Two Spheres of Belief in Justice: Extensive

Support for the Bidimensional Model of Belief

in a Just World

Laurent Begue

University of Grenoble

Marina Bastounis

University of Paris

ABSTRACT The purpose of this research comprising five studies(N5 666) was to further corroborate the bidimensional conceptualisationof the belief in a just world proposed by Lipkus et al. (1996). It wasdemonstrated that belief in a just world for the Self (and not for Others)was correlated to evaluations of the meaning of life. Belief in a just worldfor Others was significantly correlated to discrimination against theelderly, stigmatisation of poverty, and higher penal punitiveness, whilebelief in a just world for Self was weakly or not related to these variables.Together, these observations confirm the importance of the conceptualand psychometric distinction between these two spheres of the belief in ajust world.

The belief in a just world (BJW), according to which people

generally get what they deserve (Lerner, 1965; Lerner & Miller,1978; Lerner, 1980), constitutes a fundamental attitudinal orienta-

tion widely implicated in the perception and comprehension ofindividuals’ physical and social environment. As Lerner and

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laurent Begue,

LPS, Universite Pierre Mendes-France, 1251, avenue Centrale, Domaine

Universitaire, BP 47, F 38040 Grenoble, France. Email: laurent.begue@upmf-

grenoble.fr. The authors wish to thank Claudia Dalbert, Carolyn Hafer, and Isaac

Lipkusa for their comments on an earlier version of the article.

Journal of Personality 71:3, June 2003.

Copyright r 2003 Blackwell Publishing.

Montada have recently restated, ‘‘People, for the sake of their

security and ability to plan for the future, need to believe they live inan essentially ‘just’ world, where they can get what they deserve, at

least in the long run’’ (1998, p. 1).While particularly operant in victim perception, as was exten-

sively illustrated by Lerner (1980;see also Hafer, in press), the BJWconstruct has been employed in the investigation of a variety of

social phenomena, including altruistic behaviour, the perception andjustification of inequalities, and social discrimination (for a review,

see Furnham & Procter, 1989). According to Lerner (1980, p. 125),the sphere of relevance of BJW is not limited to the judgment ofothers, even if this theory is mostly known from this aspect. In an

earlier literature review, Lerner and Miller (1978) noted that‘‘virtually no research has examined the question of whether people

who are the victims of misfortune tend to blame themselves for theirfate’’ (p. 1043), suggesting the prospect of applying this theoretical

concept to the interpretation of how individuals perceive themselveswhen faced with situations of injustice or victimization. More than

twenty years later, as the perspective of the target is invested withincreasing importance in social psychology (see Swim & Stangor,1998), the just world hypothesis is examined more and more

frequently from the point of view of the individual (see Hafer &Correy, 1999; Hafer & Olson, 1989, 1993; Olson & Hafer, 2001).

Most of the experimental or correlational investigations of theBJW are based on general measures of the construct, following the

earlier psychometric propositions of Rubin and Peplau (1973; 1975).However, given the wide acknowledgment of the limited reliability

of the original scale, new unidimensional (i.e., Dalbert, Montada,& Schmitt, 1987; Lipkus, 1991) or multidimensional (Furnham &

Procter, 1992; Lipkus, Dalbert, and Siegler, 1996) instruments werelegitimately developed.

This emphasis on the multidimensional character of the BJW

introduced an attractive conceptual approach. A multidimensionalinstrument operationalizing the distinction Self / Others was notably

validated by Lipkus et al. (1996). This scale is composed of tworeliable sets of items, one concerning BJW for the Self (BJW-S) and

the other BJW for Others (BJW-O). The authors suggested thatcorrelational and experimental research using the BJW concept

would have much to gain in terms of precision and relevance fromthe exploration of these two dimensions. The findings they reported

436 Begue and Bastounis

confirmed the heuristic value of the differentiation between Self and

Others: BJW for Self was found to be more strongly associated toindexes of psychosocial adjustment than BJW for Others (Lipkus et

al., 1996). The main purpose of the present studies is to furthervalidate this assumption. It was thus expected that the belief in a just

world for the Self would be significantly linked to psychosocialadjustment but not, or weakly, to social discrimination, while belief

in a just world for Others would be related to social discriminationindexes but not, or weakly, to psychosocial adjustment. While BJW-

S represents a personal resource involved in self-perception, eventinterpretation, and coping strategies (see Lipkus, et al., 1996;Dalbert, 1999, 2001), BJW-O, sometimes described as general BJW

(see Dalbert, Montada, & Schmitt, 1987), refers more to theapplication of the justice motive in the interpretation of the social

environment. BJW-O would be activated mainly in the judgment ofsocial events and is therefore more directly involved in social

discrimination than BJW-S. This assumption is not a new one.Furnham and Procter (1992) have already argued that only ‘‘social’’

aspects of the just world belief are supposed to be associated withsocial phenomena. These authors developed a tridimensional justworld scale, tapping the personal, interpersonal, and sociopolitical

spheres of just world beliefs. They hypothesized that personal justworld beliefs would be less linked with attitudes toward AIDS than

interpersonal or social just world beliefs. Their findings verified thatthe personal sphere of BJW was generally not significantly linked to

attitudes toward AIDS, whereas the interpersonal and the socialspheres were associated with negative attitudes to AIDS victims.

While the instrument developed by Furnham and Procter was apromising contribution, it has, however, not been used in

subsequent studies, mainly in view of its limited reliability.Another purpose of this study is to confirm, and to extend, the

observations concerning the bidimensional character of the BJW

made by Lipkus et al. (1996) with a French population, in order tocontribute to its validation in a different sociocultural context. Maes

(1998a) has underlined that research on BJW has today certainlyreached the final phase of theory development that Furnham (1990)

called "text-bookization." This is indeed the case for Frenchpsychology texts, which generally include discussions of BJW (e.g.,

Moscovici, 1984;Deschamps & Beauvois, 1996; Vallerand, 1994). Itseems therefore important to produce findings relative to the BJW

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 437

and its measurement in the French context. On another note, Hunt

(2000) has pointed out that the majority of the available research onBJW is conducted with White American or British students. The

present research attempts to validate the bidimensional model ofBJW in the French context with a sample of over 650 subjects,

almost half of whom do not belong to the student population.In sum, the aims of this project are to (a) test the validity and

reliability of a bidimensional measure of belief in a just world in theFrench context and (b), following Lipkus et al. (1996) and Dalbert

(1999), to contribute to the validation of the distinction between thebelief in a just world for the Self and for Others by establishing theirrespective convergent and discriminant validities.

OVERVIEW

Five studies are reported in three parts. The first part presentspreliminary psychometric assessment and test-retest reliability of the

scale over a six-month interval (Study 1). A second part presents theinvestigation of convergent validity of BJW-S and discriminant

validity of BJW-O; study 2 analyses the relationships between BJW-S and meaning of life. In a third section, three victim observation

studies examine convergent validity of BJW-O and discriminantvalidity of BJW-S. The two BJW dimensions are analysed in their

relation to the perception of the elderly (Study 3), the poor (Study4), and to punitive attitudes toward delinquents (Study 5).

Preliminary Analyses of Scale Reliability

The aim of study 1 was to determine the basic psychometricproperties of the BJW-S and BJW-O scales and to establish test-retest reliability for their French version.

METHOD

Participants

Three hundred and eleven first-year psychology students from the

University of Grenoble participated in the study. The sample wascomposed of 44 males, 262 females, and 5 subjects who did not

mention their gender, their age ranging from 17 to 42 years (M5 19,SD5 2.73).

438 Begue and Bastounis

Procedure

Participants filled in a questionnaire that included the BJW-S andBJW-O scales (Lipkus et al., 1996) during an introductory course in

psychology. The scale is a 6-point Likert-type instrument composedof 2 sets of 8 items rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly

agree). Practical reasons, mainly related to student mobility withinthe academic year, made it possible for a reduced sample of 56subjects from the initial group to complete the BJW-S and BJW-O

scales six months later.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability

Data analysis yields the following characteristics regarding the BJW-S scale: M5 3.09, range 1.75 to 4.50, SD5 0.5, a5 .66. Average

BJW-O scale score was M5 2.51, ranging from 1 to 4.5, SD5 0.6,a5 .80. In accordance with previous observations (i.e., Dalbert,1999; Lipkus et al., 1996), the two scales are positively correlated

(r5 .48, p o.000). Furthermore, subjects showed a tendency toscore significantly higher on the BJW-S than the BJW-O scale,

t(31)5 18.18, po.000, a result that is coherent with prior findings(e.g., Dalbert, 1999). Men and women did not differ significantly in

terms of BJW-S (M5 3.10, SD5 0.53 vs. M5 3.09, SD5 0.49,t(304)5 .05, ns). Moreover, BJW-O male scores were significantly

higher than female scores (M5 2.66, SD5 0.49, vs. M5 2.48,SD5 0.61, t(67.82)5 2.24, po.02). A slight significant correlation

appeared between age and BJW-S (r5 � .12, po.02), but not withBJW-O (r5 � .08, ns)

Test-retest reliability

The following average scores were obtained from a part of the

participants six months later: BJW-S scale, M5 3.19, SD5 0.46;BJW-O scale, M5 2.57, SD5 0.64. Correlations between scores

obtained in the two times of testing were r5 .50 for the BJW-S and.57 for the BJW-O scale, (po.000 for both tests), which, according

to the criteria proposed by Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman (1991),constitutes satisfactory test-retest reliability.

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 439

Belief in a Just World and Psychosocial Adjustment

Although the majority of reports on the BJW are based onunidimensional measures that do not distinguish between spheres

of the belief and are mainly concerned with victim perception, it hasbeen demonstrated that BJW is, without a doubt, related to

psychological benefits. Lipkus et al. (1996) stated that ‘‘the BJWmay be conceptualized as a positive illusion in that it encouragespeople to see their world as orderly, meaningful, and predictable’’

(p. 666). Many studies have pointed out that just world believersreact more favourably to various threatening situations. Such

individuals generally express a stronger feeling of personal control(Clayton, 1992; Furnham & Karani, 1985; Hafer & Olson, 1989;

Lerner & Miller, 1978; Rubin & Peplau, 1973; Zuckerman, Gerbasi,& Marion, 1977), rarely experience feelings of depression (Ritter,

Benson, & Snyder, 1990), feel less lonely ( Jones, Freemon, &Goswick, 1981), have higher life satisfaction (Dalbert, 1993; 1998;

Dalbert & Katona-Sallay, 1996; Dalbert, Lipkus, Sallay, & Goch,2001; Dzuka & Dalbert, in press), consider the world as morefriendly (Fleming & Spooner, 1985), are more optimistic (Littell &

Beck, 1999), judge their marital relations as more satisfying (Lipkus& Bissonnette, 1996, 1998) and have less trouble sleeping ( Jensen,

Dehlin, Hagberg, Samuelsson, & Svensson, 1998). Schill, Beyler, andMorales (1992) showed that just world believers obtain lower scores

in the Self-defeating Personality Scale (Schill, 1990). Similarly, Maand Smith (1986) showed that high BJW is correlated to weak scores

on normlessness, isolation, powerlessness, and meaninglessnessmeasures. Rim (1983) and Heaven & Connors (1988) demonstrateda negative correlation between BJW and neuroticism. Finally,

research has shown that strong just world believers are lessthreatened by suffered injustice (Olson & Hafer, 2001) and in

certain cases are better prepared to cope with stress or psychologicalhardship (Brown & Grover, 1998; Tomaka & Blascovitch, 1994).

It may be assumed that the more relevant dimension in mattersreferring to psychosocial adjustment would be the belief in a just

world for the Self rather than for Others, the former being implicitlytaken into account by participants in earlier studies who completed

general BJW scales. In the study by Lipkus et al. (1996), only BJWfor Self coherently predicted less depression, less stress, and higherlife satisfaction. Furthermore, it has been shown that BJW for Self is

440 Begue and Bastounis

more coherently correlated than BJW for Others with the five main

personality dimensions (Costa &McCrae, 1989): just world believerssee themselves as less neurotic, more emotionally stable, extroverted,

and open. The aim of the following study was to test the convergentvalidity of the BJW for Self and the discriminant validity of the BJW

for Others scales. This study investigated the relationships betweenBJW-S, BJW-O, and the meaning and value that people attribute to

their present life.

STUDY 2: BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD AND PURPOSE IN LIFE

The literature discussed above lends support to the assumption that

BJW is related to psychosocial adjustment operating through apositive vision of the world. It was hypothesized that BJW-S is

positively linked to the way people perceive their purpose in life and,further, that BJW-S is more strongly related with purpose in lifethan is BJW-O.

METHOD

Participants

Sixty-three respondents (23 men and 40 women) were interviewed by

researchers in their homes in the city of Grenoble. The sample wascomposed of full-time or part-time workers (42.8%), college

students (23.8%), and retired individuals (19%), age ranging from18 to 79 years (M5 39.10, SD5 17.15). Their occupational statuses

were the following: employees and operatives: n5 13 (20.6 %),intermediary professions: n5 12 (19 %), managerial and intellectualstaff: n5 7 (11.1%), others and non-responses: n5 31 (49.2%).

Measures

Evaluation of the meaning of life was indexed with the Purpose InLife (PIL) test developed by Crumbaugh (1968). The scale comprises

20 items, rated from 1 (low purpose) to 7 (high purpose) and isnegatively correlated with the Depression Scale of the MMPI

(r5� .65) and Srole’s Anomia Scale (r5� .40) (Crumbaugh, 1968).Addad and Benezech (1986) reported a correlation of� .53 between

this scale and neuroticism and showed that delinquents obtainedlower scores than nondelinquents. In another field, Paloutzian

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 441

(1981) observed that religious converts scored higher on PIL than

nonconverts, whereas Crandall and Rasmussen (1975) and Soder-strom and Wright (1977) noted that PIL scores were higher among

intrinsically motivated religious subjects than less committedindividuals or unbelievers. Scale items refer to the tendency to

attribute meaning and depth to existence (example item: ‘‘Mypersonal existence is: 15 utterly meaningless, without purpose;

75 very purposeful and meaningful’’). Cronbach alpha was .86(M5 5.14, SD5 0.74). The questionnaire also included the BJW-S

and BJW-O scales (Lipkus et al., 1996). Means, standard deviations,and Cronbach alphas for these scales as well as score correlationsare reported in Table 1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

No significant differences were observed between genders on any of

the scales. Further, preliminary correlation analysis showed thatBJW-S and BJW-O were not correlated with subject’s age (r5 .07 ns

and r5 .13 ns respectively). Zero-order correlations between justworld beliefs and PIL were calculated. BJW-S and PIL scores were

significantly correlated in the predicted direction (r5 .43, po.001).On the contrary, BJW-O and PIL were not significantly correlated(r5 .19, ns). When controlling for BJW-S, this correlation reached

r5 .02, ns. Moreover, t tests comparing these two correlations (usingthe formula proposed by Steiger, 1980) showed that they were

significantly different from each other t(60)5 2.07, po05). Theseresults show that BJW for Self (but not for Others) is distinctively

related to a meaningful vision of life and corroborate recent reports(see Dalbert, 2001) that suggest that BJW for Self is involved in

psychosocial adjustment and, more precisely, in the way peoplemake sense of their own existence.

Belief in a Just World and Social Judgment: Three Victim

Observation Studies

The aim of the following studies was to replicate previous findings

regarding BJW for Others and social judgment of specific targets.The studies tested the assumption that belief in a just world for

Others influences the perception of such targets, in the sense thatdiscrimination against victims (Studies 3 and 4), or punitive attitudes

442 Begue and Bastounis

Table

1Means,Standard

Deviations,AlphaCoefficients,PairedComparisonsandIntercorrelationsBetw

eenBJW

-Sand

BJW

-OSc

alesforStudies1-5

Sample

group

BJW

-SBJW

-Otvalue

Correlations

MSD

aM

SD

a(paired)

Sample

1(n

5311)

3.09

0.50

.66

2.51

0.60

.80

18.18nnn

.48nnn

Fem

ale

(n5

262)

3.09

0.49

2.48

0.61

Male

(n5

44)

3.10

0.53

2.66

0.49

Sample

2(n

563)

3.73

0.82

.79

2.87

0.75

.84

8.71nnn

.51nnn

Fem

ale

(n5

40)3.76

0.86

2.81

0.75

Male

(n5

23)

3.82

0.76

2.98

0.73

Sample

3(n

566)

3,55

0.95

.90

2,87

0.98

.90

6,86nnn

.66nnn

Fem

ale

(n5

21)3,20

0.64

2,63

0.74

Male

(n5

45)

3.71

1.02

2.97

1.07

Sample

4(n

583)

3.33

0.73

.88

2.52

0.79

.91

1.70nnn

.60nnn

Fem

ale

(n5

38)3.13

0.81

2.36

0.78

Male

(n5

45)

3.50

0.61

2.60

0.78

Sample

5(n

5143)

3.71

0.71

.81

2.90

0.74

.85

9.71nnn

.50nnn

Fem

ale

(n5

72)3.65

0.67

2.76

0.66

Male

(n5

71)

3.76

0.75

3.03

0.80

toward delinquents (Study 5) may contribute to the preservation of a

just world belief. The three studies also aimed at establishingconvergent validity for the BJW-O scale by comparing the data

obtained in a French context to prior findings. In addition, thestudies attempted to verify discriminant validity for the BJW-S scale,

in order to evaluate the relevance of the bidimensional conceptua-lisation of BJW proposed by Lipkus et al. (1996).

Study 3: Just World Beliefs and Attitudes Toward

Elderly People

As Pasupathi, Carstensen, and Tsai (1995) note, although stereo-types of the elderly are both positive and negative, people appear tohold more negative than positive beliefs about aging (see also

Heckhausen, Dixon, & Baltes, 1989). BJW may in fact intervene inthe perception of the elderly. Old age is frequently associated with

diverse psychological and social deficiencies. It is therefore possiblethat derogation of the elderly constitutes a coping strategy that,

while preserving the feelings of justice, allows individuals to believethat they maintain some form of control over a condition that will

probably one day become their own.To this date, distinct empirical evidence linking BJW for others

and the perception of the elderly has been reported in three studies.

Weigel and Howes (1985) observed a positive correlation betweenBJW and endorsement of negative stereotypes toward the elderly.

Lipkus and Siegler (1993) showed that subjects with high BJWscores were less likely to confirm support to the elderly. Finally,

McLean, and Chown (1988) interviewed Canadian and Englishparticipants and showed a significant correlation between BJW and

blame attribution to the elderly in both samples. For the Canadiansample only, high BJW was also related to the tendency to dismiss

the needs of elderly people for the convenience of society. A thirddimension, the tendency to approve of public welfare destined tohome care for elderly people, was also negatively correlated to BJW,

but the results did not reach statistical significance.In order to verify convergent validity of the BJW scales proposed

by Lipkus et al., the study of McLean and Chown (1988) wasreplicated with a French sample. It was hypothesized that BJW-O

would be positively correlated to attribution of responsibility forpoor health and low income to the elderly themselves as well as to

444 Begue and Bastounis

the tendency, generally, to dismiss their needs. A negative

correlation was expected between BJW-O and support for homecare welfare for the elderly. It was further expected that BJW-S

would not be significantly linked to these three variables. Finally,correlations between BJW-O and the Attitude Toward Elderly

People Scale (ATEPS) scores were expected to be significantlystronger than the correlations between BJW-S and ATEPS scores.

METHOD

Participants

A convenience sample composed of 66 individuals (45 men and 21

women), primarily full-time workers (54.5%) and college students(27.3%), ages ranging from 18 to 45, (M5 30.63, SD5 7.84)

responded to a questionnaire. Participants were recruited in thestreets of the city and the area of Grenoble.

Measures

The Attitude Toward Elderly People Scale (ATEPS) developed by

McLean and Chown (1988) consists of 9 Likert-type items rated ona 6-point scale with scores ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6(strongly agree). Scale items were grouped into three dimensions, as

suggested by the authors, with the exception of item 1, which wasexcluded from the analysis in order to increase the reliability of the

first dimension. This dimension corresponds to attribution ofresponsibility for poor health and low income to the elderly

themselves and is composed of two items (example item: ‘‘If elderlypeople are in financial need, it is their own fault’’). Cronbach alpha

was .58, (M5 2.70, SD5 1.00). The second dimension, representingthe tendency to dismiss the needs of elderly people for the

convenience of society, is composed of 3 items (example item:"While jobs are in short supply, people should retire from workearly"). Cronbach alpha was .51 (M5 2.78, SD5 0.93). The third

dimension, measuring the tendency to approve of public welfaredevoted to home care for the elderly, is composed of 3 items

(example item: ‘‘More home help for the elderly should be providedby the government’’). Cronbach alpha was .72 (M5 4.43,

SD5 0.90). The questionnaire also included the French versionsof BJW-S and BJW-O scales (Lipkus et al., 1996). Table 1 presents

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 445

the means, standard deviations, Cronbach alphas, and score

correlations for both BJW scales.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Preliminary analyses indicated that the only significant differencebetween genders concerned BJW-S, where men tended to obtain a

higher score than women (M5 3.71, SD5 1.01 vs. M5 3.20,SD5 .64, t(64)5 2.11, po.03). Correlations between participants’

age and BJW-S or BJW-O were not significant (r5 � .14, ns andr5 � .01, ns respectively). Zero-order correlations between justworld beliefs and the three dimensions of the ATEPS were

calculated. In accordance with the hypothesis, BJW-O wassignificantly correlated positively to blame attribution to the elderly

(r5 .39, po.001) and rejection of the elderly (r5 .30, po.01) andnegatively linked to the tendency to approve of public welfare

allocated to home care for the elderly (r5 � .27, po.03).Discriminant validity for BJW-S scale was verified through the

absence of significant relationships between BJW-S and any of theATEPS subscale scores (r5 .07, r5 .14 and r5 .00 respectively, ns).Moreover, three t tests for dependent samples comparing the

strength of the correlations between both BJW scales and the threedimensions of the ATEPS showed that the correlations between the

BJW-O scores and blame attribution as well as rejection of homecare for the elderly were significantly higher than correlations

between BJW-S scores and these two indexes, t(63)5 3.42, po.01and 2.45, po.05 respectively. The comparison of correlations

between BJW-S or BJW-O with rejection of the elderly did notyield significant differences (t(63)5 1.36, ns). Additional analyses

showed that BJW-O remained significantly correlated to blameattribution to the elderly, rejection of the elderly, and rejection ofhome care for the elderly when BJW-S was controlled (r5 .47,

po.001, r5 .27, po.03 and r5 � .37, p4.003). Interestingly, whenBJW-O was held constant, the correlations between BJW-S and

blame attribution to the elderly and BJW-S became negative(r5 � .28, po.04), while the correlation between BJW-S and

support of home care turned positive (r5 .25, po.05). Thecorrelation between BJW-S and rejection of elderly remained

446 Begue and Bastounis

nonsignificant (r5 � .07, ns). These effects are interpreted in the

general discussion.

Study 4: Belief in a Just World, Perceptions of the Poor and of

Wealth Distribution

Furnham and Procter (1989) argued that ‘‘the just world hypothesis

supposes that just world believers will be unsympathetic towards thepoor. Unless compensating the underprivileged is possible, which it

is not in any substantial way without considerable social change, aBJW is maintained by derogating the victims of poverty and

rationalizing that they deserve their fate’’ (p. 374). Smith (1985) hasdescribed several possible strategies to maintain the BJW in the faceof poverty. These include direct denial or minimization of its

existence, the belief in ‘‘another’’ kind of justice that will compensatethe experienced suffering (see Maes, 1998b), and victim derogation,

which, in this specific case, ‘‘locates the causes of and responsibilitiesfor inequalities in human attributes and capacities’’ (Smith, 1985,

p. 20).Many studies have verified that BJW is positively related to

derogation of the poor and of people in socially precarioussituations (Campbell, Carr, & McLachlan, 2001; Furnham &Gunter, 1984; Guzewicz & Takooshian, 1992; Harper, Wagstaff,

Newton, & Harrison, 1990; Montada, 1998; Wagstaff, 1983). In oneof the rare studies on BJW conducted with a probability sample,

Smith (1985) showed that BJW is linked to minimization of socialinequalities, to beliefs that contribute to the preservation of existing

inequalities, to derogation of the poor and valorisation of the rich,as well as to individuating versus structural explanations of

inequalities. Reichle, Schneider, and Montada (1998) have demon-strated that when people are faced with individuals in need (e.g.,

immigrants, poor, unemployed), they tend cognitively to restore theinjustice as a function of their BJW by either blaming the victims,minimizing their needs, or justifying their own advantages. The

longitudinal nature of this study made it possible to illustrate furtherthat the operation of such strategies of cognitive restoration of

justice induces a subsequent reinforcement of BJW.The present study aimed at investigating several dimensions

linked to perceptions of poverty and wealth distribution. Suchdimensions were directly derived from the study of Jonsson and

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 447

Flanagan (2000), who examined eight distinct relevant dimensions:

(a) perception of pro-social action toward the poor, (b) valorisationof personal achievement, (c) perception of the existence of social

support for those in need, (d) accentuation of the existence of socialdisparities, (e) belief in equality of chances to succeed, (f) support of

public aid to individuals, (g). belief that public welfare inhibits thedevelopment of individuals’ autonomy, and (h). valorisation of

egalitarianism. It was hypothesized that support for pro-socialaction toward the poor would be negatively correlated to BJW-O.

We thought that the negative perception of poverty associated withBJW would lead such individuals to unfavourable judgments of pro-social action aimed at reducing poverty. Mohiyeddini and Montada

(1998) have shown that a general BJW is related to derogation of theunemployed and a weak desire to support them politically. In

addition, consistent with the results reported by Feather (1991), itwas expected that BJW-O would be positively correlated to

valorisation of personal achievement. In this light, support forpublic welfare for the poor and valorisation of an egalitarian

distribution of wealth was expected to correlate negatively withBJW-O, while the perception of negative effects of public welfare onthe development of individual’s autonomy would be positively

correlated to BJW-O. As these attitudes are included in a globallynegative perception of the poor (see Bullock, 1995), it was expected

that they would be coherently correlated to BJW-O.One cognitive strategy employed to sustain BJW consists in

minimizing social inequalities. Smith (1985) observed a correlationbetween general BJW (Rubin & Peplau’s scale, 1975) and inequality

minimization. The present study tested the hypothesis that BJWfor Others would be negatively correlated to the accentuation of

existing social disparities and positively linked to belief in equality ofchances to succeed. Finally, believers in a just world, who have atendency to minimize the difficulties of the poor and to generally

trust people (Begue, 2002; Lipkus, 1991; Zuckerman, Gerbasi &Marion, 1977), should also endorse the belief that in their city,

citizens in need receive public support. Thus, a positive correlationbetween this measure and the BJW-O scale was expected. Finally, it

was expected that correlations between BJW-O and the perceptionsof poverty and wealth distribution scales would be significantly

higher than the correlations between the latter scales and BJW-Sscores.

448 Begue and Bastounis

METHOD

Participants

The study was conducted with 83 subjects (45 men and 38 women),

ages ranging from 21 to 64 years (M5 36.54, SD5 10.37). Themajority were full-time or part-time workers (74% and 13,2%).

Their occupational statuses were the following: employees andoperatives: n5 30 (33%), intermediary professions: n5 34 (37.4%),managerial and intellectual staff: n5 18 (19.8%), others and non-

responses: n5 11 (12.1%). The participants were convenientlyselected, mainly in the streets of the city and area of Grenoble.

Measures

The instrument devised by Jonsson and Flanagan (2000), composedof eight subscales, was presented to subjects. The social commitment

subscale (6 items; e.g., ‘‘I am prepared to work less hours if thiswould liberate jobs for the unemployed’’) measured the importance

that a subject accorded to fighting social inequalities, as well as thesacrifices that one was willing to make in order to contribute to this

cause (a5 .77, M5 4.43, SD5 0.78). The accentuation of socialdisparities subscale (3 items; e.g., ‘‘A handful of people get richer butmany become poorer’’) measured the importance attributed to

inequalities (a5 .66, M5 4.43, SD5 0.86). The support for publicwelfare scale (6 items; e.g., ‘‘The state should provide everyone with

free basic services such as health care and judiciary aid’’) measuredthe priority attributed to government intervention in favour of the

most needy (a5 .65, M5 3.25, SD5 0.97). The egalitarianismsubscale (2 items; e.g., ‘‘It is not right that there are rich and poor

in society. There should be more equality’’) measured adhesion to avision of a more egalitarian society (a5 .66, M5 4.12, SD5 1.08).

The personal achievement subscale (5 items; e.g., ‘‘Competition forgetting a job makes people who hold jobs work better’’) measuredadhesion to an individualistic and pragmatist vision of social

achievement (a5 .45, M5 3.82, SD5 0.71). The perception ofsocial relations scale (3 items; e.g., ‘‘If someone in our city has

difficulties, he or she can generally count on others to help themthrough’’) evaluated endorsement of a vision of the community

watching over the well-being of each individual (a5 .72, M5 2.88,SD5 0.78). The equality of chances subscale (3 items; e.g., ‘‘In

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 449

general, everyone has equal chances of making his or her place in the

sun’’) evaluated the belief in the possibility for everyone to succeedsocially (a5 .66, M5 3.25, SD5 0.97). Finally, the inhibition of

autonomy development accentuated by public welfare subscale (2items; e.g., ‘‘When the state offers its services for free, people have a

tendency to get lazy’’) measured belief in negative effects of publicwelfare on individual social conduct (a5 .90, M5 4.04, SD5 1.13).

The questionnaire also included the BJW-0 and BJW-S scales(Lipkus et al., 1996). All items are rated on a 6-point scale, with

answers ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Male scores for the BJW-S scale were significantly higher thanfemale scores (M5 3.50, SD5 .61 vs. M5 3.13, SD5 .81,

t(81)5 2.55, po.05). Similarly, male BJW-O scores tended to behigher than female scores (M5 2.66, SD5 .78 vs. M5 2.36,

SD5 .78, t(81)5 1.74, po.08). Participant’s age was not signifi-cantly correlated to BJW-S or BJW-O scores (respectively r5 � .08

ns and r5 � .04, ns). Women showed a weaker belief in equality ofchances than men (M5 3.01, SD5 .92 vs. M5 3.44, SD5 .97,t(81)5 2.03, po.04) and higher awareness of the extent of social

inequalities (M5 4.64; SD5 .79 vs. M5 4.25, SD5 .87,t(81)5 2.03, po.04). No other significant differences were observed

between genders.Zero-order correlations between just world beliefs and the eight

dimensions of the Attitude Toward The Poor scale were computed.Consistent with the hypothesis, BJW-O was significantly and

negatively correlated to social commitment (r5 � .42, po.001),accentuation of economic disparities (r5 � .40, po.001), support of

public welfare (r5 � .34, po.01), and egalitarianism (r5 � .37,po.001), and positively related to the perception of social relations(r5 .44, po.01), the perception of equality of chances (r5 .44,

po.001), and the belief that public welfare discourages thedevelopment of individual autonomy (r5 .27, po.05). No signifi-

cant correlation was observed between BJW-O and the personalachievement score (r5 .16, ns). Correlations between BJW-S scores

and the other measurements were systematically weaker than thecorrelations of those scores and BJW-O scores (r5 � 27,� 34,

450 Begue and Bastounis

� .22,� .33,� .06, .23, .15 and .12 respectively). The comparison of

the pairs of correlations showed that two among the eight pairs weresignificantly different: perception of social relations, t(80)5 2.24,

po.05, and equality of chances, t(80)5 3.35, po.01. This was notthe case for accentuation of social disparity t(80)5 0.65, ns; belief

that public welfare discourages the development of individualautonomy (t(80)5 1.59, ns; social commitment (t(80)5 1.65, ns;

support of public welfare (t(805 1.26, ns), egalitarianism(t(80)5 0.42, ns), and personal achievement (t(80)5 0.39, ns).

Additional analysis indicated that when BJW-S was controlled,the links between BJW-O and the various scales remained generallysimilar and always significant (r5 � .33,� .26,� .26,� .23, .39, .43,

.25). The only exception was the correlation between BJW-O andpersonal achievement, which increased and reached statistical

significance (r5 .26, po.02). AN additional analysis was alsoperformed to investigate the relations between BJW-S and the

scales when BJW-O was controlled. None of the scale scores werecorrelated with BJW-S (respectively r5 � .03,� .13,� .02,

� .14,� .03, .12 and� .05, ns) with the exception of personalachievement scores, which were negatively correlated with BJW-S(r5 � .21, po.05). These results suggest that BJW-O is the only

pertinent dimension in the definition of poverty perceptions. Beliefin a just world for the Self is not related to the perceptions of

poverty, while it is appears to be negatively related to a competitivevision of personal achievement when BJW-O is controlled. These

effects will be further analysed in the discussion section.

Study 5: BJW and Penal Punitivity

Initially, the belief in a just world was studied in order to account forthe social judgment of victims. However, as Gerbasi, Zuckerman,

and Reis (1977) have noted, victim derogation is not the only way ofmaintaining belief in a just world. Attribution of stricter sentences toagents guilty of unjust actions is another strategy toward restoring

justice. Thus, the just world hypothesis is readily applied to theexamination of jury trials (Davis, Bray, & Holt, 1977, p. 339).

Gerbasi et al. (1977) refer to two studies that demonstrate thatsubjects who obtain a high score in a just world scale also attribute

longer sentences than others (Gerbasi & Zuckerman, 1975; Izzett,1974). More recent research has verified that BJW is linked to

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 451

attribution of responsibility, blame, and / or punishment to

perpetrators (Ford, Liwag-Mc Lamb, & Foley, 1998; Moran &Comfort, 1982 ; Schuller, Smith, & Olson, 1994; Taylor & Kleinke,

1992). Generally speaking, the BJW is positively linked to morepunitive attitudes in matters of criminal justice (Carroll, Perkowitz,

Lurigio, & Weaver, 1987; Mohr & Luscri, 1995; Finamore &Carlson, 1987,but see also McGraw & Foley, 2000; Taylor &

Kleinke, 1992, for inconsistent results). Kassin & Wrightsman(1983) observed that BJW is correlated to Juror Bias Scale scores,

which measure pre-trial expectancies that the defendants generallycommitted the crimes with which they are charged, and also measureattitudes toward conviction and punishment. The aim of this study

was to test the relationship between BJW for Others and penalpunitivity and to further evaluate the discriminant validity of BJW

for Self. It was hypothesized that BJW-O would be positivelycorrelated to penal punitivity scores and that this correlation would

be stronger than the correlation between the latter scale and BJW-Sscores.

It has been demonstrated that political ideology, which isgenerally linked to penal punitivity (Gerbasi et al., 1977; Hamilton,1976), is frequently related to BJW (Cheung & Kwok, 1996; Dalbert,

1992; Dittmar & Dickinson, 1993; Furnham & Gunter, 1984; Smith& Green, 1984; Wagstaff, 1983; Wagstaff & Quirk, 1983). This

variable was therefore included in the questionnaire design in orderto test that correlations between BJW-O and penal punitivity are not

influenced by political ideology. It was expected that BJW-O wouldremain significantly linked to penal punitivity when political

ideology scores were controlled.

METHOD

Participants

A convenience sample of 143 respondents was surveyed in the cityand surrounding area of Grenoble (71 men and 72 women). Subjects

were primarily full-time workers (61%) and college students (11%),age ranging from 16 to 74 years, (M5 33.12, SD5 13.28).

Their occupational statuses were the following: employees andoperatives: n5 25 (17.5%), intermediary professions: n5 56

452 Begue and Bastounis

(39.2%), managerial and intellectual staff: n5 25 (17.5%), others

and non-responses: n5 43 (30.2%).

Measures

The Index of Punitive-Internal Attitudes to Offenders developed byMohr and Luscri (1995) consists of 8 Likert-type items rated on a 6-point scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly

agree), reflecting the general tendency to favour punitive sanctionsand to attribute offenses to dispositional rather than situational

factors (e.g. ‘‘Courts are too soft on juvenile offenders’’). Cronbachalpha was .75 (M5 1.84, SD5 1.40). Political position was

measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 15 extreme left to75 extreme right. The questionnaire included the BJW-O and BJW-

S scales (Lipkus et al., 1996). Means, standard deviations, andCronbach alphas of the scales, as well as scale score correlations, arepresented in Table 1.

Results

No significant differences were observed between genders in regard

to BJW-S and punitive attitude scores. On the contrary, male BJW-O scores were significantly higher than female ones (M5 3.03 vs.M5 2.76, t(139)5 2.14, po.03). Age was significantly correlated to

BJW-S (r5 � .19, po.02) but not to BJW-O (r5 .11, ns).Zero-order correlations between just world beliefs and Punitive-

Internal Attitudes to Offenders Index scores were calculated. Asexpected, BJW-O was significantly correlated to punitive attitude

toward delinquents: r5 .17, po.05. This weak correlation iscomparable to the one reported by Mohr and Luscri (1995), which

was .19. Correlations between Punitive-Internal Attitudes ToOffenders Index and BJW-S scores were not significant (r5 .06,

ns). However, the correlations between the two BJW scores and thePunitive-Internal Attitudes to Offenders Index were not significantlydifferent, t(140)5 1.31, ns. Participant’s political ideology was not

correlated to BJW-S and BJW-O scales (r5 � .06 and� .07, ns) butwas moderately associated with Punitive-Internal Attitudes to

Offenders (r5 .33, po.001).A multiple regression analysis was performed in order to examine

the relative contribution of BJW-S, BJW-O, and political ideology inthe prediction of the Punitive-Internal Attitudes to Offenders scores.

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 453

Results showed that two among the three scales were independent

predictors of the target variable (R-square5 .14, F(126)5 7.15,po.0002); that is, BJW-O (b5 .19, po.05) and political ideology

(b5 .35, po.0000). BJW-S was not a significant predictor(b5 � .03, ns).

DISCUSSION

These three studies demonstrated that BJW-O is related to astigmatizing perception of the elderly and the poor, as well as to a

specific understanding of the socioeconomic environment thattranslates to a weaker inclination toward social action, minimizationof social inequalities, and unfavourable perceptions of public

welfare to people in financially needy situations. BJW-O alsoappeared as an independent (albeit weak) predictor of punitive penal

attitudes, distinguished from political ideology. Together, thesefindings support convergent validity for the BJW-O scale. Moreover,

the fact that correlations between BJW-S and target variables aregenerally not significant (Studies 3 and 5) for the BJW-S scale and

are systematically weaker, and even eventually disappear, whenBJW-O is controlled (Study 4) supports the discriminant validity ofthe BJW-S scale and verifies the relevance of the bidimensionality of

the belief in a just world construct. However, it should be noted thatcertain pairs of correlations between the BJW-S and BJW-O scores

and the variables under study were not significantly different, whichsuggests that, despite their differences, these two scales occasionally

overlap.Interestingly, when BJW-O scores were held constant, the

correlation between BJW-S scores and the target variable scoreswas found to be significant while it was not before, and in some

cases, the direction of the correlation changed. For instance, whilenone of the three Attitude Toward Elderly People subscales wassignificantly linked to BJW-S, when BJW-O scores were controlled,

blame attribution to the elderly and acceptation of home care scorescorrelated significantly with BJW-S (respectively, negatively and

positively). Contrary to BJW-O, BJW-S appeared to be associatedwith a stronger acceptance of elderly people. Similarly, among the

scales assessing perception of poverty and wealth distribution, thepersonal achievement scale (which was positively correlated with

454 Begue and Bastounis

BJW-O when BJW-S was controlled) was negatively correlated with

BJW-S when BJW-O was controlled. This observation wouldsuggest that higher BJW-S corresponds to weaker adhesion to an

individualistic and pragmatist vision of social achievement. Overall,these results affirm the heuristic pertinence of a distinction between

BJW for Self and for Others.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The purpose of this project was to examine reliability and validity

for a measure of belief in a just world in the French context and tocontribute to the validation of the distinction between the belief in ajust world for the Self and for the Others, following Lipkus et al.

(1996) and Dalbert (1999). The five studies presented here seem tolend sufficient support to the relevance of the construct in the

French context. At the same time, they verify the importance andnecessity of the distinction between the spheres of a just world belief

in reference to what happens to the Self and what happens to Others.Although correlated, (observed correlations in the five studies

between the two scales vary from .48 to .66), the scales clearly taptwo discernible spheres of BJW. The data reported here establishedthat scale reliability through test-retest or Cronbach’s alpha (see

Table 1) is sufficient. The evidence supporting convergent validityfor the two scales appears satisfactory. The analysis of discriminant

validity of the two scales showed that, in most cases, the scales didnot correlate significantly with nonpertinent criteria, although in a

few cases, the difference between pairs of correlations did not reachstatistical significance.

Furthermore, the findings replicate observations made by Lipkuset al. (1996), Dalbert (1999), and Dzuka and Dalbert (in press):

people always believe that the world is more just for themselves thanfor others. One possible interpretation of this tendency might be thatthe potentially stigmatizing tone of certain items in the BJW-O scale

(e.g., ‘‘I feel that when people meet with misfortune, they havebrought it upon themselves’’) may lead subjects to moderate their

judgments in order not to appear too harsh with others. However,additional analyses revealed that differences between BJW-S and

BJW-O scores are evidenced for items that do not have such anaccusing intonation (e.g., ‘‘I feel that a person’s efforts are noticed

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 455

and rewarded’’). Another interpretation may be that BJW is a more

urgent belief for the Self than for Others, and individuals naturallyendorse it more. Olson & Hafer (in press) suggest that ‘‘it is possible

that being deprived oneself is even more threatening to the belief in ajust world than is seeing other people who are potentially innocent

victims.’’ Recent reports indicate that individuals are motivated tominimize the injustice they have been victims of and that

minimization serves self-presentation strategies (see Olson, Hafer,Couzens & Kramins, in press): people believe that they will be less

likable and perceived as less competent if they say that they arevictims of injustice. A third explanation may be linked to samplingprocedures used in current psychological research. Most survey

respondents—for the majority of published reports, students andconvenience samples selected in a Western urban context—generally

benefit from material or psychological resources or life styles that donot expose them openly to injustice. It is possible that when such

respondents compare their own experience to most of the examplesof injustice that concerns others, such as stories they hear on the

news, for instance, they naturally feel the world is more just tothemselves. In any case, as Lipkus et al. (1996) have underlined,there are asymmetries in the way people perceive justice and injustice

for themselves and for others.Another issue that may be discussed here is the relevance of

differences in the endorsement of BJW that may be predicted bygender. Four among 10 tests presented here yielded significant

gender differences. These findings seem to indicate that gender is notin itself a crucial determinant of the belief in a just world and thus

appear in line with the conclusions of the meta-analysis conductedby O’Connor, Morrison, McLeod, and Anderson (1996). Moreover,

the links between BJW and age were slight or nonsignificant, whichis consistent with the BJW studies based on representative samples(Benson, 1992; Forest, 1995; Umberson, 1990).

One of the goals of this research was to demonstrate that BJW-Scontributes to individual well being. Believing in a just world indeed

induces people to believe that life has meaning—that it makessense—as was demonstrated by Study 2. Belief in a just world for

Others intervenes significantly in the perception of a diversity ofsocial targets. The present findings confirm that believing that the

world is just for Others occurs together with derogation of theelderly and the poor. In addition, it is linked with a perception of the

456 Begue and Bastounis

socioeconomic environment that endorses a weak inclination to be

actively engaged in social causes, as well as to minimization of socialinequalities and unfavourable perception of public welfare destined

to those in financial need. Finally, belief in a just world for Others isrelated to more severe penal attitudes toward delinquents.

Together, these observations imply that the effects of BJW woulddiffer according to whether it refers to the individual sphere (auto-

perception) or to social judgment of others. It is possible that BJWfor Self contributes to some extent to individuals’ psychosocial

adjustment, providing one with useful resources in times of stress,while at the same time, BJW for Others induces derogation anddiscriminatory judgments of a diversity of targets. However, the

present results do not warrant the conclusion that only BJW-Sgenerates psychosocially desirable effects. Indeed, with regard to

social judgment and behaviour, BJW for Others may in certaincircumstances incite altruistic conduct (see Bierhoff, Klein, &

Kramp, 1991; Zuckerman, 1975). Consequently, the correlates ofBJW in the individual or social spheres remain to be determined

more fully. In conclusion, the differentiation of the belief in a justworld for the Self and for the Others proposed by Lipkus et al.(1996) appears particularly qualified, both conceptually and

psychometrically, to heuristically equip future studies in thisparticularly fruitful domain that investigates the belief in the

existence of justice in the world along with its personal and socialcorollaries.

REFERENCES

Addad, M., & Leslau, A. (1989). Moral judgment and meaning in life. The

International Forum for Logotherapy, 12, 110–116.

Beauvois, J. C., & Deschamps, J. C. (1996). Des attitudes aux attributions: Sur la

construction de la realite sociale. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

Begue, L. (2002). Beliefs in justice and faith in people: Just world, religiosity and

interpersonal trust. Personality & Individual Differences, 32(3), 375–382.

Benson, D. E., & Ritter, C. (1990). Belief in a just world, job loss, and depression.

Sociological Focus, 23(1), 49–63.

Benson, D. E. (1992). Why do people believe in a just world? Testing

explanations. Sociological Spectrum, 12, 73–14.

Bierhoff, H. W., Klein, R., & Kramp, P. (1991). Evidence for the altruistic

personality from data on accident research. Journal of Personality, 59,

263–280.

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 457

Brown, J., & Grover, J. (1998). The role of moderating variables between stressor

exposure and being distressed in a sample of serving police officers. Personality

and Individual Differences, 24(2), 181–185.

Bullock, H. E. (1995). Class acts. Middle-class responses to the poor. In B. Lott,

& D. Maluso (Eds.), Social Psychology of interpersonal discrimination (pp.

118–159). New York: Guilford.

Campbell, D., Carr, S. C., & McLachlen, E. (2001). Attributing ‘‘third world

poverty’’ in Australia and Malawi: A case of donor bias. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 31(2), 409–430.

Carroll, J. S., Perkowitz, W. T., Lurigio, A. J., & Weaver, F. M. (1987).

Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 107–118.

Cheung, C. J., & Kwok, S. T. (1996). Conservative orientation as a determinant

of hopelessness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(3), 333–347.

Clayton, S. D. (1992). The experience of injustice: Some characteristics and

correlates. Social Justice Research, 5, 71–91.

Costa, P. T., & Mc Crae, R. R. (1989). NEO PI/FFI manual supplement. Odessa:

Psychological Assessment Ressources.

Crandall, J. E., & Rasmussen, R. D. (1975). Purpose of life as related to specific

values. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 483–485.

Crumbaugh, J. (1968). Cross-validation of a purpose-in-life test based on Frankl

concepts. Journal of Individual Psychology, 24, 74–81.

Dalbert, C. (1992). Der Glaube an die gerechte Welt: Differenzierung

und validierung eines Konstructs. Zeitschrift fur Socialpsychologie, 23,

268–276.

Dalbert, C. (1993). Gefahrdung des Wohlbefindens durch Arbeitplatzunsicher-

heit: Eine Analyse des Einflussfaktoren Selbstwert und Grerechte-Welt-

Glaube. Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitpsychologie, 1, 235–253.

Dalbert, C. (1998). Belief in a just world, well-being, and coping with an unjust

fate. In L. Montada, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and

belief in a just world (pp. 87–105). New York: Plenum Press.

Dalbert, C. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the

personal belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12(3),

79–98.

Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with

challenges and critical life events. New York: Plenum/ Kluwer Academic.

Dalbert, C., Fisch, U., & Montada, L. (1992). Is inequality unjust? Evaluating

women’s career chances. European Review of Applied Psychology, 42(1),

11–17.

Dalbert, C., & Katona-Sallay, H. (1996). The belief in a just world in Hungary.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(3), 293–314.

Dalbert, C., Lipkus, I., Sallay, H., & Goch, I. (2001). A just and an unjust world:

Structure and validity of different world belief. Personality and Individual

Differences, 30, 561–577.

Dalbert, C., Montada, L., & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube an eine gerechte welt als

motiv: Valiedierungskorrelate sweier skalen. Psychologische Beitrage, 29,

596–615.

458 Begue and Bastounis

Davis, S. H., Brag, R. M., Holt, R. V. (1977). The empirical study of decision

processes in juries. In S. L. Tapp, & F. S. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice, and the

individual in society. Psychological and legal issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart

& Winston.

Dittmar, H., & Dickinson, J. (1993). The perceived relationship between the belief

in a just world and sociopolitical ideology. Social Justice Research, 6(3),

257–272.

Dzuka, J., & Dalbert, C.(in press). Mental health and personality of Slovak

unemployed adolescents: About the beliefs in a just world’s impact. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology.

Feather, N. T. (1991). Human values, global self-esteem, and belief in a just

world. Journal of Personality, 59(1), 83–107.

Finamore, F., & Carlson, J. M. (1987). Religiosity, belief in a just world and

crime control attitudes. Psychological Reports, 61, 135–138.

Fleming, J., & Spooner, P. S. (1985). Five factor scales for internal/external

control and their relations to measures of adjustment. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 41(4), 512–517.

Forest, K. B. (1995). The role of critical life events in predicting world view:

Linking two social psychologies. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,

10(2), 331–348.

Furnham, A. (1985). Just world beliefs in an unjust society: A cross-cultural

comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 363–366.

Furnham, A., & Gunter, B. (1984). Just world belief and attitudes toward the

poor. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 265–269.

Furnham, A., & Karani, R. (1985). A cross-cultural study of attitudes to women,

just world, and locus of control beliefs. Psychologia: An International Journal

of Research in the Orient, 28, 11–20.

Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world: Review and critique of

the individual difference literature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28,

365–384.

Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1992). Sphere-specific just world beliefs and attitudes

to AIDS. Human Relations, 45(3), 265–280.

Gerbasi, K. C., & Zuckerman, M. (1975, April). Experimental investigation of

jury biasing factors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological

Association. New York, NY.

Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new

blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84(2), 323–345.

Guzewicz, T. D., & Takooshian, H. (1992). Development of a short-form scale of

public attitudes toward homelessness. Journal of Social Distress & the

Homeless, 1(1), 67–79.

Hafer, C. L. (2000). Investment in long-term goals and commitment to just means

drive the need to believe in a just world. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 26(9), 1059–1073.

Hafer, C. L.(in press). Why we reject innocent victims. In M. Ross, & D. T. Miller

(Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 459

Hafer, C. L., & Begue, L.(in preparation). The belief in a just world: Classic and

contemporary research.

Hafer, C. L., & Correy, B. L. (1999). Mediators of the relation between beliefs in

a just world and emotional responses to negative outcomes. Social Justice

Research, 12(3), 189–204.

Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (1989). Belief in a just world and reactions to

personal deprivation. Journal of Personality, 57(4), 799–823.

Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (1993). Beliefs in a just world, discontent, and

assertive actions by working women. Personalitty and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 19(1), 30–38.

Hamilton, D. L. (1976). Individual differences in ascription of responsibility, guilt

and appropriate judgment. In G. Berman, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.).

Psychology and the law (pp. 239–264). Lexington, MA: Heath.

Harper, D. J., Wagstaff, G. F., Newton, J. T., & Harrison, K. R. (1990). Lay

causal perceptions of third world poverty and the just world theory. Social

Behavior and Personality, 18(2), 235–238.

Heaven, P., & Connors, J. (1988). Personality and belief in a just world.

Australian Journal of Psychology, 40, 261–266.

Heckhausen, J., Dixon, R. A., & Baltes, P. B. (1989). Gains and losses in

development throughout adulthood as perceived by different adult age groups.

Developmental Psychology, 25, 109–121.

Hunt, M. O. (2000). Status, religion, and the "belief in a just world": Comparing

African Americans, Latinos, and Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1),

325–343.

Izzett, R. (1975). Personal communication. In Rubin, Z. & Peplau, L. A., Who

believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31(2), 65–89.

Janoff-Bulman, R., & Wortman, C. B. (1977). Attributions of blame and coping

in the ‘‘real world’’: Severe accident victims react to their lot. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 35(5), 351–363.

Jensen, E., Dehlin, B., Hagberg, B., Samuelsson, G., & Svensson, T. (1998).

Insomnia in an 80-year-old population: relationship to medical, psychological

and social factors. Journal of Sleep Research, 7, 183–189.

Jones, W. H., Freemon, J. E., & Goswick, R. A. (1981). The persistence of

loneliness: Self and other determinant. Journal of Personality, 49, 27–48.

Jonsson, B., & Flanagan, C. (2000). Les idees des jeunes sur la justice distributive,

les droits et les obligations: Etude transculturelle. Revue Internationale de

Sciences Sociales, 164, 223–236.

Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1983). The construction and validation of a

juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423–442.

Kleinke, C. L., & Meyer, C. (1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and women

with high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14,

343–353.

Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s

reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1,

355–360.

Lerner, M. J. (1966). Observers reaction to the ‘‘innocent victim’’: Compassion or

rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 211–215.

460 Begue and Bastounis

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York:

Plenum Press.

Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution

process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.

Lerner, M. J., & Montada, L. (1998). An overview: Advances in belief in a just

world theory and methods. In L. Montada (Eds.), Responses to victimizations

and belief in a just world (pp. 1–7). New York: Plenum Press.

Lipkus, I. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global

belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multi-

dimensional belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences,

12(11), 1171–1178.

Lipkus, I., & Bissonnette, V. L. (1996). Relationships among belief in a just

world, willingness to accommodate, and marital well-being. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(10), 1043–1056.

Lipkus, I. M., & Bissonnette, V. (1998). The belief in a just world and willingness

to accommodate among married and dating couples. In L. Montada, & M. J.

Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 127–

140). New York: Plenum Press.

Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of

distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications

for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(7),

666–677.

Lipkus, I. M., & Siegler, I. C. (1993). The belief in a just world and perceptions of

discrimination. Journal of Psychology, 127(4), 465–474.

Littrell, J., & Beck, E. (1999). Perceiving oppression: Relationships with

resilience, self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and reliance on God in

African-American homeless men. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,

26(4), 137–158.

Ma, L., & Smith, K. (1986). Individual and social correlates of the just

world belief: A study of Taiwan college students. Psychological Reports, 57,

35–38.

Maes, J. (1998a). Eight stages in the development of research on the construct of

belief in a just world? In L. Montada, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to

victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 163–185). New York: Plenum

Press.

Maes, J. (1998b). Immanent justice and ultimate justice: Two ways of believing in

justice. In L. Montada, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and

belief in a just world (pp. 9–40). New York: Plenum Press.

McGraw, S. L., & Foley, L. A. (2000). Perceptions of insanity based on

occupation of defendant and seriousness of crime. Psychological Reports, 86,

143–174.

McLean, M. J., & Chown, S. M. (1988). Just world beliefs and attitudes toward

helping elderly people: A comparison of British and Canadian university

students. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 26(4),

249–260.

Miller, D. T. (1977). Altruism and threat to a belief in a just world. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 113–124.

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 461

Mohiyeddini, C., & Montada, L. (1998). Belief in a just world and self-efficacy in

coping with observed victimization. In L. Montada, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.),

Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 41–54). New York:

Plenum.

Mohr, P. B., & Luscri, G. (1995). Blame and punishment: Attitudes to juvenile

and criminal offending. Psychological Reports, 77, 1091–1096.

Montada, L. (1998). Belief in a just world: A hybrid of justice motive and self-

interest? In L. Montada, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and

belief in a just world (pp. 217–246). New York: Plenum Press.

Moran, G., & Comfort, J. C. (1982). Scientific juror selection: sex as a moderator

of demographic and personality predictors of impaneled felony juror behavior.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1052–1063.

Moscovici, S. (1984). Psychologie Sociale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

O’Connor, W. E., Morrison, T. G., McLeod, L. D., & Anderson, D. (1996). A

meta-analytic review of the relationship between gender and belief in a just

world. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11(1), 141–148.

Olson, J. M., & Hafer, C. L (2001). Tolerance of personal deprivation. In J. T.

Jost, & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives

on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 157–175). Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press.

Olson, J. M., Hafer, C. L., Couzens, A., & Kramins, I.(in press). You’re OK, I’m

OK: The self-presentation of affective reactions to deprivation. Social Justice

Research.

Paloutzian, R. F. (1981). Purpose in life and value change following conversion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1153–1160.

Pasupathi, M., Cartensen, L. L., & Tsai, J. L. (1995). Ageism in interpersonal

settings. In B Lott, & D. Maluso (Eds), Social Psychology of interpersonal

discrimination (pp. 160–182). New York: Guilford.

Reichle, B., Schneider, A., & Montada, L. (1998). How do observers of

victimization preserve their belief in a just world cognitively or actionally? In

L. Montada, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a

just world (p. 55–86). New York: Plenum Press.

Rim, Y. (1983). Belief in a just world, personality, and social attitudes.

Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 707–708.

Ritter, C., Benson, D. E., & Snyder, C. (1990). Belief in a just world and

depression. Sociological Perspective, 235, 235–252.

Robinson, J. P, Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of social

psychological attitudes. New York: Academic Press.

Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s

lot: A study of participants in the National Draft Lottery. Journal of Social

Issues, 29(4), 73–93.

Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social

Issues, 31(3), 65–89.

Schill, T. (1990). A measure of self-defeating personality. Psychological Reports,

66, 1343–1346.

Schill, T., Beyler, J., & Morales, J. (1992). The role of just world belief and anger

issues in self-defeating personality. Psychological Reports, 70, 595–598.

462 Begue and Bastounis

Schuller, R. A., Smith, V. L., & Olson, J. M. (1994). Juror’s decisions in trial of

battered women who kill: The role of prior beliefs and expert testimony.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 316–337.

Smith, K. B. (1985). Seeing justice in poverty: The belief in a just world and ideas

about social inequalities. Sociological Spectrum, 5, 17–29.

Smith, K. B., & Green, D. N. (1984). Individual correlates of the belief in a just

world. Psychological Reports, 54, 435–438.

Soderstrom, D., & Wright, E. W. (1977). Religious orientation and meaning in

life. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(1), 65–68.

Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix.

Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.

Swim, J. K., & Stangor, C. (1998). Prejudice: The target’s perspective. New York:

Academic Press.

Tomaka, J., & Blascovitch, J. (1994). Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive

appraisal of and subjective, physiological, and behavioral responses to

potential stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 732–740.

Umberson, D. (1993). Sociodemographic position, world views, and pychological

distress. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 575–589.

Vallerand, R. J. (1994). Les fondements de la psychologie sociale. Boucherville:

Gaetan Morin.

Wagstaff, G. F. (1983). Correlates of the just world in Britain. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 121, 145–146.

Wagstaff, G. F., & Quirk, M. A. (1983). Attitudes to sex roles, political

conservatism and belief in the just world. Psychological Reports, 2, 151–176.

Weigel, R. H., & Howes, P. W. (1985). Conceptions of racial prejudice. Journal of

Social Issues, 41(3), 117–138.

Zucker, G. S., & Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and perceptions of poverty: An

attributional analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(12), 925–943.

Zuckerman, M. (1975). Belief in a just world and altruistic behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 972–976.

Zuckerman, M., Gerbasi, K., & Marion, S. (1977). Correlates of the just world

factor of Rotter’s I-E scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37,

375–381.

Two Spheres of Belief in a Just World 463

464