Social Justice Research

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 272–300 | Cite as

Ecological Belief in a Just World

Article

Abstract

To date, there is considerable evidence that the perception of injustice influences environmental behavior in a positive way. Nevertheless, some people do not take action, even if the injustice seems obvious. Concerning this matter, approaches like the belief in a just world theory or system justification theory provide an explanation. However, so far, there is no scientific research on whether the perception of ecological justice, which is taken for granted, concerning an ecological belief in a just world (EBJW) may lead to differences in people’s environmental behavior. This paper investigates a newly conceived construct of the EBJW, regarding its occurrence as well as its disposition in the context of other constructs. Therefore, a new scale has been developed for the purpose of this study by means of a questionnaire with German citizens (n = 312) examining motives for energy-relevant behavior. The scale analyses confirm the validity of the new scale. Even though the EBJW did not score high in the total sample, possibly due to significant differences between the participants (particularly socio-demographic variables and different group memberships) it can be stated that there is definitely a relationship between the EBJW and justification arguments and, ultimately, a lack of responsibility for energy saving. Regression analyses reveal that the EBJW, together with cognitive and affective appraisals of justice, can explain energy-relevant commitment, such as engagement in behavior that has negative impact on the climate. Based on these findings, it is suggested that the EBJW is measurable and that it seems to warrant further research.

Keywords

Environmental justice Ecological justice Belief in a just world/ecological just world System justification Energy-relevant behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Jonas Bodensohn, Kathleen Stewart and Carolin Hammwöhner for their support and assistance in preparing the manuscript. The present research was supported by a Grant from the Foundation of the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, awarded in connection with the fellowship in the post graduate program “sustainability in economy, environment, and society” at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt.

References

  1. Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2009). How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate to households’ direct and indirect energy use and savings? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5), 711–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Beierlein, C., Werner, C. S., Preiser, S., & Wermuth, S. (2011). Are just-world beliefs compatible with justifying inequality?: Collective political efficacy as a moderator. Social Justice Research, 24(3), 278–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cha, E., Kim, K. H., & Erlen, J. A. (2007). Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 58(4), 386–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clayton, S. (1996). What is fair in the environmental debate? In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Current societal concerns about justice (pp. 195–211). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clayton, S. (2000). Models of justice in the environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clayton, S., & Myers, G. (2009). Conservation psychology: Understanding and promoting human care for nature. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Dalbert, C. (1996). Über den Umgang mit Ungerechtigkeit: Eine psychologische Analyse [Coping with injustice: A psychological analysis]. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  10. Dalbert, C. (2010). Glaube in einer (un)gerechten Welt [Belief in a just world]. In G. Grözinger (Ed.), Religion@Gesellschaft (Vol. 22, pp. 111–128). Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Dalbert, C., Montada, L., & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube an eine gerechte Welt als Motiv: Validierungskorrelate zweier Skalen [Belief in a just world: Validation of two scales]. Psychologische Beiträge, 29(4), 596–615.Google Scholar
  12. Dalbert, C., & Stöber, J. (2002). Gerechtes Schulklima [Just school climate]. In C. Dalbert (Ed.), Skalendokumentation “Persönliche Ziele von SchülerInnen” (Hallesche Berichte zur Pädagogischen Psychologie No. 3, pp. 32–34). Halle (Saale): Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Institute for Pedagogy.Google Scholar
  13. Dalbert, C., & Stöber, J. (2006). The personal belief in a just world and domain specific beliefs about justice at school and in the family: A longitudinal study with adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(3), 200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ernst, A. M., & Spada, H. (1993). Modeling actors in a resource dilemma: A computerized social learning environment. In D. Towne, T. de Jong, & H. Spada (Eds.), Simulation-based experiential learning (pp. 105–120). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahrenberg, J., Hampel, R., & Selg, H. (1984). Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar (FDI) [The Fribourg personality inventory]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  16. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse soon?: Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world. Psychological Science, 22(1), 34–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology, 36(3), 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 795–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology and sustainable development: Expansion, maturation, and challenges. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66(4), 290–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hafer, C. L., & Choma, B. L. (2009). Belief in a just world, perceived fairness, and justification of the status quo. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 107–125). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Horwitz, W. A. (1994). Characteristics of environmental ethics: Environmental activists’ accounts. Ethics and Behavior, 4(4), 345–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ittner, H., & Montada, L. (2009). Gerechtigkeit und Umweltpolitik [Justice and environmental policy]. Umweltpsychologie, 13(1), 35–51.Google Scholar
  25. Ittner, H., & Ohl, C. (2012). International negotiations on climate change: Integrating justice psychology and economics—A way out of the normative blind alley? In E. Kals & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 269–282). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy (pp. 173–203). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kaiser, F. G., & Scheuthle, H. (2003). Two challenges to a moral extension of the theory of planned behavior: Moral norms and just world beliefs in conservationism. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(5), 1033–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kals, E., Becker, R., & Ittner, H. (2006). Protecting nature or promoting competing values and interests? In R. J. van den Born, R. Lenders, & W. de Groot (Eds.), Visions of nature. A scientific exploration of people’s implicit philosophies regarding nature in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (pp. 129–151). Berlin: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  29. Kals, E., & Müller, M. M. (2012). Emotion and environment. In S. Clayton (Ed.), Handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (pp. 128–149). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kals, E., & Russell, Y. (2001). Individual conceptions of justice and their potential for explaining proenvironmental decision making. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 367–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kay, A. C., Jimenez, J. T., & Jost, J. T. (2002). Sour grapes, sweet lemons and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1300–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “poor but happy” and “poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823–837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kazdin, A. E. (2009). Psychological science’s contributions to a sustainable environment: Extending our reach to a grand challenge of society. American Psychologist, 64(5), 339–356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kushler, M. G. (1989). Use of evaluation to improve energy conservation programs: A review and scale study. Journal of Social Issues, 45(1), 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leist, A. (2005). Ökologische Ethik II: Ökologische Gerechtigkeit: Global, intergenerationell und humanökologisch [Ecological ethic II: Ecological justice: Global, intergenerational and human ecological]. In J. Nida-Rümelin (Ed.), Angewandte Ethik: Die Bereichsethiken und ihre theoretische Fundierung, ein Handbuch (2nd ed., pp. 426–513). Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
  36. Leist, A. (2007). Ökologische Gerechtigkeit als bessere Nachhaltigkeit [Ecological justice as better sustainability]. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte,  54(24), 3–10.Google Scholar
  37. Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), 355–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maes, J. (1992). Konstruktion und Analyse eines mehrdimensionalen Gerechte-Welt-Fragebogens [Construction and analysis of a multidimensional questionnaire concerning the belief in a just world]. Trier. Accessed 7 January 2013, from http://www.gerechtigkeitsforschung.de/berichte/beri064.pdf.
  40. Maes, J. (1998a). Glaube an eine ungerechte Welt als Motiv? (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe “Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral” Nr. 120) [Belief in an injust world as a motive]. Trier, Germany: University of Trier, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  41. Maes, J. (1998b). Eight stages in the development of research on the construct of belief in a just world. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Critical issues in social justice: Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 163–186). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maes, J., Tarnai, C., & Schuster, J. (2012). About is and ought in research on belief in a just world: The janus-faced just-world motivation. In E. Kals & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 93–106). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (1995). Perceived justice of ecological policy and proenvironmental commitments. Social Justice Research, 8(3), 305–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Montada, L., & Kals, E. (2000). Political implications of psychological research on ecological justice and proenvironmental behaviour. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Montada, L., Kals, E., & Becker, R. (2007). Willingness for continued social commitment: A new concept in environmental research. Environment & Behavior, 39(3), 287–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Montada, L., & Reichle, B. (1983). Existentielle Schuld: Explikation eines Konzeptes. (P.I.V. No. 11) [Existential guilt: Explication of the construct]. Trier, Germany: University of Trier, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  47. Montada, L., Schmitt, M., & Dalbert, C. (1983). Existentielle Schuld: Rekrutierung der Untersuchungsstichprobe, Erhebungsinstrumente und Untersuchungsplan (P.I.V. No. 13) [Existential guilt: Sample recruiting, measuring instruments and research plan]. Trier. Accessed 7 January 2013, from http://www.gerechtigkeitsforschung.de/berichte/beri020.pdf.
  48. Müller, M. M. (2012). Justice as a framework for the solution of environmental conflicts. In E. Kals & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 239–250). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Musch, J., Brockhaus, R., & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit [An inventory for the assessment of two factors of social desirability]. Diagnostica, 48(3), 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nancarrow, B. E., & Syme, G. J. (2001). Challenges in implementing justice research in the allocation of natural resources. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nerb, J., Spada, H., & Ernst, A. (1997). A cognitive model of agents in a commons dilemma. In Proceedings of the 19th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 560–565). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Opotow, S., & Clayton, S. (1994). Green justice: Conceptions of fairness and the natural world. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pawlik, K. (1991). The psychology of global environmental change: Some basic data and an agenda for cooperative international research. International Journal of Psychology, 26(5), 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29(4), 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schmitt, M. J. (1993). Abriß der Gerechtigkeitspsychologie (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe “Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral” Nr. 70) [Outline of the psychology of justice]. Trier, Germany: University of Trier, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  57. Schmitt, M., Dalbert, C., Montada, L., Gschwendner, T., Maes, J., Reichle, B., et al. (2008). Verteilung des Glaubens an eine gerechte Welt in der Allgemeinbevölkerung: Normwerte für die Skala Allgemeiner Gerechte-Welt-Glaube [Distribution of the belief in a just world: Norms for the General-Belief-in-a-Just-World-Scale]. Diagnostica, 54(3), 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schneider, A. (1988). Glaube an die gerechte Welt: Replikation der Validierungskorrelate zweier Skalen. (E.S. report) [Belief in a just world: Replication of the validity results of two scales]. Trier. Accessed 7 January 2013, from http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2006/642/pdf/beri044.pdf.
  59. Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influence on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 221–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1981). A normative decision-making model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social, personality and development perspectives (pp. 189–211). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  61. Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1992). Allocating scarce resources: A contingency model of distributive justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(6), 491–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
  63. Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stern, P. C. (2011). Contributions of psychology to limiting climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 303–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Syme, G. J. (2012). Justice and environmental decision making. In E. Kals & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 283–295). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Syme, G. J., Kals, E., Nancarrow, B. E., & Montada, L. (2006). Ecological risks and community perceptions of fairness and justice: A cross-cultural model. Human and Ecological, 12, 102–119.Google Scholar
  68. van Dijk, E., Engelen, M., van Leeuwen, E., Monden, L., & Sluijter, E. (1999). Distributive justice and the allocation of costs, losses, and profits. Social Justice Research, 12(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Walker, G. (2011). Environmental justice: Concepts, evidence, and politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Baier
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Kals
    • 1
  • Markus M. Müller
    • 1
  1. 1.Social- and Organizational PsychologyCatholic University of Eichstätt-IngolstadtEichstättGermany

Personalised recommendations