Navigating Uncertain & Unfair Situations

Question 1

What is Belief in a Just World theory developed on the basis of?

Answer 1

BJW is developed on the basis of a personal contract between the individual and social world – investment in goals is only worthwhile if people get what they deserve.

Question 2

At what age do children form a personal contract? What do they learn at this age?

Answer 2

4-5 years old. They develop and aspect of time and learn to delay instant gratification. They learn to give up the pleasure principle.

Question 3

What principle is key to theory on BJW?

Answer 3

Principle of deservingness.

Question 4

Belief in a Just World theory is an _______, _______ assumption.

Answer 4

Unconscious, implicit.

Question 5

What is ‘just world’?

Answer 5

The desired (and assumed) outcome.

Question 6

What is the biggest threat to BJW?

Answer 6

When someone experiences undeserved suffering or misfortune.

Question 7

People are more likely to fight for fairness for others when ____________.

Answer 7

They themselves have been treated unfairly.

Question 8

What are the 2 areas of research into BJW?

Answer 8

Individual differences
Experimental research

Question 9

What are the 2 types of strategies used to restore BJW?

Answer 9

Rational strategies
Non-rational strategies

Question 10

What are rational strategies?

Answer 10

Victim focused strategies.

Question 11

What are non rational strategies?

Answer 11

Victim blaming strategies (looking for reasons to explain why the bad thing has happened to someone).
This can involve looking for silver linings for the suffering.

Question 12

What is Immanent Justice Reasoning?

Answer 12

IJR is a causal attribution in which an individual’s suffering is attributed to their prior failings or immoral character.

Question 13

What can Immanent Justice Reasoning result in?

Answer 13

Victim blaming.

Question 14

What did Callan et al. (2013) find from their study on Immanent Justice Reasoning?

Answer 14

For the long term condition (where BJW was primed), participants were more likely to attribute IJR to the thief.

Question 15

What was the method of Callan et al.’s (2013) study on Immanent Justice Reasoning?

Answer 15

Goal manipulation was given (long-term vs. short-term).

Participants read about a victim of a freak accident.

Character of the victim was manipulated (volunteer vs. thief).

IJR measured – ‘to what extent was the accident the result of the victim’s past behaviour?’

Question 16

What is Ultimate Justice Reasoning?

Answer 16

When any underserved episode of suffering is compensated with a positive outcome (i.e., a silver lining) in the long run.

Question 17

What was the method of Harvey & Callan’s (2014) study on the interplay of IJR & UJR?

Answer 17

Participants read about a victim of a freak accident.
Character of the victim was manipulated (good vs. bad).
Perceptions of deservingness of accident (IJR) and fulfillment in life (UJR) were measured.
Engagement in IJR and UJR measured.

Question 18

What were the findings of Harvey & Callan’s (2014) study on the interplay of IJR & UJR?

Answer 18

IJR was higher for the bad character.
(More likely to say the person deserved the accident if they were a bad character).

UJR was higher for the good character.
(More likely to say that there was a silver lining to the accident).

Question 19

What is uncertainty management theory?

Answer 19

Although we know the world is an uncertain place, personal uncertainty is an aversive experience that we would rather avoid.

We adhere to cultural worldviews (norms, values) to provide a sense of stability in an otherwise uncertain world.

Question 20

What is personal uncertainty?

Answer 20

Self-doubt or instability in our views about ourselves or place in the world.

Question 21

What is experimental research focused on in Uncertainty Management Theory?

Answer 21

How people respond to situations that challenge our worldviews after they have been reminded about their personal uncertainties.

Question 22

What are the 2 ways in which people could react after reminders of personal uncertainty?

Answer 22

1. (more) positively to situations that support their worldviews
2. (more) negatively to situations that challenge their worldviews

Question 23

What do people react strongly to after being reminded of their personal uncertaincies?

Answer 23

Violations of the fairness principle

Question 24

What was the method of Van den Bos’ (2001) experiment on uncertainty and fairness?

Answer 24

Personal uncertainty was manipulated.
Procedural fairness was manipulated (voice vs. no voice).
Emotional reactions were measured: anger, disappointment and satisfaction.

Question 25

What were the findings of Van den Bos' (2001) experiment on uncertainty and fairness?

Answer 25

When personal uncertainty is made noticeable, people will have stronger emotional reactions to violations of fairness.

Question 26

What were the findings of Van den Bos et al.'s (2006) study on uncertainty and worldview defence?

Answer 26

More religious participants reacted more strongly to the article, but this reaction was heightened when uncertainty was made salient.

Question 27

What may people do to manage feelings of personal uncertainty?

Answer 27

People may adhere more strongly to BJW.

Question 28

What were the findings of Bal & van den Bos' (2012) study into uncertainty and BJW?

Answer 28

Those primed with uncertainty had strong negative feelings/blaming activity compared to those that weren't.

Question 29

What heightens people's emotional reactions to situations that challenge their worldviews?

Answer 29

When their feelings of personal uncertainty are primed.

Question 30

What may promote people's confidence in the stability of their worldviews? What does this therefore reduce?

Answer 30

BJW. This reduces personal uncertainty.

Question 31

What is Terror Management Theory?

Answer 31

Looks at how people respond to situations when they're reminded of their own death.

Question 32

What sum can explain Terror Management Theory?

Answer 32

Innate drive for survival + an awareness of the inevitability of death = overwhelming terror

Question 33

What do humans embrace to manage the paralyzing fear of death?

Answer 33

Embracing cultural worldviews like: 1. Literal immortality - reincarnation 2. Symbolic immortality - investment in future generations

Question 34

What is worldview defence?

Answer 34

Engagement in thoughts or behaviours that defend validity of cultural worldviews against threat and strengthen affiliation to the in-group.

Question 35

When priming people to think about their own death, do they show more aggression towards people that challenge their worldviews? (McGregor et al., 1998)

Answer 35

Yes. They showed greater aggression towards the target after mortality priming and when the target threatened their political views.

Question 36

What is a criticism of McGregor et al.'s hot sauce study?

Answer 36

There were only 78 participants.

Question 37

When people are primed with their own death, do people prefer ingroup members because of their group membership or their perceived similarity in attitudes? (See & Petty, 2006)

Answer 37

Control participants: Group membership of interviewee wasn't important. Interviewee with positive (vs. negative) attitude rated more favourably. Mortality salience participants: Ratings for the outgroup member were dependent on their attitude. Ingroup member rated similarly, regardless of attitude.

Question 38

How does mortality priming affect a person's affiliation to their ingroup?

Answer 38

It increases it.