Mediators of the Relation Between Beliefs in a Just World and Emotional Responses to Negative Outcomes

Research shows that strong believers in a just world respond with less negative and more positive emotion to their own negative outcomes than do weak believers. The present study investigated mediators of this relation. We proposed that strong believers in a just world (versus weak believers) would make stronger internal and weaker external attributions for their negative outcomes, leading to reduced perceived unfairness, which, in turn, was expected to lead to less negative and more positive emotion. We assessed the just world beliefs of a sample of undergraduates as well as measuring their cognitive and emotional responses to an exam grade. Mediational analyses showed that our data were consistent with the processes proposed above. Various cognitive and motivational interpretations of the present findings are discussed     

The Role of Perceived Deservingness in the Toleration of Human Rights Violations

Based on evidence that people have a strong need to see that individuals get what they deserve, we reasoned that people will tolerate a human rights violation to the extent that they believe the target of the violation deserves severe treatment. Thus, we expected that variables that influence the perceived deservingness of a target (i.e., “contextual cues” to deservingness) should influence toleration of a violation of the target’s rights, mediated by perceptions of the target’s deservingness. We also expected that the effect of a contextual cue to targets’ deservingness on toleration should occur even for people who support the violated right in the abstract. Across two studies, using student versus community samples, we measured participants’ abstract support for the right to humane treatment. We then presented participants with scenarios about a target who was tortured (a violation of the right to humane treatment), and manipulated a contextual cue to the targets’ deservingness for severe treatment—the moral reprehensibility of the targets’ past behavior. Participants tolerated a target’s torture more if he had engaged in highly morally reprehensible (vs. less reprehensible) behavior and, thus, was perceived to deserve more severe treatment. Participants’ abstract support for the right to humane treatment did not moderate the effect of moral reprehensibility on toleration. Our findings highlight the importance of perceived deservingness in the toleration of human rights violations and have implications for reducing such toleration. Our research also extends literature on deservingness to an important global issue.     

Distinguishing Two Meanings of Moral Exclusion: Exclusion from Moral Principles or Principled Harm-Doing?

The concept of “moral exclusion” has often been used to understand harm-doing. The present studies examined two, distinct meanings that have been ascribed to this concept. First, exclusion has sometimes been conceptualized as the belief that moral principles do not apply to a target person or group (e.g., exclusion from the application of justice principles). Second, the term has been used to refer to exclusion from positive treatment that is accorded to others, which the actors believe to be morally justified, though outside observers do not. Distinguishing between these two meanings can clarify the mechanisms underlying the relation between proposed antecedents to exclusion and harm-doing. In two experiments, we obtained evidence compatible with each of these conceptualizations of exclusion, as well as preliminary evidence that certain antecedents are more likely to lead to processes indicative of one or the other conceptualization. Our findings have practical implications for the reduction of harm-doing as well as for conflict that might arise in such attempts.     

A Latent Factor Approach to Belief in a Just World and its Association with Well-Being

Social Justice Research - Drawing on justice motive theory (Lerner et al. in Berkowitz and Walster (eds) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York, 1976), in the present...     

You're OK,I'm OK: The Self-Presentation of Affective Reactions to Deprivation

Two experiments compared public and private reports of affective reactions to deprivation. In Experiment 1, participants completed a questionnaire concerning their resentment about poor marks in a course; they had previously been led to believe that another participant was either angry or not angry about his/her marks. Participants' ratings of resentment were more affected by the other participant's alleged emotions in a public than in a private reporting condition. In Experiment 2, employed adults completed a questionnaire concerning their affective reactions to the lack of day care facilities available for working parents; they had previously been led to believe that the experimenter was either upset or not upset about the facilities. When respondents' answers were public, their ratings of resentment were affected by the experimenter's alleged emotions, whereas under conditions of private responding, there was no effect of the experimenter's alleged emotions. Taken together, these experiments provide initial evidence that self-presentation motives can influence reports of affective reactions to deprivation. In particular, our data show that self-presentation can induce a matching strategy whereby public expressions of resentment mirror the expressions of salient others. Two experiments compared public and private reports of affective reactions to deprivation. In Experiment 1, participants completed a questionnaire concerning their resentment about poor marks in a course; they had previously been led to believe that another participant was either angry or not angry about his/her marks. Participants' ratings of resentment were more affected by the other participant's alleged emotions in a public than in a private reporting condition. In Experiment 2, employed adults completed a questionnaire concerning their affective reactions to the lack of day care facilities available for working parents; they had previously been led to believe that the experimenter was either upset or not upset about the facilities. When respondents' answers were public, their ratings of resentment were affected by the experimenter's alleged emotions, whereas under conditions of private responding, there was no effect of the experimenter's alleged emotions. Taken together, these experiments provide initial evidence that self-presentation motives can influence reports of affective reactions to deprivation. In particular, our data show that self-presentation can induce a matching strategy whereby public expressions of resentment mirror the expressions of salient others.