Social Justice Research

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 65–78 | Cite as

More on Ultimate and Immanent Justice: Results from the Research Project “Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany”

  • Jürgen Maes
  • Manfred Schmitt
Article

Abstract

In earlier studies it was shown that two domain-specific variates of belief in a just world, namely belief in immanent justice and belief in ultimate justice concerning severe illness, differ systematically and significantly. Only immanent justice leads to accusation and derogation of innocent victims while ultimate justice is concordant with positive evaluations of victims and helping behavior. With regard to the research project “Justice as a Problem within Reunified Germany” (GiP, from the German “Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem”), two new scales were developed for purposes of measuring general belief in immanent and ultimate justice. Using a sample of 929 West Germans and 1,275 East Germans, some of the correlation patterns found in earlier studies could be replicated. For example, immanent justice did correlate with draconian judgments (the proneness to strict and severe judgments), while ultimate justice was associated with mildness. Only ultimate justice correlated with existential guilt about the underprivileged. Beside this confirmation of earlier findings, new correlation patterns were revealed. For example, only immanent justice correlated with the equity principle, whereas ultimate justice corresponded to the need and equality principles.

justice motivation distribution rules draconity German reunification emotions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ambrosio, A. L., and Sheehan, S. E. (1991). The just world belief and the AIDS epidemic. J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 6: 163-170.Google Scholar
  2. Bierhoff, H. W., Klein, R., and Kramp, P. (1991). Evidence for the altruistic personality from data on accident research. J. Pers. 59: 263-280.Google Scholar
  3. Bush, A., Krebs, D. L., and Carpendale, J. I. (1993). The structural consistency of moral judgments about AIDS. J. Genetic Psychol. 154: 167-175.Google Scholar
  4. Connors, J., and Heaven, P. C. (1990). Belief in a just world and attitudes toward AIDS sufferers. J. Soc. Psychol. 130: 559-560.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Dalbert, C., and Katona-Sallay, H. (1996). The “belief in a just world” construct in Hungary. J. Cross Cultural Psychol. 27: 293-314.Google Scholar
  6. Furnham, A., and Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world: Review and critique of the individual difference literature. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 28: 365-384.Google Scholar
  7. Glennon, F., and Joseph, S. (1993). Just world beliefs, self esteem, and attitudes towards homosexuals with AIDS. Psychol. Rep. 72: 584-586.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Harper, D. J., and Manasse, P. R. (1992). The just world and the third world: British explanations for poverty abroad. J. Soc. Psychol. 132: 783-785.Google Scholar
  9. Kerr, N. L., and Kurtz, S. T. (1977). Effects of a victim's suffering and respectability on mock juror judgments: Further evidence on the just world theory. Rep. Res. Soc. Psychol. 8: 42-56.Google Scholar
  10. Lerner, M. J. (1965). Evaluation of performance as a function of performer's reward and attractiveness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1: 355-360.Google Scholar
  11. Lerner, M. J. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims. In Macaulay, J., and Berkowitz, L. (eds.), Altruism and Helping Behavior, Academic Press, New York, pp. 205-228.Google Scholar
  12. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world. A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Lerner, M. J., and Simmons, C. H. (1966). The observer's reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 4: 203-210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. MacLean, M. J., and Shown, S. M. (1988). Just world beliefs and attitudes toward helping elderly people: A comparison of British and Canadian university students. Int. J. Aging Human Devel. 26: 249-260.Google Scholar
  15. Maes, J. (1992). Konstruktion und Analyse eines mehrdimensionalen Gerechte-Welt-Fragebogens. (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe “Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral,” Nr. 64). Trier: Universität Trier, Fachbereich I—Psychologie.Google Scholar
  16. Maes, J. (1994). Drakonität als Personmerkmal: Entwicklung und erste Erprobung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung von Urteilsstrenge (Drakonität) versus Milde. (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe “Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral” Nr. 78). Trier: Universität Trier, Fachbereich I—Psychologie.Google Scholar
  17. Maes, J. (1995). To control and to be controlled—presentation of a two-ways-questionnaire for the assessment of beliefs in control. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 11,Supplement No. 1, 8-9.Google Scholar
  18. Maes, J. (1998a). Immanent justice and ultimate justice: Two ways of believing in justice. In Montada, L., and Lerner, M. J. (eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 9-40.Google Scholar
  19. Maes, J. (1998b). Befunde zur Unterscheidung von immanenter und ultimativer Gerechtigkeit: 2. Ergebnisse aus einer Untersuchung zur Verantwortungsübernahme für den Aufbau an ostdeutschen Hochschulen. (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe “Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral” Nr. 112). Trier: Universität Trier, Fachbereich I—Psychologie.Google Scholar
  20. Montada, L. (1992). Attribution of responsibility for losses and perceived injustice. In Montada, L., Filipp, S.-H., and Lerner, M. J. (eds.), Life Crises and the Experience of Loss in Adulthood, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 133-161.Google Scholar
  21. Montada, L., Dalbert, C., Reichle, B., and Schmitt, M. (1985). Urteile über Gerechtigkeit, “existentielle Schuld” und Strategien der Schuldabwehr. In Oser, F., Althof, W., and Garz, D. (eds.), Moralische Zugänge zum Menschen-Zugänge zum moralischen Menschen, München, Kindt, pp. 205-225.Google Scholar
  22. Montada, L., Schmitt, M., and Dalbert, C. (1986). Thinking about justice and dealing with one's own privileges: A study of existential guilt. In Bierhoff, H. W., Cohen, R. L., and Greenberg, J. (eds.), Justice in Social Relations, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 125-143.Google Scholar
  23. Montada, L., and Schneider, A. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Soc. Just. Res. 3: 313-344.Google Scholar
  24. Montada, L., and Schneider, A. (1991). Justice and prosocial commitments. In Montada, L., and Bierhoff, H. W. (eds.), Altruism in social systems, Hogrefe, Toronto, pp. 58-81.Google Scholar
  25. Montada, L., Schneider, A., and Reichle, B. (1988). Emotionen und Hilfsbereitschaft. In Bierhoff, H. W., and Montada, L. (eds.), Bedingungen der Hilfsbereitschaft, Hogrefe, Göttingen, pp. 130-153.Google Scholar
  26. Olkin, I. (1967). Correlations revisited. In Stanley, J. C. (ed.), Improving experimental design and statistical analysis, Rand McNally, Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. O'Quin, K., and Vogler, C. C. (1990). Use of the Just World Scale with prison inmates: A methodological note. Perceptual and Motor Skills 70: 395-400.Google Scholar
  28. Piaget, J. (1932). Le jugement moral chez l'enfant. Alcan, Paris.Google Scholar
  29. Rubin, Z., and Peplau, L. A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another's lot: A study of participants in the National Draft Lottery. J. Soc. Issues 29(4): 73-93.Google Scholar
  30. Rubin, Z., and Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? J. Soc. Issues 31(3): 65-89.Google Scholar
  31. Rayn, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. Pantheon, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Schmitt, M., Kilders, M., Mosle, A., Müller, L., Pfrengle, A., Rabenberg, H., Schott, F., Stolz, J., Suda, U., Williams, M., and Zimmermann, G. (1991). Gerechte-Welt-Glaube, Gewinn und Verlust: Rechtfertigung oder ausgleichende Gerechtigkeit. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 22: 37-45.Google Scholar
  33. Schmitt, M., Maes, J., and Schmal, A. (1995). Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem: Einstellungen zu Verteilungsprinzipien, Ungerechtigkeitssensibilität und Glaube an eine gerechte Welt als Kovariate. (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe “Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral” Nr. 82). Trier: Universität Trier, Fachbereich I—Psychologie.Google Scholar
  34. Schmitt, M., Maes, J., and Schmal, A. (1997). Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem: Analyse der Meßeigenschaften von Meßinstrumenten für Einstellungen zu Verteilungsprinzipien, Ungerechtigkeitssensibilität und Glaube an eine gerechte Welt. (Berichte aus der Arbeitsgruppe “Verantwortung, Gerechtigkeit, Moral” Nr. 105). Trier: Universität Trier, Fachbereich I—Psychologie.Google Scholar
  35. Schmitt, M., and Montada, L. (1982). Determinanten erlebter Gerechtigkeit. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 13: 32-44.Google Scholar
  36. Schmitt, M., Neumann, R., and Montada, L. (1995). Dispositional sensitivity to befallen injustice. Soc. Just. Res. 8: 385-407.Google Scholar
  37. Schwinger, T. (1980). Gerechte Güter-Verteilungen: Entscheidungen zwischen drei Prinzipien. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Gerechtigkeit und soziale Interaktion (pp. 107-140). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  38. Sherman, M. F., Smith, R., and Cooper, R. (1982). Reactions toward the dying: The effects of a patient's illness and respondents' belief in a just world. Omega J. Death Dying 13(2): 173-189.Google Scholar
  39. Thornton, B., Ryckman, R. M., and Robbins, M. A. (1982). The relationships of observer characteristics to beliefs in the causal responsibility of victims of sexual assaults. Human Relations. 35: 321-330.Google Scholar
  40. Weir, J. A., and Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors' verdicts in a rape case. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 20: 901-919.Google Scholar
  41. Zucker, G. S., and Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and perceptions of poverty: An attributional analysis. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 23: 925-943.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Maes
    • 1
  • Manfred Schmitt
    • 2
  1. 1.USA
  2. 2.Universität Trier and Otto-von-Guericke Universität MagdeburgUSA

Personalised recommendations