We blame innocent victims more than i do: Self-construal level moderates responses to just-world threats

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 35, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1528-1539

  van Prooijen, Jan Willem ^a   van den Bos, Kees ^b  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Just world theory; Justice motive; Self construal level; Victim blaming

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROL; DECISION MAKING; DEFENSE MECHANISM; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOTIVATION; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SELF CONCEPT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL JUSTICE; VICTIM;

ADOLESCENT; CRIME VICTIMS; DEFENSE MECHANISMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL; JUDGMENT; MALE; MOTIVATION; SELF CONCEPT; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70350309328     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: 15527433     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146167209344728     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37, 245-257.
2. Brewer, M.B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
3. Brewer, M.B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this we? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.
4. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Correia, I., Vala, J., & Aguiar, P. (2007). Victim's innocence, social categorization, and the threat to the belief in a just world. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 31-38.
6. 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 victimization and belief in a just world (pp. 87-105). New York: Plenum.
7. Epley, N., & Caruso, E.M. (2004). Egocentric ethics. Social Justice Research, 17, 171-188.
8. Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., Vevea, J.L., & Iuzzini, J. (2002). The I, the we, and the when: A meta-analysis of motivational primacy in self-definition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 574-591.
9. Gardner, W.L., Gabriel, S., & Hochschild, L. (2002). When you and I are we, you are not threatening: The role of self-expansion in social comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 239-251.
10. Gardner, W.L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A.Y. (1999). I value freedom, but we value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgments. Psychological Science, 10, 321-326.
11. Gollwitzer, M., & Bücklein, K. (2007). Are we more punitive than me? Self-construal styles, justice-related attitudes, and punitive judgments. Social Justice Research, 4, 457-478.
12. Hafer, C.L. (2000a). Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a modified Stroop task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 165-173.
13. Hafer, C.L. (2000b). 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, 1059-1073.
14. Hafer, C.L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128-167.
15. Ham, J., & Van den Bos, K. (2008). Not fair for me! The influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 699-705.
16. Hegtvedt, K.A. (2006). Justice frameworks. In P. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 46-69). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17. IJzerman, H., & Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2008). Just world and the emotional defense of self. Social Psychology, 39, 117-120.
18. Kaiser, C.R., Vick, S.B., & Major, B. (2004). A prospective investigation of the relationship between just-world beliefs and the desire for revenge after September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15, 503-506.
19. Kerr, N.L., Hymes, R.W., Anderson, A.B., & Weathers, J.E. (1995). Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545-567.
20. Kleinke, C.L., & Meyer, C. (1990). Evaluations of a rape victim by men and women with a high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 343-353.
21. Lambert, A.J., Burroughs, T., & Nguyen, T. (1999). Perception of risk and the buffering hypothesis: The role of just world beliefs and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 643-656.
22. Lerner, M.J. (1980). Belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.
23. Lerner, M.J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 388-399.
24. Lerner, M.J., & Miller, D.T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.
25. Lerner, M.J., & Simmons, C.H. (1966). The observer's reaction to the innocent victim: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 203-210.
26. Lipkus, I.M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I.C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 666-777.
27. Loewenstein, G., & Small, D.A. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11, 112-126.
28. Loseman, A., Miedema, J., Van den Bos, K., & Vermunt, R. (2009). Exploring how people respond to conflicts between self-interest and fairness: The influence of threats to the self on affective reactions to advantageous inequity. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61, 13-21.
29. Loseman, A., Van den Bos, K., & Ham, J. (2005, July). The influence of justice and injustice on self-activation. Paper presented at the 14th EAESP General Meeting, Würzburg, Germany.
30. Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
31. Messick, D.M., & Sentis, K.P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418-434.
32. 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 victimization and belief in a just world (pp. 217-c246). New York: Plenum.
33. Novak, D.W., & Lerner, M.J. (1968). Rejection as a consequence of perceived similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 147-152.
34. Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35. Ross, M., & Miller, D.T. (2002). The justice motive in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Sedikides, C., & Brewer, M.B. (2001). Individual self, relational self, collective self. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
37. Singelis, T.M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.
38. Smith, H., & Citti, D. (2006). Making the sexual harassment of others self-relevant: The roles of identity salience and value affirmation. Social Justice Research, 19, 500-526.
39. Stapel, D.A., & Koomen, W. (2001). I, we, and the effects of others on me: How self-construal level moderates social comparison effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 766-781.
40. Thompson, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 176-197.
41. Trafimow, D., Triandis, H.C., & Goto, S.G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649-655.
42. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
43. Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2006). Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: The importance of social categorizations and guilt probability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1-13.
44. Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2008). Egocentrism in procedural justice effects. In K. Hegtvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Justice (Vol. 25, pp. 29-54). Bingley, UK: JAI.
45. Van Prooijen, J.-W. (in press). Retributive versus compensatory justice: Observers' preference for punishing in response to criminal offenses. European Journal of Social Psychology.
46. Van Prooijen, J.-W., De Cremer, D., Van Beest, I., Ståhl, T., Van Dijke, M., & Van Lange, P.M. (2008). The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to d ecision-making procedures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1303-1315.
47. Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Lam, J. (2007). Retributive justice and social categorizations: The perceived fairness of punishment depends on intergroup status. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1244-1255.
48. Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Zwenk, F. (2009). Self-construal level and voice procedures: The individual self as psychological basis for procedural fairness effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 392-397.