公正世界信念——重建公正的双刃剑

公正世界信念即相信所处的世界是公正的,人们得其所应得,所得即应得.然而在现实生活中这一信念常常受到各种不公正事件的威胁,公正世界信念可以帮助人们应对威胁、重建公正.这种重建可能是行动上的也可能是认知上的,认知公正重建往往导致对不公正现状的合理化以及对受害者的贬损责怪.同时对于各种不公正的受害者或见证者,公正世界信念充当着重要的个人资源或是心理缓冲,帮助个体应对不公正事件,维护心理健康,并遵循公正原则追求其长远目标.公正世界信念的多维结构是解释其双重功能的基础.     

初中生公正世界信念对其学业成就的影响:感知的教师支持和班级公正的中介作用

公正世界信念作为一种社会认知倾向,对于个体发展具有普遍影响,但是在学校情境中探索公正世界信念与学业成就的关系及影响机制的研究却很有限。本研究以郑州市两个区县的2584名初中一年级学生为被试,考察公正世界信念对其学业成就的影响,从班级生态环境的角度,探索个体对教师支持和班级公正的感知在二者之间的中介作用。结果发现：初中生的公正世界信念可显著预测其学业成就;在控制了性别、年龄后,学生的公正世界信念可分别通过对教师支持和班级公正的感知间接影响其学业成就,公正世界信念还可以通过感知的教师支持影响对班级公正的感知,进而影响学业成就的多重中介路径发挥作用。个体对班级教师支持和班级公正的感知是公正世界信念影响学业成就的重要途径。     

公正世界信念的内隐研究

公正世界信念往往是内隐的,内隐层面的研究是信念研究的一个热点。本研究参考国内外公正世界信念的内隐研究,总结了研究者们所运用的Stroop任务变式、内隐联想测验变式等内隐测量方法,对公正世界信念的无意识启动做了梳理,在此基础上,对公正世界信念的内隐研究进行订论,为后续信念的内隐研究提供参考。     

公正世界信念对第三方惩罚的影响：来自ERP的证据

采用事件相关电位技术（ERP）考察公正世界信念对第三方惩罚的影响。（1）行为结果显示,高公正世界信念个体的第三方惩罚显著多于低公正世界信念个体,低公正世界信念个体在高不公正提议下的第三方惩罚显著增加;（2）ERP结果显示,高公正世界信念个体比低公正世界信念个体诱发了更大的MFN波幅和更小的P300波幅,且高公正世界信念个体的MFN波幅在高、低不公正提议下没有差异,低公正世界信念个体在高不公正提议下的MFN波幅明显更大。这说明相比低公正世界信念个体,高公正世界信念个体所持有的公正认知强烈且稳定,个体做出第三方惩罚更多基于自身对于公正结果的预期,而非外部条件。     

公正世界信念对大学生助人意愿的影响：责任归因和帮助代价的作用

采用个人公正世界信念量表、自编的助人假设情境,先后以198名、415名大学生为被试,通过两项研究考察了责任归因和帮助代价在个人公正世界信念影响个体助人意愿中的作用。结果表明：（1）个人公正世界信念及个体对受困者遭遇的外归因,均可以显著正向预测个体的助人意愿,但个人公正世界信念与责任归因之间无显著相关。控制性别、年级和社会称许性的影响后,个体对受困者遭遇的外归因及个人公正世界信念分别可以解释5.7%和6%的变异;（2）个人公正世界信念对助人意愿的作用受到帮助代价与责任归因的调节,只有在低代价、外归因的条件下,个人公正世界信念越强,助人意愿才越高。这些结果对亲社会行为的促进具有重要启示。     

公正世界信念与心理健康关系的综述

公正世界信念是人格心理学和社会心理学中的一个重要概念,也是生物心理社会医学模式所涵盖的一个重要变量.结合近年来的研究热点,从积极的自我感知,愉快或满意,关心他人的能力,高效与创造性工作的能力等四个方面对公正世界信念和心理健康的关系进行了评估.对现有研究中的不足进行了评述,对今后研究的内容、方法和方向进行了展望.     

公正世界信念的文化差异

公正世界信念的文化差异是该领域较少关注的研究方向, 但具有一定的理论意义和实践价值。公正世界信念的水平、功能和测量工具存在文化差异, 其影响因素主要包括社会文化因素、自我概念、认知方式和不公平的社会现实。文章进一步探讨了提高公正世界信念跨文化比较准确性的途径和文化影响公正世界信念的机制。未来的研究需要深入探讨文化对公正世界信念功能的影响, 推进公正世界信念的本土化研究。     

公正世界信念与大学生社会责任感的关系:人际信任的解释作用及其性别差异

社会责任感是大学生学业成就和幸福生活等积极心理与行为的有效预测指标,考察社会责任感的影响因素及其作用机制有助于大学生社会责任感的培养与提升。为此,本研究以6所高校852名大学生为被试,考察了公正世界信念与大学生社会责任感之间的关系,以及人际信任对二者关系的中介作用及其性别差异。结果发现：（1）公正世界信念可以显著正向预测大学生的社会责任感;（2）人际信任在公正世界信念与大学生社会责任感之间发挥着部分中介作用,但是主要表现在男大学生群体中,而女大学生中未发现该效应。这说明,公正世界信念可以显著预测大学生社会责任感,并且在男大学生中人际信任是二者关系的中介桥梁。     

公正判断中的“非理性”：加工特征、主要表现和影响因素

公正判断中的“非理性”研究是社会认知双过程加工理论在公正领域的拓展, 也是不确定性管理和道德心理研究的延续。就加工过程而言, 个体的公正判断可能同时依存“理性”和“非理性”两个结构和进化都不同的认知体系。置换过程、首因效应、极端判断、补偿偏见、责备无辜受害者和道德命令效应是公正判断中“非理性”的主要表现。自我因素、公正敏感性、道德认同、情绪状态和公正世界信念等个体变量是其主要影响因素。综合来看, 目前公正判断的“非理性”研究还比较庞杂, 其进化根源、生理机制、如何与理性过程交互作用等还有待深入研究。此外, 结合社会现实问题、关注第三方视角、多理论解释的整合及多水平因素的交互影响可能是未来的研究方向。     

第三方惩罚中的规范错觉：基于公正世界信念的解释

惩罚规范在一定程度上会影响个体的惩罚行为, 但个体对惩罚规范的感知与实际规范之间可能存在差异, 这被称为规范错觉。为了更好地从这一角度理解第三方惩罚, 我们需要回答的是：第三方惩罚中是否存在规范错觉?如果存在, 其方向如何?会对个体自身的惩罚行为产生何种影响?实验1 (N = 449)和实验2 (N = 134)的结果表明, 在违规情境中, 人们往往低估了他人的惩罚水平, 这导致自身较低的惩罚行为。实验3 (N = 164)和实验4 (N = 284)进一步发现, 较弱的公正世界信念导致人们对他人惩罚水平的低估, 从而影响了自身的惩罚行为, 而社会距离调节了公正世界信念对规范错觉的影响。上述结果表明, 规范错觉会受到内部(公正世界信念)和外部(社会距离)两个参照点的影响, 同时也在一定程度上说明第三方惩罚是一种注重维护规范的积极行为、而非注重个人收益的策略行为。     

The longitudinal associations between personal belief in a just world and teacher justice among advantaged and disadvantaged school students

The Just World Hypothesis states that people need to believe in a just world in which they get what they deserve and deserve what they get. This study examines the longitudinal associations between personal belief in a just world (BJW), the belief that events in one's own life are just and teacher justice in different status groups. It is posited that the more individuals believe in a personal just world, the more they feel they are treated justly by others, and this should be particularly true for students with a low-status background. Longitudinal questionnaire data were obtained from students with German and Turkish/Muslim backgrounds over a period of 3–4 months. The pattern of results revealed that personal BJW was important for the Turkish/Muslim students in evaluating teachers as more just over a given period of time, but not for the German students. That is, the buffering effect of personal BJW was crucial for the disadvantaged students.     

La croyance au monde juste comme facteur explicatif de diverses réactions à des injustices professionnelles

The belief in a just world is defined as the tendency to consider that “people get what they deserve and deserve what they get”, i.e. to consider that the world is, globally, a place of justice. Facing an individual unjustly victim of negative events and for whom it seems impossible to restore the justice objectively, we frequently deny the existence of the unjustice, even if we say the responsible of what he gets. But if we can react by adopting “passive” reactions (using the victim’s moral or behavioral responsibility, as in Lerner, or evocating a future favoring the victim,..), we can also adopt “active” strategies which can lead to an objective re-establishment of the justice. In the present study, we examined the influence of the degree of the belief in the just world on the selected strategy facing professional injustices. And effectively, our results indicate a some preferences in the use of such or strategy, preferences accentuated by the gender and the professional statute.     

Belief in an unjust world: when beliefs in a just world fail

Belief in a just world, where people get what they deserve, has been hypothesized to underlie a variety of psychological phenomena (Lerner, 1965). Close inspection of individual difference measures of this belief, however, has indicated repeatedly that just world beliefs are not a unidimensional construct. The purpose of this investigation was to elaborate upon the conceptualization of unjust world beliefs as a related but separate construct from just world beliefs. In two studies, the Unjust World Views scale (UJVS) was developed and its reliability and validity examined. The UJVS demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity and accounted for more variability in related outcomes than just world beliefs. Further, belief in an unjust world was related to defensive coping, anger, and perceived future risk. These findings contribute to theory development and suggest that a belief in an unjust world may serve a self-protective function. Clinical implications are discussed as unjust world views also were found to be potentially maladaptive.     

公正世界信念对记忆偏差的影响

公正世界信念指人们需要相信他们所处的世界是一个公正有序的世界。本研究考察的是公正世界信念是否影响人们的记忆,让人产生记忆偏差。实验一中,被试首先阅读一则彩票中奖的新闻,然后阅读关于中奖者人品的描述,最后被试需要回忆中奖金额。结果发现,中奖者的个性品质影响对奖金数额的记忆。实验二中,两组被试分别阅读一则维护公正世界信念或威胁公正世界信念的无关故事,接下来程序与实验一相同。结果发现,预先激活的公正世界信念状态与中奖者个性品质在记忆结果上存在显著的交互效应。结果表明,公正世界信念能够导致记忆偏差。     

青少年公正世界信念对抑郁的影响:感恩和自尊的序列中介作用

为探讨青少年公正世界信念与抑郁的关系,以及感恩和自尊在二者关系中的作用机制,采用公正世界信念问卷(BJW)、感恩问卷(GQ-6)、自尊量表(SES)和流调中心用抑郁量表(CES-D)对1049名高中学生进行调查。结果发现:(1)青少年公正世界信念、感恩和自尊两两之间呈显著正相关,且三者均与抑郁呈显著负相关。(2)青少年公正世界信念通过感恩和自尊的中介作用对抑郁产生影响,且该中介效应包含了三条中介路径——感恩的简单中介效应,自尊的简单中介效应,以及感恩→自尊的链式中介作用。研究结果揭示了青少年公正世界信念对抑郁产生影响的内部心理机制,为引导青少年更好地利用公正世界信念提升感恩和自尊的水平以及更好地促进心理健康发展提供了有益建议。     

Long-term focus and prosocial–antisocial tendencies interact to predict belief in just world

According to justice motive theory, individuals need to believe that the world is a just place where people generally get what they deserve (Lerner, 1977). Individuals are thought to need belief in a just world (BJW) in part because it gives them the confidence required to invest in long-term goals. However, BJW can only provide confidence that individuals will reap the rewards of their investments if they invest in their goals through prosocial means (e.g., Hafer, 2000). The current study provides evidence for this argument. Specifically, we examined individual differences in BJW, long-term goal focus, and prosocial–antisocial tendencies to test the hypothesis that higher long-term focus would be associated with higher BJW, but only amongst those who are also high in prosocial (low in antisocial) tendencies. This hypothesis was tested four times using four measures of prosocial–antisocial tendencies. Simple slopes analyses revealed the predicted pattern of results for three of the four measures. Our findings (a) provide novel support for the idea that BJW aids in the prosocial pursuit of long-term goals, and (b) have implications for individual variation in BJW.     

The just world hypothesis as an argumentative resource in debates about unemployment benefits

The concept of the “just world” is established as a key explanation for how people make sense of inequality so that those deemed to score high in belief in a just world are more likely to hold prejudicial beliefs and to blame people in poverty for their situations. However, this is an inadequate explanation for such complicated and controversial issues. To better understand talk about the just world and the controversial issue of the distribution of unemployment benefits (an issue of inequality), a discursive psychological approach to the just world is used. Therefore, a discourse analysis focusses on 2 feature length British televised discussions about benefit claimants called “The Big Benefit Row: Live” (Channel 5 3/2/2014) and “Benefits Britain: the Debate” (Channel 4 17/2/2014). The analysis demonstrates that people draw on both just and unjust world arguments simultaneously and also topicalise what counts as just so as to support their positions on unemployment benefits, rather than in the consistent way that just world theory would predict. It is therefore argued that the just world should be recast as a cultural value that facilitates arguments about benefits, rather than an internally held belief.     

Catching the liar as a matter of justice: Effects of belief in a just world on deception detection accuracy and the moderating role of mortality salience

Belief in a just world has been linked to high interpersonal trust and less suspicion of deception. We therefore predicted people with a strong dispositional belief in a just world to have low motivation to accurately detect deception. Accordingly, we hypothesized such a belief to be negatively related to accuracy in deception detection. Furthermore, research on Terror Management Theory has indicated that culturally shared values, such as justice, become more important after mortality salience. Thus, we assumed engaging in justice concerns after a death threat is especially relevant for people with a strong belief in a just world, and further, that accurate deception detection is a matter of justice. Based on this reasoning, we expected people with a strong belief in a just world to have an increased motivation to accurately detect deception after mortality salience. Consequently, we hypothesized dispositional differences in belief in a just world to be unrelated to accuracy in deception detection after mortality salience. In line with these predictions, our study revealed that participants with a strong (vs. weak) belief in a just world were worse in deception detection unless they had first been reminded of their mortality.