It is over 30 years since the publication of Lerner & Simmons (1966). The research reported in that manuscript arose, initially, out of the efforts to explain why scientifically trained university students insisted on condemning poverty stricken victims as “lazy and no good” while denying the evidence of their victimization by overwhelming economic changes. The explanation offered for that seemingly motivated resistance was that people, for the sake of their security and ability to plan for the future, need to believe they live in an essentially “just” world where they can get what they deserve, at least in the long run. It was further reasoned that being confronted with innocent victims of undeserved suffering poses a threat to that fundamental belief, and as a consequence, people naturally develop and employ ways of defending it. This may involve acting to eliminate injustices. But failing that, by blaming, rejecting, or avoiding the victim, or having faith that the victim will eventually be appropriately compensated, people are able to maintain their confidence in the justness of the world in which they must live and work for their future security.
KeywordsMarried Couple Veridical Perception Innocent Victim Future Security Fundamental Belief
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Lerner, M.J. (1980). The belief in a just world. A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
- Lerner, M.J. and Agar, E. (1972). The consequences of perceived similarity:Attraction and rejection, approach and avoidance. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 69–75.Google Scholar
- Novak, D.W. and Lerner, M.J. (1968). Rejection as a consequence of perceived similarity. JournalGoogle Scholar
- of Personality and Social Psychology, 9,147–152.Google Scholar
- Sorrentio, R.M. and Boutilier, R.G. (1974). Evaluation of a victim as a function of fate similarity/dissimilarity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10, 83–92.Google Scholar
- Zuckerman, M. (1975). Belief in a just world and altruistic behavior Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 972–976.Google Scholar