scholarly journals Attitudes toward victim and victimization in the light of the just world theory

Temida ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-218
Author(s):  
Biljana Simeunovic-Patic

The present paper discusses current empirical status of the Just world theory introduced several decades ago by Melvin Lerner, the content and functions of a just world belief as its central construct, and particularly, the relation between a just world belief and victim blaming and victim derogation phenomena. In the light of existing research evidence, a just world belief and a need to re-establish a ?justice? when this belief is threatened, is considered to be an adaptive mechanism that protect a belief that a world is secure and the future is predictable, as well as a confidence in the purposefulness of selfdiscipline, long-term personal investments and social rules respecting. As proposed By the just world theory, when a person faces injustice, i.e. others? (innocent victims?) suffering, his/her belief in a just world is threatened. Possible reactions to that threat comprise various rational victim helping activities, but also specific cognitive defensive strategies, including cognitive distortion, rationalization and reinterpretation of an event in order to minimize injustice or deny injustice happened at all. In the course of reinterpretation of injustice, victims are often blamed for their former actions, or derogated for their character, in order to indicate them responsible for their own fate and suffering. The findings of research studies suggest that the likelihood of employing cognitive defensive strategies rises if formal responses to crime and victimization lack or fail. This further suggests that an efficient and effective formal social response in terms of both sanctioning of offenders and reparation of victims should be considered highly important in reducing the risk of stigmatization and rejection of victims. Finally, the paper discusses the role of victim?s just world beliefs in post-trauma adaptation and coping processes. In virtue of findings from the existing research literature it may be concluded that victim?s belief in a just world is not necessarily obstructive for the adaptation and coping process. Moreover, in the research literature prevail findings telling in support of an assertion that strong just world belief serves significantly as a self-protective function.

1990 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Harper ◽  
Graham F. Wagstaff ◽  
J. Tim Newton ◽  
Kevin R. Harrison

This study investigated the factor analytic properties of Rubin and Peplau's (1975) Just World Scale and a questionnaire of possible causes of Third World poverty. Three Just World factors emerged in contrast to Hyland and Dann's (1987) four factor solution. They were interpreted as ‘Pro Just World’, Anti Just World' and 'Cynical or Reserved Just World Belief. Four poverty factors emerged, interpreted as ‘Blame the Poor; ‘Blame Third World Governments’,‘Blame Nature’ and ‘Blame Exploitation’. The most important finding to emerge was that only the ‘Pro Just World’ factor and significantly correlated with blaming the poor. Blaming the poor was significantly correlated with blaming Third World governments.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sixin Sheng

Through analysing Chinese life insurance agents’ emotional conflicts and coping strategies, this study tries to reveal organization and work’s impact on the agents. Because organizational and working rules are often inconsistent with social norms and personal feelings, life insurance agents easily experience negative emotions and conflicts. Various strategies that make efforts to solve this kind of conflict may trigger off some new emotional problems, and they probably make agents’ emotional conflicts worse as well. In a way, emotional alienation has become a necessity for service workers in the post-industrial society, and that means individuals’ emotions and regulations are subject to the demand of organization and work, but deviate from themselves and social rules.


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca L. Vonderhaar ◽  
Dianne Cyr Carmody

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfred Schmitt ◽  
Mario Gollwitzer ◽  
Jürgen Maes ◽  
Dima Arbach

Abstract. Scales for justice sensitivity from three perspectives (victim, observer, perpetrator) were developed. A latent state-trait analysis revealed high reliabilities (≈ .95). Trait consistencies (≈ .61) were twice as large as occasion specificities (≈ .33). The correlation between observer and perpetrator sensitivity was much higher than the correlation between either one and victim sensitivity. Self-related concerns (Machiavellianism, paranoia, suspiciousness, vengeance, jealousy, interpersonal trust) correlated more highly with victim sensitivity than with observer and perpetrator sensitivity. Other-related concerns (role taking, empathy, social responsibility) correlated more highly with observer and perpetrator sensitivity than with victim sensitivity. Low correlations between justice sensitivity and a just world belief system were found. Few correlations between justice sensitivity and broad personality traits were significant. Victim sensitivity correlated with neuroticism (≈ .30). Perpetrator sensitivity correlated with agreeableness (≈ .20). Observer and perpetrator sensitivity reflected high moral standards. Victim sensitivity was a mixture of self-protective motives and moral concerns.


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno David Henriques ◽  
Regina Lunardi Rocha ◽  
Amanda Márcia dos Santos Reinaldo

ABSTRACT Drugs abuse is a complex phenomenon with many causes, and it affects children and adolescents. The objective of this research was to seek scientific evidence that contributes to the understanding of the existing relation between the use of crack and other drugs by children and adolescents and the family. The method used was the integrative review. The bases analyzed were: MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane, BDENF and IBECS. Descriptors: cocaine, crack, family and family relationships. Three categories were evidenced: Family environment as a protector and/or facilitator for the use of crack and other drugs by children and adolescents; Lack of knowledge and the repercussions of the use of crack and other drugs by children and adolescents in the family environment; Networks to support the family and coping with the use of crack and other drugs. The family environment has a protective function against the use of drugs, but the issue of drugs has to be faced and addressed. It is also necessary to strengthen the social networks and discuss prevention themes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document