Navigating Uncertain & Unfair Situations Flashcards
What is Belief in a Just World theory developed on the basis of?
BJW is developed on the basis of a personal contract between the individual and social world – investment in goals is only worthwhile if people get what they deserve.
At what age do children form a personal contract? What do they learn at this age?
4-5 years old. They develop and aspect of time and learn to delay instant gratification. They learn to give up the pleasure principle.
What principle is key to theory on BJW?
Principle of deservingness.
Belief in a Just World theory is an _______, _______ assumption.
Unconscious, implicit.
What is ‘just world’?
The desired (and assumed) outcome.
What is the biggest threat to BJW?
When someone experiences undeserved suffering or misfortune.
People are more likely to fight for fairness for others when ____________.
They themselves have been treated unfairly.
What are the 2 areas of research into BJW?
Individual differences
Experimental research
What are the 2 types of strategies used to restore BJW?
Rational strategies
Non-rational strategies
What are rational strategies?
Victim focused strategies.
What are non rational strategies?
Victim blaming strategies (looking for reasons to explain why the bad thing has happened to someone).
This can involve looking for silver linings for the suffering.
What is Immanent Justice Reasoning?
IJR is a causal attribution in which an individual’s suffering is attributed to their prior failings or immoral character.
What can Immanent Justice Reasoning result in?
Victim blaming.
What did Callan et al. (2013) find from their study on Immanent Justice Reasoning?
For the long term condition (where BJW was primed), participants were more likely to attribute IJR to the thief.
What was the method of Callan et al.’s (2013) study on Immanent Justice Reasoning?
Goal manipulation was given (long-term vs. short-term).
Participants read about a victim of a freak accident.
Character of the victim was manipulated (volunteer vs. thief).
IJR measured – ‘to what extent was the accident the result of the victim’s past behaviour?’
What is Ultimate Justice Reasoning?
When any underserved episode of suffering is compensated with a positive outcome (i.e., a silver lining) in the long run.
What was the method of Harvey & Callan’s (2014) study on the interplay of IJR & UJR?
Participants read about a victim of a freak accident.
Character of the victim was manipulated (good vs. bad).
Perceptions of deservingness of accident (IJR) and fulfillment in life (UJR) were measured.
Engagement in IJR and UJR measured.
What were the findings of Harvey & Callan’s (2014) study on the interplay of IJR & UJR?
IJR was higher for the bad character.
(More likely to say the person deserved the accident if they were a bad character).
UJR was higher for the good character.
(More likely to say that there was a silver lining to the accident).
What is uncertainty management theory?
Although we know the world is an uncertain place, personal uncertainty is an aversive experience that we would rather avoid.
We adhere to cultural worldviews (norms, values) to provide a sense of stability in an otherwise uncertain world.
What is personal uncertainty?
Self-doubt or instability in our views about ourselves or place in the world.
What is experimental research focused on in Uncertainty Management Theory?
How people respond to situations that challenge our worldviews after they have been reminded about their personal uncertainties.
What are the 2 ways in which people could react after reminders of personal uncertainty?
- (more) positively to situations that support their worldviews
- (more) negatively to situations that challenge their worldviews
What do people react strongly to after being reminded of their personal uncertaincies?
Violations of the fairness principle
What was the method of Van den Bos’ (2001) experiment on uncertainty and fairness?
Personal uncertainty was manipulated.
Procedural fairness was manipulated (voice vs. no voice).
Emotional reactions were measured: anger, disappointment and satisfaction.
What were the findings of Van den Bos’ (2001) experiment on uncertainty and fairness?
When personal uncertainty is made noticeable, people will have stronger emotional reactions to violations of fairness.
What were the findings of Van den Bos et al.’s (2006) study on uncertainty and worldview defence?
More religious participants reacted more strongly to the article, but this reaction was heightened when uncertainty was made salient.
What may people do to manage feelings of personal uncertainty?
People may adhere more strongly to BJW.
What were the findings of Bal & van den Bos’ (2012) study into uncertainty and BJW?
Those primed with uncertainty had strong negative feelings/blaming activity compared to those that weren’t.
What heightens people’s emotional reactions to situations that challenge their worldviews?
When their feelings of personal uncertainty are primed.
What may promote people’s confidence in the stability of their worldviews? What does this therefore reduce?
BJW. This reduces personal uncertainty.
What is Terror Management Theory?
Looks at how people respond to situations when they’re reminded of their own death.
What sum can explain Terror Management Theory?
Innate drive for survival + an awareness of the inevitability of death = overwhelming terror
What do humans embrace to manage the paralyzing fear of death?
Embracing cultural worldviews like:
1. Literal immortality - reincarnation
2. Symbolic immortality - investment in future generations
What is worldview defence?
Engagement in thoughts or behaviours that defend validity of cultural worldviews against threat and strengthen affiliation to the in-group.
When priming people to think about their own death, do they show more aggression towards people that challenge their worldviews? (McGregor et al., 1998)
Yes. They showed greater aggression towards the target after mortality priming and when the target threatened their political views.
What is a criticism of McGregor et al.’s hot sauce study?
There were only 78 participants.
When people are primed with their own death, do people prefer ingroup members because of their group membership or their perceived similarity in attitudes? (See & Petty, 2006)
Control participants:
Group membership of interviewee wasn’t important.
Interviewee with positive (vs. negative) attitude rated more favourably.
Mortality salience participants:
Ratings for the outgroup member were dependent on their attitude.
Ingroup member rated similarly, regardless of attitude.
How does mortality priming affect a person’s affiliation to their ingroup?
It increases it.
