Explore the vast range of titles available.

A small but growing body of research suggests that witnessing mistreatment affects third-party observers' attitudes and behaviors. Based on the framework of belief in a just world theory, this study examines perverse secondary victimization which is particularly pervasive in negative workplace gossip from a third-party perspective but has nonetheless received little attention in organizational research. We present a moderated mediation model and hypothesize that third-party observers' deservingness judgment would mediate the effect of observed negative workplace gossip and interact with their just world beliefs (BJW) in predicting their unfavorable reactions toward the target (i.e., withholding target support, engaging in target exclusion, or target negative gossip). Additionally, an observer's BJW would exacerbate the positive relationship between observed negative workplace gossip and deservingness judgment, that is, third-party observers with high BJW are more susceptible to victim derogation bias and consider that the target of gossip deserved the victimization experience to maintain their worldview. Data were collected from 210 full-time employees through online questionnaires and the empirical results supported the hypotheses. The study discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

The belief in a just world (BJW) is the belief that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. The theory and research findings suggest that believing the world is fair to “me” (personal BJW or PBJW) is associated with positive psychological functioning, whereas believing that the world is fair to people in general (general BJW or GBJW) may not. Against a backdrop of mixed findings in samples recruited in Asian countries, we conducted two studies in Thailand (N = 177 and N = 175) and one in the UK (N = 345). Study 1 examined the relationships between PBJW, GBJW, life satisfaction, and depression in Thailand; Study 2 also included Karma and was conducted in Thailand and the UK. In both studies, PBJW uniquely predicted well-being. When controlling for BJW, belief in Karma positively predicted life satisfaction and depression only in the UK sample. In addition, Karma was uniquely predicted by GBJW but more strongly so in Thailand. Furthermore, within both samples, individuals endorsed PBJW more strongly than GBJW; comparing across samples, PBJW was more strongly endorsed in the UK than Thailand, whereas GBJW was more strongly endorsed in Thailand than the UK. However, sample nationality did not moderate associations between BJW, Karma and well-being. Results support the cultural generality of just world theory and the psychological priority of PBJW and indicate that the cultural concept of Karma does not explain relationships between just-world beliefs and well-being.

People differ in how strongly they believe that, in general, one gets what (s)he deserves (i.e., individual differences in the general belief in a just world ). In this study ( N  = 588; n  = 60 with a formal autism diagnosis), whether or not autistic people and those with high autistic traits have a relatively low general belief in a just world is examined. The results revealed the expected relationship between autism/higher autistic traits and a lower general belief in a just world. In a subsample ( n  = 388), personal belief in a just world, external locus of control, and self-deception mediated this relationship. These findings are discussed in terms of autistic strengths (less biased information processing) and problems (lowered well-being).

The emotional costs of the COVID-19 pandemic have raised concerns among clinicians and scholars. The goal of the current study was to test whether or not neuroticism, conscientiousness, and personal belief in a just world are associated with depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the contribution of neuroticism and conscientiousness was assessed over and above demographic variables and COVID-19 perceptions, and the unique contribution of personal belief in a just world was evaluated beyond all the other study variables. Samples were collected in three different countries—Israel (N = 917), Germany (N = 213), and India (N = 160). Online self-report questionnaires were utilized to measure age, gender, COVID-19 perceptions (probability, severity, and self-efficacy), neuroticism, conscientiousness, personal belief in a just world, and depression. The findings indicated that, across the three countries, neuroticism was positively associated with depression (correlations ranging from .24 to .44), and conscientiousness and personal belief in a just world were negatively associated with depression (correlations ranging from − .31 to − .21, and from − .35 to − .23, respectively). Moreover, neuroticism and conscientiousness explained unique variance over and above demographic variables and COVID-19 perceptions (except conscientiousness in India), and the effect of personal belief in a just world on depression was significant beyond the effects of all other study variables. These findings support the role of personality in explaining depression regardless of situational characteristics and stress the role of just world beliefs as protective factors against negative emotions.

An important and often unexplored factor shaping life satisfaction is one’s perception of the world as a “just” place. The “just world hypothesis” is predicated on the idea that the world works as a place where people get what they merit, an idea that often serves as a means for people to rationalize injustices. The research addressing just world beliefs has expanded into a four-factor model that categorizes just world beliefs for self and others into subcategories of distributive and procedural justice. Distributive justice involves evaluations of the fairness of outcomes, allocations, or distribution of resources, while procedural concerns evaluations of the fairness of decision processes, rules, or interpersonal treatment. This study explored the relationship between the four just world beliefs subscales and overall satisfaction with life and examined their associations with demographic variables including ethnicity, age, gender, religion, and social class. The relationships of demographic factors with justice beliefs and life satisfaction generally yielded very small effect sizes. However, respondents who identified themselves as middle and upper class reported higher levels of life satisfaction than those who identified themselves as lower class, with a medium effect size. Consistent with the results of earlier research, regressing life satisfaction on the four justice beliefs subscales indicated that the two self-subscales (distributive and procedural) were significantly predictive of life satisfaction, but the two other subscales (distributive and procedural) were not.

The influence of belief in a just world on individuals' mental health has been extensively researched. We examined the impact of belief in a just world on subjective well-being, focusing mainly on the mediating role of sense of control in this relationship. Participants were 372 Chinese undergraduate university students who completed the Belief in a Just World Scale, the Sense of Control Scale, and the Subjective Well-Being Scale. The results revealed that both their belief in a just world and their sense of control were significantly correlated with their subjective well-being. Structural equation modeling analysis indicated that sense of control partially mediated the effect of belief in a just world on subjective well-being. Our findings extend previous results and provide valuable evidence that belief in a just world predicts subjective well-being.

Attempts to maintain a Belief in a Just World can sometimes lead to awry judgments about victims and perpetrators of violence. In a scenario-based study, we examined the associations of general belief in a just world with four BJW-maintenance strategies: victim blaming, victim derogation, perpetrator demonization, and compensation. We hypothesized that using a specific strategy depends on situational cues influencing the availability of that strategy and the level of a person’s BJW. More specifically, we tested whether BJW interacts with situational cues regarding the victim’s respectability and/or the perpetrator’s evilness, meaning that people with higher (vs. lower) BJW (a) tend to derogate the victim when the victim is presented as less (vs. more) respectable, (b) tend to demonize the perpetrator when the perpetrator is presented as more (vs. less) evil. Respectability (professor vs. car dealer) and evilness (with evilness cues vs. without evilness cues) were manipulated in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. We also tested whether people use a single strategy versus multiple strategies to maintain their BJW. The results suggest that BJW-maintenance strategies are independent of one another, such that the availability or use of a particular strategy does not necessarily reduce or increase the use of other strategies. Taken together, our findings highlight the nuanced effects of just-world beliefs on how people react to and make sense of violent incidents.

This study investigated whether people’s personal belief in a just world (BJW) is linked to their willingness to physically distance themselves from others during the COVID-19 pandemic. Past research found personal BJW to be positively related to prosocial behavior, justice striving, and lower risk perceptions. If social distancing reflects a concern for others, high personal BJW should predict increased interest in social distancing. If social distancing reflects a concern for one’s personal risk, high personal BJW should predict decreased interest in social distancing. Results of a pre-registered internet-based study from Germany (N = 361) indicated that the higher people’s personal BJW, the more they generally practiced social distancing. This association still occurred when controlling for empathy, another significant predictor of social distancing. There were no mediation effects of empathy and risk perception. The findings extend knowledge on the correlates of social distancing in the COVID-19 pandemic which could be used to increase compliance among citizens.

Four experiments used trust games to investigate schadenfreude’s effects on attitudes and behavior towards third parties who punish prior violations of participants’ trust. Across all studies, schadenfreude was stronger when trust violators received negative rather than positive outcomes, and participants’ perceptions that the violator deserved punishment positively predicted levels of schadenfreude. Further, participants had less favorable attitudes towards third parties who delivered more negative outcomes (Experiment 1), but attitudes and behavior were relatively more favorable when these negative outcomes were inflicted on trust violators (Experiment 2). Participants also had more favorable attitudes and behavior towards third parties who delivered punitive outcomes which did not themselves involve trust violations. Further, results were consistent with a statistical model where just world beliefs, deservingness, and schadenfreude serially mediated the effect of punishment on attitudes towards third-party punishers (Experiment 3). These results were replicated in the pre-registered Experiment 4 using a larger sample and more focused measures. Taken together, our findings are consistent with the view that schadenfreude following trust violations serves the social function of aligning relations with agents who administer retributive justice.

Belief in a just world (BJW) has been assumed to promote subjective well-being. The results of cross-sectional studies have been consistent with this assumption but inconclusive about the causal origins of the correlations. Correia et al. (2009a) experimentally tested the original hypothesis (BJW causes subjective well-being) against the alternative hypothesis (subjective well-being causes BJW) and found support for both. Our Study 1 comprised four experiments that repeated and extended Correia et al.’s (2009a) experiments and fully replicated their findings. Study 2 reanalyzed a longitudinal data set regarding the interrelationships of several variants of BJW and subjective well-being. Cross-lagged panel analyses revealed very weak support for the original hypothesis and a little but not much more support for the alternative hypothesis. Taken together, the findings from both studies are consistent with Correia et al.’s (2009a) findings and suggest that the causal relationship between BJW and SWB is bidirectional in nature.