The just-world hypothesis is a belief that the world is a fair place, and the morals implied in a situation will determine its outcome. This means that those who do good will be rewarded, while those who engage in harmful behaviours will receive punishment. Consider this situation, Jay hosted a party where ten people were present. Jay had left some money out in the open, along with a few precious belongings. After the party, Jay finds that the cash and precious items are gone. He confides this to this friend who immediately thinks of how careless and absent-minded Jay is. Jay continues to leave his belongings in a forgetful manner which results in a lot of loss. The friend comforts Jay but thinks about the negligent behaviour of leaving essential things in plain sight. The friend may even believe that this is a wake-up call for Jay and equate the misfortune to his hostile demeanour and characteristics. That which goes around comes back around in the words of Justin Timberlake. This phenomenon is also called the just-world bias or just world fallacy.
History
An experiment conducted by Dr Melvin Lerner in 1965, introduced several volunteers to a closed television circuit where they would see a simple test of learning. The screen showed a woman entering the room with electrodes attached to her body, displaying a frightening look. With every incorrect answer, the woman is subjected to an electric shock whereby she is seen withering in pain. One group of onlookers was given a choice to end the woman’s torture and subject her to more positive reinforcements rather than electric shocks. Majority of the people decided to end her torture as they perceived her to be an innocent victim who didn’t deserve to be shocked.
However, the other group of onlookers were not given a choice to save her from the torture. Instead, these volunteers are told different stories about the victim. Some were told the woman was receiving nothing out of this experiment. In contrast, others were told that she was receiving money. In the third instance, they told the volunteers that the woman submitted to another round of shocks so that the other volunteers may benefit from it. Implying that she was sacrificing herself for others. Surprisingly the less money the woman was getting for the experiment more the volunteers disliked her. People explained the injustice bestowed upon her was due to her inability to pay attention, learn adequately or that the pain would make her better at performing. For people who were told the martyrs story also painted the woman in a negative light. Although she was suffering for the sake of others, she was perceived to be deserving of it. Her pain was proof of that. Lerner concluded that to bring a fit between the woman’s characters and fate, people compensated by devaluing the victim.
This influential hypothesis’s bottom line is this: the world is just, and people get what they deserve.
How It Works
People are conditioned to believe that good is always rewarded while the bad are punished. This is what parents encourage in their children who grow up, internalize this belief and generalize to the world. To function in this world with the overwhelming information provided to one, it becomes necessary to form certain shortcuts or efficiently constructs that aid decision-making. These are cognitive frameworks that help assess a situation, make decisions, and assign some predictive outcomes. Just world hypothesis is another such framework governing how people understand positive and negative occurrences concerning the ‘karmic cycle’. The pioneer of this phenomenon Dr Lerner reaffirms how this hypothesis makes the world more predictable and manageable by engaging in long term goal-directed behaviour. For people who believe that all the good they do will reap benefits, in the end, might feel more motivated to retain their moral grounds in most situations. Simply, people feel more motivated when the goal in question is predictable. Such a habit may also prove to be a shield against helplessness which is a detrimental state to be in.
Now in situations where a person’s beliefs are challenged, they may find themselves struggling to make sense of it. They push the rationale of a cognitive framework to ease their discomfort. When internalized notions are challenged, one experiences cognitive dissonance. The person who experiences events inconsistent with one another makes an elaborate effort to make them consistent. Just world hypothesis proves to be one of those frameworks which help one to align the inconsistencies present in the world.
The Effects
People put tremendous efforts into changing social wrongs and restore justice. However, holding onto just world hypothesis in the face of injustice can lead to inaccurate and disastrous conclusions. The pursuit of a just world can lead people to form justifications rather than build a just world. Looking at individuals from socio-economically backward classes, some may assume that they are less hardworking than their more successful counterparts. This judgment can grossly ignore the socio-economic barriers one may have faced. A cognitive bias is wrapped in justifying a person’s suffering by reducing them to negative image results from minimizing their suffering. People create false and rigid narratives to uphold their ideas of a just world. It’s easier to believe that one shall achieve it all if they work hard enough to be treated nicely if they are gentle with others. No harm shall befall if they do only good deeds.
Fundamental attribution error is the effect which drives such behaviours. The correspondence bias that erroneously leads one to attribute another person’s actions to their internal characteristics like personality, temperament and motivation while in the same breath attributing their own behaviours to external factors outside of control. For an individual, their friend scoring low on an exam may result from slow learning or lack of hard work. On the other hand, a low score for themselves may result from disturbed sleep cued by external noises or an unannounced headache that is not in their control. In such a case, the other person scoring low is because they did not work as hard. This thinking may be distorted in a way that neglects unavoidable uneven beginning points for different individuals.
A similar view shared by different people can impact political and legal outcomes. Responses to injustices and the belief one hold in an indeed just world shade the opinions towards world leaders, victims, activism, movements etc. It is crucial to understand that the desire for justice is not the same as the world’s notion as being just. A social change must understand why a situation may be unfair to the person in question while considering the influence of circumstances before jumping to conclusions or judgment. The just-world bias can become downright hurtful and delusional not only on an individual level but also at a systemic level, spanning the mentioned social, political, and legal areas.
A study of people with a strong belief in just world fallacy was religious, conservative, authoritarian and negatively inclined towards underprivileged groups. They “feel less of a need to engage in activities to change society or to alleviate the plight of social victims” (Rubin & Peplau, 1975).
How to overcome it
A woman kidnapped and sexually assaulted at gunpoint was showed no sympathy by the judge but rather accused as ‘asking for it’ because of the way she was dressed. This is clearly an indication of the tendency to believe people get what they deserve. The homeless are lazy, and a fallen star is an adulterer. These are stories that help people convince themselves of a just world. These judgments are based on a more knee jerk response governed by a system 1 that produces emotional reactions. To rectify this wrong approach, one must employ system 2 that involves a slower rational thinking process. This dual process of thinking can help to move one from system 1 to system 2. Better decisions can be made when one considers all information at hand. Debunking the just-world hypothesis doesn’t mean the world is never just. It refers to opening oneself to new possibilities while exploring ways to overcome this cognitive dissonance. The hypothesis provides the fastest and easiest route to judging a situation, often leading to incorrect and non-holistic conclusions. Recognizing one is thinking in a biased way is the first step.
Another way to combat victim-blaming through this fallacy is easy-or not: empathy. Thus, people who practice and cultivate empathy are less likely to derogate the person in question, demonstrating less tolerance for the just-world hypothesis. The key is to understand the situation more critically and empathetically rather than instinctually.
References
Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (2015, November 13). The Just World Theory - Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/the-just-world-theory/
Lehrer, J. (2009, September 1). A Just World - The Atlantic. Daily Dish. https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/09/a-just-world/196991/
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World. Springer US
Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who Believes in a Just World? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb00997.x
The Decision Lab. (n.d.). Just-world hypothesis - Biases & Heuristics. Retrieved December 31, 2020, from https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/just-world-hypothesis/
Zick Rubin and Letitia Anne Peplau, “Who Believes in a Just World,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1975, pp. 65-89