Punishing Individuals for Their Infirmities: Effects of Personal Responsibility, Just‐World Beliefs, and In‐Group/Out‐Group Status
Abstract
This research examined how derogation of cancer victims was moderated by (a) the perceived responsibility of the victim, (b) individual differences in just‐world beliefs, and (c) whether the victim was an in‐group versus out‐group member. Participants formed an impression of an in‐group or an out‐group member who was known to have a terminal case of cancer. Half of the participants were informed that the target person was partially responsible for this medical condition, whereas the remaining participants were not given this information. Results showed that blaming judgments of high versus low responsibility targets were moderated by just‐world beliefs, but this was only true when the person being judged was an out‐group member. The implications of these results for research and theory on differential processing of in‐group versus out‐group members are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Belief in a just world is associated with the attribution that victims are personally responsible for the good and bad things that have happened to them, including in ambiguous and complex circumstances like poverty, illness, or sexual assault.
“Many studies have documented that belief in a just world is associated with the attribution that victims are personally responsible for the good and bad things that have happened to them, including in ambiguous and complex circumstances like poverty, illness, or sexual assault, and these attributions of personal responsibility predict less willingness to help those in need (Adolfsson & Strömwall,”
From Victim blaming and belief in karma (2024) · cites this paper as Braman & Lambert, 2001
Attributions of personal responsibility for misfortune predict less willingness to help those in need.
“Many studies have documented that belief in a just world is associated with the attribution that victims are personally responsible for the good and bad things that have happened to them, including in ambiguous and complex circumstances like poverty, illness, or sexual assault, and these attributions of personal responsibility predict less willingness to help those in need (Adolfsson & Strömwall,”
From Victim blaming and belief in karma (2024) · cites this paper as Braman & Lambert, 2001
Cites
Development of the multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) scales
Wallston, K. A., Strudler Wallston, B., & DeVellis, R. (1978) · Health Education Monographs · doi:10.1177/109019817800600107 · Cited by 3,373 · see citing works
Lerner, M. J. (1980) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5 · Cited by 2,656 · see citing works
Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead.
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030 · Cited by 1,687 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Victim blaming and belief in karma
White, C. J. M., & Willard, A. K. (2024) · Asian Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/ajsp.12654 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Braman, A. C., & Lambert, A. J.
- Affiliations
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Braman, Amie C.
- ORCID
- Lambert, Alan J.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-05
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1096-1109
- ISSN
- 0021-9029 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-1816
- OpenAlex
- W2106067725
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 2.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Social Psychology (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
- personal responsibility, belief in a just world, in-group favoritism, out-group bias, blame attribution, victim derogation, terminal illness
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
