Res Publica

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 217–234 | Cite as

Psychological Constraints on Egalitarianism: The Challenge of Just World Beliefs

  • T. J. KasperbauerEmail author
Winner of the PG Essay Prize


Debates over egalitarianism for the most part are not concerned with constraints on achieving an egalitarian society, beyond discussions of the deficiencies of egalitarian theory itself. This paper looks beyond objections to egalitarianism as such and investigates the relevant psychological processes motivating people to resist various aspects of egalitarianism. I argue for two theses, one normative and one descriptive. The normative thesis holds that egalitarians must take psychological constraints into account when constructing egalitarian ideals. I draw from non-ideal theories in political philosophy, which aim to construct moral goals with current social and political constraints in mind, to argue that human psychology must be part of a non-ideal theory of egalitarianism. The descriptive thesis holds that the most fundamental psychological challenge to egalitarian ideals comes from what are called Just World Beliefs. A troubling result of Just World Beliefs, one that poses a prima facie obstacle to egalitarianism, is that people tend to dismiss or explain away any threats to their belief that the world is fundamentally just. The pervasiveness and severity of Just World Beliefs predicts that people will be resistant to egalitarian policies. My aim is to show how research on Just World Beliefs can help diagnose common problems for egalitarianism and assist in making realistic recommendations for bringing current societies closer to egalitarian ideals.


Egalitarianism Just World Beliefs Non-ideal theory Psychological constraints 



I am grateful to have received helpful comments on this paper from Linda Radzik, David Wright, Jake Greenblum, and an anonymous reviewer from Res Publica.


  1. Anderson, Elizabeth. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109: 287–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arneson, Richard. 1989. Equality and equality of opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies 56: 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bargh, John, and Ezequiel Morsella. 2008. The unconscious mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3: 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barry, Nicholas. 2006. Defending luck egalitarianism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23: 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beierlein, Constanze, Christina Werner, Siegfried Preiser, and Sonja Wermuth. 2011. Are just-world beliefs compatible with justifying inequality? Collective political efficacy as a moderator. Social Justice Research 24: 278–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benabou, Ronald, and Jean Tirole. 2006. Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 121: 699–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, Gerald. 1989. On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics 99: 906–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Correia, Isabel, and Jorge Vala. 2003. When will a victim be secondarily victimized? The effect of observer’s belief in a just world, victim’s innocence and persistence of suffering. Social Justice Research 16: 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deutsch, Morton. 1985. Distributive justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dion, Kenneth, and Karen Dion. 1987. Belief in a just world and physical attractiveness stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 775–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dworkin, Ronald. 1981. What is equality? II. Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10: 283–345.Google Scholar
  12. Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eidelman, Scott, and Christian Crandall. 2009. On the psychological advantage of the status quo. In Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification, ed. John Jost, Aaron Kay, and Hulda Thorisdottir, 85–106. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellard, John, and Douglas Bates. 1990. Evidence for the role of the justice motive in status generalization processes. Social Justice Research 4: 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Furnham, Adrian. 2003. Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences 34: 795–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenwald, Anthony, and Mahzarin Banaji. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102: 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hafer, Carolyn. 2000. Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a modified stroop task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79: 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hafer, Carolyn, and Laurent Bègue. 2005. Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin 131: 128–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The righteous mind. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  20. Hamlin, Alan, and Zofia Stemplowska. 2012. Theory, ideal theory and the theory of ideals. Political Studies Review 10: 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heine, Steve. 2010. Cultural psychology. In Handbook of social psychology, 5th ed, ed. Susan Fiske, Daniel Gilbert, and Lindzey Gardner, 1423–1464. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Hirschberger, Gilad. 2006. Terror management and attributions of blame to innocent victims: Reconciling compassionate and defensive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9: 832–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hurley, Susan. 2003. Justice, luck, and knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jost, John, and Orsolya Hunyady. 2005. Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14: 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jost, John, Brett Pelham, Oliver Sheldon, and Bilian Sullivan. 2003. Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system. European Journal of Social Psychology 33: 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman, Daniel, Jack Knetsch, and Richard Thaler. 1991. The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias: Anomalies. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kay, Aaron, Danielle Gaucher, Jennifer Peach, Kristin Laurin, Justin Friesen, Mark Zanna, and Steven Spencer. 2009. Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97: 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kay, Aaron, and John Jost. 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: 823–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kozak, Megan, Abigail Marsh, and Daniel Wegner. 2006. What do I think you‘re doing? Action identification and mind attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 543–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landau, Mark, et al. 2004. Deliver us from evil: The effects of mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 on support for President George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30: 1136–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lerner, Melvin. 2003. The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review 7: 388–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lerner, Melvin. 1980. The belief in the just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lerner, Melvin, and Dale Miller. 1978. Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin 85: 1030–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lerner, Melvin, and Carolyn Simmons. 1966. Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Monteith, Margo, and Gina Walters. 1998. Egalitarianism, moral obligation, and prejudice-related personal standards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24: 186–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murray, John, Jo Ann Spadafore, and William McIntosh. 2005. Belief in a just world and social perception: Evidence for automatic activation. Journal of Social Psychology 145: 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petersen, Michael, Rune Slothuss, Rune Stubager, and Lise Togeby. 2011. Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic. European Journal of Political Research 50: 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petersen, Michael, Daniel Sznycer, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby. 2012. Who deserves help? Evolutionary psychology, social emotions, and public opinion about welfare. Political Psychology 33: 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Scheffler, Samuel. 2003. What is egalitarianism? Philosophy and Public Affairs 31: 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Simmons, A.John. 2010. Ideal and nonideal theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs 38: 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sleat, Matt. 2014. Realism, liberalism and non-ideal theory. Or, are there two ways to do realistic political theory? Political Studies. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12152.Google Scholar
  43. Stemplowska, Zofia, and Adam Swift. 2012. Ideal and nonideal theory. In The Oxford handbook of political philosophy, ed. David Estlund, 373–389. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sunstein, Cass. 2005. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Valentini, Laura. 2012. Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: A conceptual map. Philosophy Compass 7: 654–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Parijs, Philippe. 1991. Why surfers should be fed: The liberal case for an unconditional basic income. Philosophy and Public Affairs 20: 101–131.Google Scholar
  47. Verba, Sidney. 1987. Elites and the idea of equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wakslak, Cheryl, John Jost, Tom Tyler, and Emmeline Chen. 2007. Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science 18: 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wiens, David. 2012. Prescribing institutions without ideal theory. Journal of Political Philosophy 20: 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wiens, David. 2013. Demands of justice, feasible alternatives, and the need for causal analysis. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16: 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wolff, Jonathan. 1998. Fairness, respect, and the egalitarian ethos. Philosophy and Public Affairs 27: 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wong, David. 2006. Natural moralities: A defense of pluralistic relativism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark

Personalised recommendations