definition of just world hypothesis

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

What Is the Just-World Phenomenon?

Blaming victims to rationalize why bad things happen

 alfexe/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

At a Glance

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

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

Just-World Phenomenon and Victim-Blaming

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

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

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

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

Examples of the Just-World Phenomenon

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

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

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

Discrimination

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

Moral Judgements

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

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

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

Explanations of the Just-World Phenomenon

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

Fear of Vulnerability

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

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

A Desire to Minimize Anxiety

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

Pros and Cons of the Just-Word Phenomenon

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Avoid the Just-World Phenomenon

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

Practice Empathy

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

Avoid Victim-Blaming

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

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

Learn About Social Injustice

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

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

Consider the Source

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

Explore Your Emotions

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

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

What This Means For You

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effectiviology

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

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

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

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

Examples of the just-world hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Lerner’s experiments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psychology and causes of the just-world hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of just-world beliefs

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

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

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

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

Just-world beliefs and religion

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

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

Contrasting beliefs

Belief in a random world.

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

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

Belief in an unjust world

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

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

How to deal with just-world thinking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and conclusions

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

Other articles you may find interesting:

• The Fundamental Attribution Error: When People Underestimate Situational Factors
• Jumping to Conclusions: When People Decide Based on Insufficient Information
• The Picard Principle: It Is Possible to Commit No Mistakes and Still Lose

Just World Hypothesis

What is just world hypothesis.

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

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

How Does Just World Hypothesis Affect Us?

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

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

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

Dealing with Just World Hypothesis

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

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

Why is it Important?

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

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

Related Topics and Concepts

Other ideas are connected to the Just World Hypothesis. Understanding these can give us a bigger picture of how we view fairness:

• Confirmation Bias : This is when we pay attention to things that agree with what we already believe and ignore things that don’t. This bias can make us stick to the idea of a fair world even more tightly.
• Self-Serving Bias: When good things happen, we often think it’s because of what we did. But when bad things happen, we blame something else. This shows how we justify what happens to us and connects with the Just World Hypothesis by showing how we explain our life experiences.
• Attribution Error: This is about how we explain what we do and what others do. We might say our successes are because of our hard work, while other people’s successes are just luck. When things go wrong, we often think it’s not our fault but someone else’s fault because of their choices.

The Just World Hypothesis is a way of understanding that while we may want to see the world as fair, it’s not always the case. By noticing this bias in ourselves, we can work on being more fair and kind in our judgments. We can be more open to finding out the whole story before we decide why something happened. Being aware of this can lead to more empathy and actions that fight against unfairness. So, the next time you catch yourself or someone else making a snap judgment, think about the Just World Hypothesis and how it might be affecting your view. It might just help you see things in a different and more accurate way.

• 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.

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.

• Clearer Thinking Team
• Dec 31, 2020

Just-World Hypothesis: Definition, Examples and Effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Posts

Does astrology work? We put 152 astrologers to the test

What causes anxiety: life challenges or your personality?

Clearer Thinking's Study: How much is your anxiety level driven by your traits, and how much is it driven by your life circumstances?  

• Media Center

Why do we believe that we get what we deserve?

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

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

Where it occurs

Debias your organization.

Most of us work & live in environments that aren’t optimized for solid decision-making. We work with organizations of all kinds to identify sources of cognitive bias & develop tailored solutions.

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

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

Related Biases

• Illusion of Control
• Cognitive Dissonance

Individual effects

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

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

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

Systemic effects

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

Why it happens

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

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

Belief in a just world creates a seemingly predictable environment

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

We often avoid or distort information that challenges our cognitive framework

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

Why it is important

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

How to avoid it

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

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

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

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

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

We can fight victim-blaming tendencies by cultivating empathy

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

How it all started

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

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

Example 1 - Reactions to luck

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

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

Example 2 - Perceptions of leaders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the Authors

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

Dr. Sekoul Krastev

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

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

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

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

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

All Subjects

AP Psychology

Just-World Hypothesis

The just-world hypothesis is a cognitive bias that suggests that people get what they deserve in life, leading to assumptions that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people.

Related terms

Fundamental Attribution Error : This is when we overemphasize personal characteristics and ignore situational factors in judging others' behavior.

Victim Blaming : This refers to the tendency for people to blame victims for their own misfortunes, based on the belief in a just world.

Cognitive Bias : These are systematic errors in thinking that affect the decisions and judgments that people make.

" Just-World Hypothesis " appears in:

Study guides ( 1 ).

• AP Psychology - 9.1 Attribution Theory and Person Perception

Subjects ( 2 )

• Cognitive Psychology
• Intro to Psychology

Practice Questions ( 5 )

• What is the just-world hypothesis?
• What does 'just-world hypothesis' refer to in terms of person perception?
• Why would someone buy an expensive car they don't need, according to the just-world hypothesis?
• How does the just-world hypothesis contribute to victim blaming in prejudice and discrimination?
• How does the Just-World Hypothesis contribute to biased attitudes or prejudices?

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: MCAT   >   Unit 13

• Perception, prejudice, and bias questions
• Attribution Theory - Basic covariation
• Attribution theory - Attribution error and culture
• Stereotypes stereotype threat and self fulfilling prophecies
• Emotion and cognition in prejudice
• Prejudice and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, power, social class, and prestige
• Stigma - Social and self
• Social perception - Primacy recency
• Social perception - The Halo Effect

Social perception - The Just World Hypothesis

• Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism in group and out group

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Video transcript

The Just World Theory

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources
• Ethical Decision Making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

Melvin J. Lerner, The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion , (New York: Plenum Press, 1980).

Melvin J. Lerner and Sally C. Lerner, editors, The Justice Motivce in Social Behavior: Adapting to Times of Scarcity and Change, (New York: Plenum Press, 1981).

Zick Rubin and Letita Anne Peplau, "Who Believes in a Just World," Journal of SOcial Issues , Vol. 31, No. 3, 1975, pp. 65-89.

This article was originally published in Issues in Ethics - V. 3, N. 2 Spring 1990

What Is The Just-World Hypothesis, And How Does It Relate To Trauma?

• For those experiencing suicidal thoughts, please contact the  988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988
• For those experiencing abuse, please contact the Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233)
• For those experiencing substance use, please contact SAMHSA National Helpline at 1-800-662-4357

When something challenging, unexpected, or traumatic happens, how do you cope with it? Some people may make sense of the world by subscribing to the just-world hypothesis. While this concept may help individuals experience optimism in the face of struggle, it may also cause feelings of guilt or shame for trauma survivors.

A just world: What is the just-world hypothesis?

The just-world hypothesis is the belief that the world is a fair and just place and that people get what they deserve in life. Like the concept of karma, according to the just-world hypothesis, if you do good, good things will happen to you. However, it states that if you do wrong, bad things will happen to you.

Potential benefits of the just-world hypothesis

The just-world hypothesis may help some people make sense of the world. For example, a single parent working two jobs to provide for their young children might feel more hopeful about their situation turning around in the future if they hold a personal belief in the just-world hypothesis.

Potential drawbacks of the just-world hypothesis

One potential problem with the just-world hypothesis also referred to as the just-world fallacy, is that it often ignores life's complexities. People who are good-intentioned, hardworking, and kind may experience disappointment, failure, or tragedy. If we expect to be granted an easy life, we might not develop resilience to help us overcome adversity if it occurs.

Research on the just-world hypothesis 

The just-world hypothesis has been researched in a few studies. These studies have insights into innate human behavior that may help us recognize the adverse effects of subscribing to the just-world hypothesis and may support us in moving through life with resilience and self-awareness.

Lerner and Simmons

The just-world hypothesis was developed in 1965 by a researcher named Melvin Lerner. He devised an experiment evaluating how individuals respond to injustice to study his belief that people believe good things only happen to good people.

In the study, a group of volunteers was asked to watch what they were told was a closed-circuit feed. They watched as a woman was brought into a room, and electrodes were attached to her body. Then, she was asked to take a test.

Each time the woman answered incorrectly on the test, she writhed in pain while the volunteers watched. The volunteers were told that the woman received an electric shock each time she answered incorrectly. However, the woman was a graduate student acting the part and wasn't electrocuted.

While they watched, the volunteers were given some choices. One group could end the woman's suffering and choose to let her learn in another way. Because these volunteers felt the woman was unjustly punished, they wanted to end her suffering.

The other group was told they couldn't release her. Instead, the volunteers in this group were given different explanations about the woman's situation. These stories ranged from indicating that she was getting paid to be shocked to accepting pain as a martyr to prevent others from experiencing it.

Some volunteers who didn’t end her suffering didn't see her as an innocent victim. Instead, they blamed her for her circumstances. They assumed she was getting what she deserved based on the story they were told.

Lerner concluded that people who cannot help someone who is suffering might think of them as deserving of their fate.

Rubin and Peplau

Two researchers, Zick Rubin and Letitia Anne Peplau, developed the just-world scale , a series of 20 questions that may evaluate whether the respondent believes the world is just.

They based the just-world scale on survey responses from people who strongly believe the world is fair. In creating the just-world scale, they identified several common characteristics of people who believe in the just-world hypothesis.

They were typically:

More religious

More conservative

More authoritarian

These people tended to:

Admire political leaders

Admire established institutions

Look down on people from underprivileged groups

They tended to feel:

Little need to work to change society

Little need to end the suffering of underprivileged victims

These results indicate that subscribing to the just-world hypothesis may inhibit societal change and increase the marginalization of underprivileged groups.

Andre and Velasquez

Two additional researchers, Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez developed the just-world theory . This theory explains that people may have a strong need for the world to conform to their just vision of it.

When a perceived injustice occurs, their need to see the world as fair may compel them to find a way to reframe their perception of the situation, even if they must distort the facts to do so. For example, some people may blame victims of assault for their clothing choices instead of showing sympathy for their trauma.

This research suggests that increased self-awareness can help people choose to make positive changes to their environment instead of victim-blaming and inaction.

Benefits of believing the just-world hypothesis

Believing the just-world hypothesis may help some people feel peace of mind. This hypothesis might make the world feel like an orderly, less chaotic place with a moral balance between positive and negative outcomes.

Just-world beliefs can encourage people to do good for themselves and others. It can even reduce feelings of vulnerability or fear because it may make people feel they have more control in a predictable world.

It can be comforting to believe in the just-world hypothesis when things are going well in life. However, this worldview has the potential to hold you back if you experience difficulties in life.

Drawbacks of believing the just-world hypothesis

While the just-world theory can provide psychological well-being and promote optimism in certain situations, it is important to be aware of the potential drawbacks associated with this strong belief. Just-world research over the past decade has uncovered several negative aspects related to the just-world bias, a cognitive bias that can lead to a fundamental delusion about fairness in the world.

Blame, attitude changes, and other potential drawbacks 

Minimizing life's complexities and having a strong belief in just-world theory may lead someone to:

Blame innocent victims, contributing to injustice in the world

Have negative attitudes toward people in need, such as homeless people, victims of crimes, or those with substance use disorder

Experience shame when something bad happens to them, like trauma, disappointment, or failure

Blame themselves for their misfortunes, which may negatively affect their own behavior and mental health

Limit personal development by not embracing the complexity of social situations

Delude themselves into believing they’re safe when they aren't, leaving them unprepared when something unexpected happens

Challenges of the just-world theory 

One of the primary challenges related to the just-world theory is the failure to restore justice. Believing in a fair world may blind individuals to the existence of an unjust world, where systemic issues like discrimination, poverty, and violence persist. By recognizing and addressing these issues, we can work towards creating a more equitable society.

The just-world theory can also impact our own feelings and behavior. Subscribing fully to the just-world hypothesis may be problematic if we have lived through trauma. Traumatic events may be viewed either as punishment for mistakes that were made in the past or as evidence that the world is an unsafe place.

They may also blame themselves for bad things that happen to them, even when the circumstances are out of their control, like when they are survivors of a crime or experienced trauma. Any of these reactions can make it more challenging to move forward from traumatic events.

Therapy for trauma and learning about the just-world hypothesis

Cognitive processing therapy , or CPT, is a specific therapy commonly used for people who have experienced different forms of trauma. CPT may help you recognize your complicated thought patterns and show you how to challenge them so that you can move forward from your trauma. An entire CPT course is usually 12 sessions and can be performed one-on-one with a licensed therapist or in a group therapy session.

Online therapy can be another convenient way for individuals who have experienced trauma to get support. Online therapists are often available via messaging, so you can message them between appointments if negative thought patterns and changes in social behavior arise.

What the research says 

The National Center for Health Research confirms that online therapy can be effective for people who have experienced trauma or are living with post-traumatic stress disorder. An understanding therapist may help you overcome adversity and move forward without blaming yourself for the trauma that occurred in your life.

Through platforms such as BetterHelp, you can browse many professionals who specialize in various areas, including trauma and trauma disorders like PTSD.

Many people strongly believe in the just-world hypothesis. However, for people who have experienced trauma and other individuals, believing in this worldview may cause fear, isolation, or feelings of shame. A learning task central to personal growth is understanding the complex relationship between actions and outcomes. Acknowledging the role of chance, for example, can help individuals develop a more realistic perspective on life outcomes. If it's challenging to view your past without guilt or shame, online therapy may help you reframe your thought processes.

What is an example of the just-world phenomenon?

Any situation where a major (or sometimes minor) event occurs in someone's life can be interpreted as an example of the just-world phenomenon. 

For example, if an individual gets into a car accident while driving to work one day, someone giving credence to the just-world phenomenon may claim that the person must have done something terrible to deserve the misfortune. Likewise, if that same person wins the lottery, according to the just-world hypotheses, they must have done something good to receive such good fortune. 

What is the just-world hypothesis proposed by Lerner?

Proposed by Melvin Lerner in the 1960s, the just-world hypothesis is the idea that people tend to believe that the world is fundamentally fair and that individuals generally get what they deserve. In other words, it suggests that people often have a strong desire to see justice served, even if it means blaming victims for their misfortunes to maintain the perception of a just world.

What is the just-world hypothesis in psychology today?

Current attitudes toward the just-world theory in clinical psychology are diverse. Some psychological studies suggest that the hypothesis can produce maladaptive behaviors and decision-making for the people who believe it's true. Others indicate that it benefits mental health and well-being in certain circumstances.  

What is the relationship between the just-world hypothesis and trauma?

Some believe the just-world hypothesis is an accurate way to explain why traumatic events happen to certain people. However, many feel this worldview lends itself to victim-blaming, and recent research shows it can have a significantly negative impact on people who have experienced traumatic events. 

For example, a 2018 study found that people who subscribe to the hypothesis tended to blame rape victims more frequently than those who don't. Similarly, a 2016 study on the just-world hypothesis in relation to hate crimes revealed that not only does the theory lend itself to blaming the individual, but also blaming the victim's minority group as a whole when the hate crime is inadequately punished. 

Why do people believe in the just-world hypothesis?

There are many reasons why some people believe in the just-world hypothesis. Some want to believe that bad things happen to people because they deserve it rather than face the possibility that there are alternative explanations and situational factors for why bad things happen to people of all kinds— sometimes without blame or reason. 

On the flip side, some people believe that good things will happen to people who deserve it rather than acknowledge that sometimes good things happen to people who, strictly speaking, may not deserve it. 

Regardless, the just-world hypothesis provides an "explanation" for why things happen to some people and not others, giving one a sense of control over an unpredictable world and comfort in thinking that the world provides ultimate justice.

What is a person who believes in a just world?

Although it may not be possible (or reasonable) to definitively posit what kind of person is more likely to believe in a just world without knowing them personally, research such as Rubin and Peplau's study on the attitudes of participants in the 1971 national draft lottery reveals there are some consistencies. For example, Rubin and Peplau found that people who agreed with the just-world theory also tended to hold general and personal religious, conservative, and authoritarian beliefs. They were also likelier to admire political leaders and have negative attitudes toward underprivileged groups.

What classic experiment demonstrated the just-world hypothesis?

Melvin Lerner conducted one of the most well-known experiments on the just-world hypothesis presenting the "suffering victim" paradigm. In this experiment, participants were asked to watch a woman (the victim) receive a series of electric shocks. The woman wasn't actually shocked, but she acted as if she was so the participants believed it was real. The woman in the experiment reacted to the shocks with varying degrees of distress and emotion.

Lerner's findings were notable:

• Participants who witnessed the woman's suffering were more likely to view the shocks as a reflection of the victim's character and surmise that she must have done something to deserve it, even when they knew the situation was random and uncontrollable. 
• Lerner also found that when the researchers suggested that the participants could alleviate the woman's suffering by choosing to reduce the shocks, they often opted not to do so. This reluctance to help the victim was seen as a way to maintain the general belief in a just world; if they helped her, it would suggest that bad things can happen to good people randomly, challenging their deeply rooted belief system.

The findings from these experiments lent extensive support to Lerner's theories and have been influential in the field of social psychology, prompting him to publish a later review in the Psychological Bulletin about subsequent research on the just-world hypothesis a decade after his first experiments. The findings have also sparked further research progress on related topics in the world of social justice, like attribution theory , cognitive dissonance , and the psychology of empathy and helping behavior.

• What Is Deindividuation? Effects And Solutions Medically reviewed by Arianna Williams , LPC, CCTP
• What Is Liminal Space And How Does It Affect You? Medically reviewed by Majesty Purvis , LCMHC
• Relationships and Relations
• Current Events

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

Belief in a Just World: Understanding the Concept and Its Implications

• Article's banner | Credit Study Breaks
• Have you ever found yourself thinking "they must have done something bad to deserve that" after witnessing someone's misfortune? In a world where chaos often seems to reign, many individuals cling to the notion that justice prevails, and that people get what they deserve. This idea is encapsulated in the concept of the Belief in a Just World (BJW) . From the courtroom to the classroom, and from the media to our daily interactions, this belief shapes how we perceive fairness, responsibility, and morality. Understanding BJW is crucial as it affects both individual and societal behaviors and attitudes. This blog post delves into the definition, theoretical background, psychological implications, and societal impacts of the belief in a just world.

Definition and Theoretical Background

The belief in a just world (BJW) is a psychological concept that suggests people have a need to believe that the world is fair and that individuals get what they deserve.

This notion was first introduced by social psychologist Melvin Lerner in the 1960s. Lerner observed that individuals often have a cognitive bias that leads them to rationalize injustice or victimization by attributing personal responsibility to the victim, thereby maintaining the belief that the world is just and predictable.

Beliefs in a just world can lead to a pervasive pattern of attribution where individuals tend to hold victims responsible for their own misfortunes. This attributional pattern implies that poverty, oppression, tragedy, and injustice occur because the victims are deserving of these circumstances. Such beliefs make the world appear more predictable and controllable, offering a comforting illusion that individuals have the power to shape their destinies through their actions and choices.

However, the belief in a just world can also lead to self-blame, particularly among victims of traumatic events such as incest, debilitating illness, rape, and other forms of violence. These individuals may internalize their suffering, believing that they must have done something to deserve their trauma, which can undermine their sense of the world as a stable, meaningful, and just place. This self-blame further erodes their trust in the world, exacerbating feelings of vulnerability and helplessness.

Moreover, just world beliefs often form a critical part of many religious ideologies, providing a framework within which believers understand moral and ethical outcomes as divinely ordained and fair. These beliefs support the notion that justice, in the form of divine retribution or reward, is inherent in the fabric of the universe, thus reinforcing the idea that good is ultimately rewarded and evil is punished (Hogg, Adelman & Blagg, 2010).

Psychological Implications

The belief in a just world has profound psychological implications. It influences how people perceive and react to various situations, particularly those involving injustice or suffering. Here are some key psychological aspects:

Cognitive Dissonance Reduction

When confronted with evidence of unfairness or victimization, individuals who strongly believe in a just world may experience cognitive dissonance — the discomfort caused by holding conflicting beliefs. To reduce this dissonance, they might alter their perceptions, often by blaming the victim or finding reasons why the victim "deserved" their fate. This helps maintain their belief that the world is inherently just and orderly.

Perception of Control

BJW helps individuals maintain a perception of control over their lives. By believing that good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is punished, people feel that they can influence their own outcomes. This can be psychologically comforting, providing a buffer against the fear of randomness and chaos in life.

Impacts on Mental Health

While a strong belief in a just world can provide a sense of stability and reduce anxiety, it can also lead to negative outcomes. For example, individuals with a high BJW may experience increased stress and frustration when they encounter evidence that contradicts their belief, such as witnessing or experiencing unfair treatment. This can contribute to negative mental health outcomes, including depression and anxiety.

Societal Implications

Beyond individual psychology, the belief in a just world has significant societal implications. It affects how communities and societies perceive and respond to issues of justice and fairness.

Victim-Blaming

One of the most pervasive societal effects of BJW is the tendency to blame victims for their misfortunes. This can be seen in attitudes towards victims of crime, poverty, or discrimination. For instance, individuals who believe strongly in a just world are more likely to attribute poverty to a lack of effort or moral failings rather than systemic factors.

Social Inequality

BJW can also perpetuate social inequalities. If people believe that everyone gets what they deserve, they may be less likely to support policies aimed at reducing inequality or helping disadvantaged groups. This belief can lead to a lack of empathy and a diminished willingness to address social injustices, as individuals may perceive existing inequalities as justified and reflective of individuals’ merits or demerits.

Impact on Judicial and Social Policies

The belief in a just world can influence judicial decisions and social policies. Judges, jurors, and policymakers who hold a strong BJW might be inclined to support harsher punishments for offenders, under the assumption that those who commit crimes deserve to be punished severely. This can result in a legal system that is more punitive than rehabilitative.

Challenges and Criticisms

While the belief in a just world can provide psychological comfort, it is not without its challenges and criticisms. Critics argue that this belief can lead to a distorted view of reality and contribute to social injustices.

Ignoring Systemic Issues

Critics of BJW highlight that it often leads to the oversimplification of complex social issues. By attributing individual outcomes solely to personal actions, systemic factors such as discrimination, economic inequality, and structural injustice are ignored. This can prevent meaningful dialogue and action aimed at addressing the root causes of social problems.

Moral Justification of Injustice

The belief in a just world can lead to the moral justification of unjust situations. When people believe that victims deserve their fate, it can justify the continuation of unjust practices and policies. This can hinder social progress and the pursuit of a more equitable society.

The belief in a just world is a powerful psychological concept that shapes how individuals perceive and respond to justice and fairness in their lives and society. While it provides a sense of stability and predictability, it also has the potential to perpetuate victim-blaming, social inequality, and injustice. Understanding the implications of BJW is crucial for fostering empathy, promoting social justice, and developing policies that address systemic inequalities. As we navigate the complexities of our world, it is important to recognize the limitations of this belief and strive for a more nuanced understanding of justice and fairness. By doing so, we can work towards a society that is not only just in belief but also in practice.

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
• Horns Effect
• Just World Hypothesis
• Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental Research on Just-World Theory: Problems, Developments, and Future Challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 128-167.
• Dalbert, C. (2009). Belief in a Just World. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 288-297). The Guilford Press.
• Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. Plenum Press.
• Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who Believes in a Just World? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65-89.
• Maes, J. (1998). Immanent Justice and Ultimate Justice: Two Ways of Believing in Justice. Psychological Inquiry, 9(2), 141-146.

• 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..

Spirituality

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

Posted September 19, 2019 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

By Richard LeBeau, Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Find Counselling
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United Kingdom
• 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

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

The Stoic Optimizer

Rethinking Human Flourishing in the Age of AI

• Human Bugs & Features
• Optimal Solutions

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

September 17, 2022

minute read

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

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

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

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

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

Where does the just-world hypothesis come from?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is an example of the just-world hypothesis?

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

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

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

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

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

Is the just-world hypothesis wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The connection between just-world fallacy and other cognitive biases

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

Self-serving bias vs. just-world hypothesis

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

How does this work?

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

Fundamental attribution error vs. just-world hypothesis

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

The Just-world hypothesis and philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with just-world hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can you fight against the just-world fallacy?

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

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

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

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

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

Liked this post? Share it with your friends!

cognitive biases

You may also like

Is self-sabotage holding you back insights from “the big leap”, the self-serving bias: a hidden impediment to being effective, become the unstoppable force you were born to be, unlock the power of stoicism to supercharge your goal achievement..

You're a go-getter, and you need a goal-crushing strategy that matches your ambition. This e-book offers actionable Stoic strategies that empower you to convert your drive into tangible success. 

Get it for free when you sign up the Stoic Optimizer newsletter.

I'll be sending you the latest posts too. Unsubscribe anytime. (P.S.: I respect your privacy. Your information will never be shared or sold.)

Session expired

Please log in again. The login page will open in a new tab. After logging in you can close it and return to this page.