive content specificity. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1995; 51 :331–339. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(199505)51:3<331::AID-JCLP2270510303>3.0.CO;2-T. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartholomaeus J, Strelan P. The adaptive, approach-oriented correlates of belief in a just world for the self: A review of the research. Personality and Individual Differences. 2019; 151 :109485. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.028. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beck AT, Weissman A, Lester D, Trexler L. The measurement of pessimism: The hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1974; 42 :861–865. doi: 10.1037/h0037562. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bègue L. Beliefs in justice and faith in people: Just world, religiosity and interpersonal trust. Personality and Individual Differences. 2002; 32 (3):375–382. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00224-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Christandl F. The belief in a just world as a personal resource in the context of inflation and financial crises. Applied Psychology. 2013; 62 (3):486–518. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00489.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Çırakoğlu OC. Domuz gribi (H1N1) salgınıyla ilişkili algıların, kaygı ve kaçınma düzeyi değişkenleri bağlamında incelenmesi (The investigation of swine influenza (H1N1) pandemic related perceptions in terms of anxiety and avoidance Variables) Türk Psikoloji Dergisi. 2011; 26 (67):49–64. [ Google Scholar ]
• Correia I, Dalbert C. Belief in a just world, justice concerns, and well-being at Portuguese schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2007; 22 :421. doi: 10.1007/BF03173464. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunha JA. Manual da versão em português das Escalas Beck (Manual of the Portuguese version of the Beck Scales) Casa do Psicólogo; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalbert C. The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale's validity. Social Justice Research. 1999; 12 (2):79–98. doi: 10.1023/A:1022091609047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalbert C. The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalbert C, Donat M. Belief in a just world. In: Wright JD, editor. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. 2. Elsevier; 2015. pp. 487–492. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dalbert C, Montada L, Schmitt M. Glaube an eine gerechte Welt als Motiv: Validierungskorrelate zweier Skalen [Belief in a just world: Validation correlates of two scales] Psychologische Beitrage. 1987; 29 (4):596–615. [ Google Scholar ]
• Donat M, Peter F, Dalbert C, Kamble SV. The meaning of students’ personal belief in a just world for positive and negative aspects of school-specific well-being. Social Justice Research. 2016; 29 (1):73–102. doi: 10.1007/s11211-015-0247-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dzuka J, Dalbert C. The belief in a just world and subjective well-being in old age. Aging and Mental Health. 2006; 10 (5):439–444. doi: 10.1080/13607860600637778. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dzuka J, Dalbert C. Student violence against teachers: Teachers' well-being and the belief in a just world. European Psychologist. 2007; 12 :253–260. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.12.4.253. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eshun S. Cultural variations in hopelessness, optimism, and suicidal ideation: A study of Ghana and US college samples. Cross-Cultural Research. 1999; 33 (3):227–238. doi: 10.1177/106939719903300301. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fairchild AJ, McDaniel HL. Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: Mediation analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2017; 105 (6):1259–1271. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer AR, Bolten Holz KB. Testing a model of women’s personal sense of justice, control, well-being, and distress in the context of sexist discrimination. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2010; 34 (3):297–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2010.01576.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallagher MW, Bentley KH, Barlow DH. Perceived control and vulnerability to anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2014; 38 (6):571–584. doi: 10.1007/s10608-014-9624-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gamsızkan Z, Sungur MA, Erdemir G. How do older age, gender and risk groups affect protective behaviours and mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic? International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2021; 75 (6):e14150. doi: 10.1111/ijcp.14150. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Godinic D, Obrenovic B, Khudaykulov A. Effects of economic uncertainty on mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic context: Social identity disturbance, job uncertainty and psychological well-being model. International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development. 2020; 6 :61–74. doi: 10.18775/ijied.1849-7551-7020.2015.61.2005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gorbatkov AA. SHkala nadezhdy-beznadezhnosti: Dimensional'naya struktura i ee determinanty [The hope-hopelessness scale: A dimensional structure and its determinants] Rossijskij psihologicheskij zhurnal. 2007; 4 (2):26–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Göregenli, M. (2003). Şiddet, kötü muamele ve işkenceye ilişkin değerlendirmeler, tutumlar ve deneyimler (Assessments, attitudes, and experiences related to violence, maltreatment, and torture). İşkencenin önlenmesinde hukukçuların rolü projesi raporu. İzmir, Turkey: İzmir Barosu Avrupa Komisyonu.
• Hacimusalar, Y., Kahve, A. C., Yasar, A. B., & Aydin, M. S. (2020). Anxiety and hopelessness levels in COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative study of healthcare professionals and other community sample in Turkey. Journal of Psychiatric Research , 129 , 181-188 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Hafer CL. Investment in long-term goals and commitment to just means drive the need to believe in a just world. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2000; 26 :1059–1073. doi: 10.1177/01461672002611004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hafer CL, Bogaert AF, McMullen SL. Belief in a just world and condom use in a sample of gay and bisexual Men. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2001; 31 (9):1892–1910. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00209.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hafer, C. L., Busseri, M. A., Rubel, A. N., Drolet, C. E., & Cherrington, J. N. (2020). A latent factor approach to belief in a just world and its association with well-being. Social Justice Research , 33 (1), 1–17
• Han G, Zhang J, Chu K, Shen G. Self–other differences in H1N1 flu risk perception in a global context: A comparative study between the United States and China. Health Communication. 2014; 29 (2):109–123. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2012.723267. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirsch JK, Visser PL, Chang EC, Jeglic EL. Race and ethnic differences in hope and hopelessness as moderators of the association between depressive symptoms and suicidal behavior. Journal of American College Health. 2012; 60 (2):115–125. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2011.567402. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan Serin, E., & Doğan, R. (2021). The relationship between anxiety and hopelessness levels among nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic and related factors. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying. 10.1177/00302228211029144 [ PubMed ]
• Khera ML, Harvey AJ, Callan MJ. Beliefs in a just world, subjective well-being and attitudes towards refugees among refugee workers. Social Justice Research. 2014; 27 (4):432–443. doi: 10.1007/s11211-014-0220-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiral Ucar G, Dalbert C. The longitudinal associations between personal belief in a just world and teacher justice among advantaged and disadvantaged school students. International Journal of Psychology. 2020; 55 (2):192–200. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12564. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kiral Ucar G, Hasta D, Malatyali MK. The mediating role of perceived control and hopelessness in the relation between personal belief in a just world and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences. 2019; 143 :68–73. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.02.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krampen G. Hoffnungslosigkeit bei stationären Patienten—Ihre Messung durch einen Kurzfragebogen (H-Skala) [Hopelessness among in-patients—measurement through a short scale (H-Scale)] Medizinische Psychologie. 1979; 5 :39–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lambert AJ, Burroughs T, Nguyen T. Perceptions of risk and the buffering hypothesis: The role of just world beliefs and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1999; 25 (6):643–656. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025006001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamis DA, Saito M, Osman A, Klibert J, Malone PS, Langhinrichsen-Rohling J. Hopelessness and suicide proneness in US and Japanese college students: Depressive symptoms as a potential mediator. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2014; 45 (5):805–820. doi: 10.1177/0022022113519853. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lerner MJ. The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lester D. Hopelessness in undergraduate students around the world: A review. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2013; 150 (3):1204–1208. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.04.055. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipkus IM, Dalbert C, Siegler IC. The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological wellbeing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1996; 22 :666–677. doi: 10.1177/0146167296227002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malesza M, Kaczmarek MC. Predictors of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. Personality and Individual Differences. 2021; 170 :110419. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110419. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxwell SE, Cole DA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods. 2007; 12 (1):23–44. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Münscher S, Donat M, Kiral Ucar G. Students’ personal belief in a just world, well-being, and academic cheating: A cross-national study. Social Justice Research. 2020; 33 (4):428–453. doi: 10.1007/s11211-020-00356-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nartova-Bochaver S, Donat M, Astanina N, Rüprich C. Russian adaptations of general and personal belief in a just World scales: Validation and psychometric properties. Social Justice Research. 2018; 31 (1):61–84. doi: 10.1007/s11211-017-0302-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nudelman G, Otto K, Dalbert C. Can belief in a just world buffer mood and career prospects of people in need of risk protection? First experimental evidence. Risk Analysis. 2016; 36 (12):2247–2257. doi: 10.1111/risa.12588. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nudelman G, Kamble SV, Otto K. Can personality traits predict depression during the COVID-19 Pandemic? Social Justice Research. 2021; 34 :218–234. doi: 10.1007/s11211-021-00369-w. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Otto K, Boos A, Dalbert C, Schöps D, Hoyer J. Posttraumatic symptoms, depression, and anxiety of flood victims: The impact of the belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006; 40 :1075–1084. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Otto K, Glaser D, Dalbert C. Mental health, occupational trust, and quality of working life: Does belief in a just world matter? Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2009; 39 (6):1288–1315. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00482.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (2), 1–36.  https://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/ . Accessed 14 July 2021
• Seber G, Dilbaz N, Kaptanoğlu C, Tekin D. Umutsuzluk ölçeği: Geçerlilik ve güvenirliği (The hopelessness scale: Its validity and reliability) Kriz Dergisi. 1993; 1 :139–142. [ Google Scholar ]
• Şeker BD. Evaluation of life satisfaction after the 2011 Van (Turkey) earthquake. Social Behavior and Personality. 2016; 44 (9):1409–1417. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2016.44.9.1409. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutton RM, Winnard EJ. Looking ahead through lenses of justice: The relevance of just-world beliefs to intentions and confidence in the future. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2007; 46 (3):649–666. doi: 10.1348/014466606X166220. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas KJ, Mucherah WM. Constructing lenses of justice: Relationships between Brazilian adolescents' just world beliefs, perceived school fairness, legal authorities and student conduct. Social Justice Research. 2018; 31 (1):41–60. doi: 10.1007/s11211-017-0301-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas KJ, Napolitano P. Educational privilege: The role of school context in the development of just world beliefs. International Journal of Psychology. 2017; 52 (S1):106–113. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12382. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas KJ, Cunha J, Américo de Souza D, Santo J. Fairness, trust, and school climate as foundational to growth mindset: A study among Brazilian children and adolescents. Educational Psychology. 2019; 39 (4):510–529. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2018.1549726. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomaka J, Blascovich J. Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive appraisal of and subjective physiological, and behavioral responses to potential stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994; 67 (4):732. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.732. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walsh F. Loss and resilience in the time of COVID-19: Meaning making, hope, and transcendence. Family Process. 2020; 59 (3):898–911. doi: 10.1111/famp.12588. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Health Organization. (2020). COVID-19 weekly epidemiological update, 22 December 2020 (pp. 1–2). https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334168/nCoV-weekly-sitrep23Aug20-eng.pdf
• Xie X, Liu H, Gan Y. Belief in a just world when encountering the 5/12 Wenchuan earthquake. Environment and Behavior. 2011; 43 (4):566–586. doi: 10.1177/0013916510363535. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yıldırım M, Arslan G. Exploring the associations between resilience, dispositional hope, preventive behaviours, subjective well-being, and psychological health among adults during early stage of COVID-19. Current Psychology. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-01177-2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yıldırım M, Güler A. Positivity explains how COVID-19 perceived risk increases death distress and reduces happiness. Personality and Individual Differences. 2021; 168 :110347. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110347. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng L, Miao M, Gan Y. Perceived control buffers the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on general health and life satisfaction: The mediating role of psychological distance. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. 2020; 12 (4):1095–1114. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuo B, Yang K, Yao Y, Han S, Nie S, Wen F. The relationship of perceived social support to feelings of hopelessness under COVID-19 pandemic: The effects of epidemic risk and meaning in life. Personality and Individual Differences. 2021; 183 :111110. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111110. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Courses Figures of Speech Parts of Speech Academic Writing Linguistics NLP Social Psychology Careers Soft Skills Effective Listening Organizational Behavior Organizational Communication Public Administration

Do Good Deeds Get Rewarded? Exploring the Just World Hypothesis

• Article's banner | Credit Study Breaks
• Have you ever heard someone say "they got what they deserved" after a misfortune befalls another person? Or maybe you've thought to yourself, "good things will come to those who wait" after facing a setback. These are both reflections of a deeply ingrained human belief — the Just World Hypothesis . This concept delves into the deep-seated belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. While seemingly innocuous at first glance, this belief has far-reaching implications for how we view justice, morality, and the experiences of those around us.

What is the Just World Hypothesis?

The Just World Hypothesis (JWH) is a deeply ingrained cognitive bias which posits that individuals have an inherent need to believe that the world is fair and just. According to this hypothesis, people need to perceive that actions have predictable and fair consequences, where good deeds are rewarded and bad deeds are punished.

This belief system translates to the idea that people get what they deserve – good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. In essence, it's a way of making sense of the world around us by creating a cause-and-effect relationship between morality and outcomes.

Social psychologist Melvin Lerner is credited with formally proposing the Just World Hypothesis in the 1960s. His research suggested that people have a strong desire to believe the world is just and predictable. This can lead us to rationalize unfortunate events, sometimes even blaming the victim. For instance, after a natural disaster, some might believe the affected population somehow brought it upon themselves through immoral behavior.

Key Components of the Just World Hypothesis

• Belief in a Fair World: At its core, the Just World Hypothesis is grounded in the belief that the world operates in a way that ensures fairness and justice. This belief allows individuals to feel that their actions have meaningful consequences.
• Deservingness: The hypothesis hinges on the idea that people get what they deserve. This belief often extends to both positive and negative outcomes, meaning that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people.
• Rationalization of Events: To maintain the belief in a just world, people often rationalize events in a way that supports this worldview. This can lead to victim-blaming or the perception that individuals experiencing misfortune must have done something to deserve it.

Psychological Underpinnings of the Just World Hypothesis

The Just World Hypothesis is not merely a philosophical stance but is deeply rooted in cognitive and social psychology. It serves several psychological functions:

• Cognitive Dissonance Reduction: Imagine witnessing a good person experience misfortune. This creates cognitive dissonance, a mental discomfort caused by holding conflicting beliefs (a just world vs. a good person suffering). The Just World Hypothesis helps ease this dissonance by allowing us to rationalize that the victim must have done something to deserve their fate. This way, we maintain the belief in a fair world, even if it means creating justifications that may not be true.
• Sense of Control: Believing in a just world fosters a sense of control over our lives. If the world is fair, then our actions have consequences. Good deeds lead to good outcomes, and bad deeds invite punishment. This predictability reduces anxiety and uncertainty. We feel empowered to shape our own destinies through our choices.
• Moral Security: The Just World Hypothesis offers a moral framework. It reinforces the idea that the world is inherently just, with good rewarded and evil punished. This creates a sense of moral order and predictability. We can feel secure in the knowledge that good ultimately prevails, even if it doesn't always seem that way in the short term.

By understanding these psychological underpinnings, we gain a deeper insight into why the Just World Hypothesis persists despite evidence to the contrary. It's a coping mechanism that helps us navigate a complex and often unfair world.

Implications and Consequences: The Dark Side of the Just World Hypothesis

While the Just World Hypothesis offers psychological comfort and a sense of order, it also has significant downsides that impact social attitudes and behaviors:

• Victim Blaming: A particularly troubling consequence of the just world hypothesis is the tendency to blame victims for their misfortunes. When someone experiences hardship, the Just World Hypothesis might lead us to believe they must have done something wrong to deserve it. This is evident in victim blaming after a robbery ("they shouldn't have been walking alone at night") or a serious illness ("it must be because of their unhealthy lifestyle"). To maintain the illusion of a just world, people might subconsciously try to find fault with the victim, even if it means fabricating reasons for their misfortune. This can be incredibly insensitive and hurtful to those who have already suffered.
• Perpetuating Inequality: This belief system can perpetuate social inequalities by justifying the status quo. If people believe that everyone gets what they deserve, they may be less likely to support social policies aimed at reducing inequality, assuming that the disadvantaged are responsible for their plight.
• Reduced Empathy: The Just World Hypothesis can hinder empathy for those who suffer. We might view their misfortune as justified punishment for past actions, leading to a lack of compassion and support. This can have a chilling effect on social responsibility and hinder efforts to help those in need.

Critiques and Challenges to the Just World Hypothesis

The Just World Hypothesis has been extensively studied and critiqued within the psychological community:

• Empirical Evidence: Numerous studies have shown that the belief in a just world is widespread and can influence judgments and behaviors. However, empirical evidence also demonstrates that the world is often unjust, with many factors beyond an individual's control contributing to their circumstances.
• Moral and Ethical Concerns: The hypothesis raises moral and ethical concerns about fairness and justice. Critics argue that it oversimplifies complex social issues and ignores systemic factors that contribute to inequality and suffering.
• Alternative Perspectives: Some researchers propose alternative frameworks, such as the recognition of systemic injustice and the importance of empathy and social support in addressing inequality and suffering.

The Just World Hypothesis reveals much about human cognition and our need for a predictable and fair world. While it provides psychological comfort, it also challenges our moral and ethical frameworks, highlighting the complexity of justice and fairness in society. Understanding this cognitive bias can help us cultivate greater empathy and work towards a more equitable world, recognizing that not all outcomes are a result of personal merit or fault.

As we navigate a world full of uncertainties and injustices, the Just World Hypothesis serves as a reminder of the importance of questioning our assumptions and striving for a deeper understanding of the factors that shape our lives and the lives of others. By doing so, we can foster a more compassionate and just society.

You might also find useful:

• Causal Attribution
• Attribution Theory
• Attribution Errors & Biases
• Correspondent Inference Theory
• Covariation Theory
• Self Perception Theory
• Fundamental Attribution Error
• Correspondence Bias
• Actor-Observer Bias
• Self-Serving Bias
• Halo Effect
• Horn Effect
• Belief in a Just World
• Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Plenum Press.
• Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(5), 795-817.
• Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128-167.

• Immerse in sound, unbound. Apple AirPods (3rd Gen) redefine wireless audio. Seamless connectivity, adaptive EQ, and a sleek design make these earbuds the perfect companions for your on-the-go lifestyle.

Recommended Books to Flex Your Knowledge

Authored by Award-winning teacher and author Jonathan M. Bowman, "Nonverbal Communication: An Applied Approach" teaches students the fundamentals of nonverbal communication.

Explore the essence of facial expressions with "Anatomy of Facial Expressions" by Uldis Zarins. This insightful guide unveils the nuances of the face, differentiating between fake and genuine emotions.

Explore the captivating world of facial anatomy with "The Face: Pictorial Atlas of Clinical Anatomy, KVM, 2nd Edition." This edition is meticulously crafted for students, professionals, and anatomy enthusiasts.

Dive into the science of facial safety with "Facial Danger Zones" by Rod J Rohrich. This book maps out the potential risks in facial procedures, providing indispensable insights for anyone committed to facial aesthetics.

"Facial Expressions" by Mark Simon is an expertly crafted guide that delves into the intricate language of the face, offering a nuanced understanding of expressions and their storytelling power.

'Nonverbal Communication, 2nd Edition' by Judee K Burgoon explore the social and biological foundations of nonverbal communication as well as the expression of emotions, and interpersonal deception.

American Sign Language 101 is ideal for parents of nonverbal children or children with communication impairments (ages 3-6), American Sign Language for Kids offers a simple way to introduce both of you to ASL.

Speed read people, decipher body language, detect lies, and understand human nature. Is it possible to analyze people without them knowing. Yes, it is. Learn the keys to influencing and persuading others.

Eye contact is an important nonverbal social cue because it projects confidence and assertiveness. This book will turn you from that shy guy who rarely makes eye contact to the eye contact guru who makes elders nervous by looking them straight in the..