Navigating uncertain and unfair situations

Question 1

what is belief in a just world? (BJW: Leber, 1977)

Answer 1

• a personal contract between the individual and social world - investment in goals is only worthwhile if people get what they deserve
• Principle of deservingness key to theory on BJW

Question 2

At what age does a child form a personal contract?

Answer 2

4-5 years old

Question 3

what is crucial for belief in Just World (BJW)?

Answer 3

• unconscious and implicit assumption
• its the desired (and assumed) outcome
• we react to situations that violate this assumption

Question 4

what are the 2 areas of research into BJW?

Answer 4

• individual differences in BJW
• experimental research = focused on how people deal with situations that threaten BJW.

Question 5

what are some examples of the threats to BWJ?

Answer 5

• someone experiences undeserved suffering or misfortune
• Someone is caught out in an unforeseen storm and suffers serious physical injuries
• Someone who has always been very health conscious develops cancer at a young age

Question 6

what are examples of rational strategies to restore BWJ?

Answer 6

• Supporting social welfare programmes and policies
• Helping the victim
• Preferred strategy when actions remove the injustice

Question 7

what are examples of non-rational strategies to restore BWJ?

Answer 7

• Victim blaming
• Perceiving a silver lining from suffering
  most research focuses on these strategies

Question 8

what is immanent justice reasoning (IJR)?

Answer 8

• a causal attribution in which an individual’s suffering is attributed to their prior failings or immoral character
• a non rational strategy, related to victim blaming
• happens even when the suffering was not directly caused by the individual’s prior actions (or character).

Question 9

Callan et al (2003) - Evidence for IJR

Answer 9

• examined the impact of long-term (vs. short-term) goal activation on engagement in IJR
• Goal manipulation given (long-term vs. short-term)
• Participants read about victim of a freak accident
• Character of the victim manipulated (volunteer vs. thief)
• IJR measured – ‘to what extent was the accident the result of the victim’s past behaviour?’
• attributed past behaviour to the car accident happening when a theif
• fairly similar when talking about the volunteer

Question 10

what is ultimate justice reasoning (UJR)?

Answer 10

• What about when misfortune strikes people truly undeserving of it?
• UJR is an extension of the temporal framework of an injustice
• Any underserved episode of suffering is compensated with a positive outcome (i.e., a silver lining) in the long run
• “What does not kill us, makes us stronger.”

Question 11

Anderson et al. (2010; study 1) - evidence for UJR

Answer 11

• people compensate for tragedy by finding a silver lining for the victim.
• BJW was manipulated - threatened (vs. control).
• Participants read about a competitive football player who had either suffered greatly (vs. not suffered) in their childhood
• Participants wrote about what the individual’s life would be like at age 30 years and rated how meaningful and enjoyable life would be.
  results: tragedy causes personal growth believe that they deserve better in the future (check slides for graphs)

Question 12

Harney and Callan (2014: study 1) - Interplay of use of IJR and UJR

Answer 12

• examined whether engagement in IJR vs. UJR was connected to perceptions of deservingness of the misfortune.
• Participants read about a victim of a freak accident.
• Character of the victim manipulated (good vs. bad).
• Perceptions of deservingness of accident (IJR) and fulfillment in life (UJR) was measured.
• Engagement in IJR and UJR measured.
• higher socores indicated higher immanent and ultimate justice reasoning
• engagement in justice reasoning dependent on character of the victim.

Question 13

what is Uncertainty Management Theory?

Answer 13

• personal uncertainity - self-doubt or instability in our views about ourselves or place in the world
• Although we know the world is an uncertain place, personal uncertainty is an aversive experience (we would rather avoid).
• We adhere to cultural worldviews (norms, values) to provide a sense of stability in an otherwise uncertain world.

Question 14

what are the two areas of research in uncertainty management theory?

Answer 14

• Individual differences in personal uncertainty (e.g., instability in self-esteem)
• Experimental research – focused on how people respond to situations that challenge our worldviews after they have been reminded about their personal uncertainties.

Question 14

after reminders on personal uncertainty how will people react?

Answer 14

• (more) positively to situations that support their worldviews
• (more) negatively to situations that challenge their worldviews

Fairness is seen as a foundational principle in many societies.

People react strongly to violations of the fairness principle after being reminded of personal uncertainties.

Question 15

van den Bos (2003; experiment 3) - Uncertainty and fairness study

Answer 15

• when personal uncertainty is made important people will have stronger emotional reactions to violations of fairness.
• Personal uncertainty manipulated (High vs. Control)
• Procedural fairness manipulated e.g. could voice opinons on how the tickets should be distributed (given a voice) or just told how it would be distributed (no voice) (voice vs. no voice).
• DV = Emotional reactions were measured: anger, disappointment and satisfaction.
  results: in uncertain events without a voice ps more angry than that condition where given a voice. no difference in control condition
  For satisfaction people more satisfied when given a voice, but more satisfied when uncertain and have a voice

Question 16

van den Bos (2006; experiment 2) - Uncertainty and worldview defence- do heightened feelings of personal uncertainty result in greater cultural worldview defense?

Answer 16

• Participants took part in three tasks:
  1. A questionnaire about the strength of their religious beliefs
  2. Uncertainty salience manipulation (vs. control).
  3. Read an article that challenged the validity of religious beliefs.
• they reported how angry the article made them
• RESULTS: those that are primed with uncertainty dislike the out group member describing something in an unjust way if have high religious beliefs

Question 17

Uncertainty & Belief in Just World

Answer 17

• examined the interplay between uncertainty management and belief in a just world (BJW).
• To manage feelings of personal uncertainty people may adhere more strongly to BJW.
• If personal uncertainty enhances BJW, then people will engage in more strategies that restore BJW when they encounter situations that challenge BJW.

Question 17

Bal & van den Bos (2012; experiment 3) - Uncertainty & Belief in Just World study
does manipulating BJW and personal uncertainty result in greater victim blaming?

Answer 17

• Participants took part in three tasks:
  1. Uncertainty salience manipulation (vs. control).
  2. BJW manipulated with a police report (distal vs. proximal).
  3. Victim blame and derogation measured.
• RESULTS: low belief in a just world = no difference between uncertainty and certainty.
  high belief in a just world = if uncertain, evaluate a victim more negatively. suggest that people blame others to recover their own uncertainty

Question 18

what is terror management theory?

Answer 18

• Innate drive for survival + an awareness of the inevitability of death = overwhelming terror.
• To manage the paralyzing fear of death, humans embrace cultural worldviews.
• Cultural worldviews protect against the fear of death by offering literal immortality or symbolic immortality (e.g., investment in future generations).
  Solomon, Greenberg and Pyszczynski (2004)

Question 19

what is worldview defense?

Answer 19

engagement in thoughts or behaviours that defend validity of cultural worldviews against threat and strengthen affiliation to the in-group.

Question 20

Evaluation of ingroup and outgroup (See & Petty (2006; experiment 2)

Answer 20

looked at do people prefer ingroup members more after mortality salience because of their group membership or perceived similarity in attitudes?
- Mortality salience manipulated (vs. dental pain control).
- Mortality salience manipulated (vs. dental pain control).
- Attitude of interviewee was manipulated.
- Outcome measured: evaluation of interviewee.

Control participants – group membership of interviewee not important. Interviewee with positive (vs. negative) attitude rated more favourably.

Mortality salience participants – ratings for outgroup member dependent on attitude. Ingroup member rated similarly regardless of attitude.

Mortality salience increases affiliation to ingroup.

Question 20

what is social dominance theory? (SDO; Ho et al., 2015)

Answer 20

-the psychological concept of an individual’s general predisposition to perceive and endorse hierarchical and dominant social structures.
- It argues that group-based inequality is maintained through institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioural asymmetry.

Question 21

perceived status and SDO (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999)

Answer 21

• Participants are aware of their group and other group’s position
• This can impact their social dominance orientation scale scores

Question 21

what did Cikara et al., (2011) show?

Answer 21

that participants showed greater empathy-related brain activity when observing individuals who were perceived as belonging to their own social group or of higher status.