Cited by 808Social and Intergroup PsychologyPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Experimental Research on Just-World Theory: Problems, Developments, and Future Challenges.

Hafer, Carolyn L., Bègue, Laurent·2005·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

M. J. Lerner (1980) proposed that people need to believe in a just world; thus, evidence that the world is not just is threatening, and people have a number of strategies for reducing such threats. Early research on this idea, and on just-world theory more broadly, was reviewed in early publications (e.g., M. J. Lerner, 1980; M. J. Lerner & D. T. Miller, 1978). In the present article, focus is directed on the post-1980 experimental research on this theory. First, 2 conceptualizations of the term belief in a just world are described, the typical experimental paradigms are explained, and a general overview of the post-1980 experiments is provided. Second, problems with this literature are discussed, including the unsystematic nature of the research. Third, important developments that have occurred, despite the problems reviewed, are described. Finally, theoretical challenges that researchers should address if this area of inquiry is to advance in the future are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Just-world motivation is done by derogating the victim or perceiving them as dissimilar from oneself.

    “This is done by derogating the victim or perceiving them as dissimilar from oneself, and therefore not subject to the fair processes that determine one's own life (Hafer & Bègue, 2005;Lerner & Simmons, 1966).”

    From Victim blaming and belief in karma (2024) · cites this paper as Hafer & Bègue, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L.
Affiliations
  • Brock University (CA)
  • Université Grenoble Alpes (FR)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2005-01
Volume
131
Issue
1
Pages
128-167
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W1994740631
Cited by
808
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 53
FWCI
87.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
just world hypothesis, belief in a just world, threat mitigation, experimental paradigms, research challenges, future research directions
MeSH terms
Culture, Humans, Psychological Theory, Psychology, Experimental, Social Justice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review