Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?
Identifieur interne : 001A27 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001A26; suivant : 001A28Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?
Auteurs : Jürgen MaesSource :
- Social Justice Research [ 0885-7466 ] ; 1994-03-01.
Abstract
Abstract: The attribution of responsibility to victims of bad fate (“blaming the victim”) is discussed under the perspective of Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970). Whereas Just World Theory suggests that the belief in a just world is the decisive motive of increased attributions of responsibility, the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that these attributions are motivated by the need to believe in internal locus of control. Research evidence shows both motives as conceptually linked and empirically correlated. The central question is whether belief in a just world and belief in internal control are facets of the same latent variable or empirically distinguishable constructs, and whether they contribute independently to attributions of responsibility and blame to victims of misfortune. Results of a questionnaire study assessing opinions about cancer and cancer victims are reported. There is evidence from factor analyses that the two motives are indeed distinguishable constructs. The correlation patterns and the results of multiple regression analyses show that both motives are meaningfully related to attributions of responsibility. Moreover, it is suggested that belief in a just world is not a homogeneous construct. Belief in immanent justice according to which present misfortune is seen as a consequence of prior faults and sins is differentiated from belief in ultimate justice according to which one can be sure that present misfortune will be compensated in the long run. Whereas belief in immanent justice is the most important predictor for attributions of responsibility, the suggested emotional consequences of such attributions, like belief in invulnerability or confidence in coping, can be predicted by belief in internal control and belief in ultimate justice. Finally, suggestions are made to extend Just World Theory to clarify the function of justice motives in the person's search for meaning in his or her life.
Url:
DOI: 10.1007/BF02333823
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8DLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?</title><author><name sortKey="Maes, Jurgen" sort="Maes, Jurgen" uniqKey="Maes J" first="Jürgen" last="Maes">Jürgen Maes</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Universiät Trier, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D</idno><date when="1994" year="1994">1994</date><idno type="doi">10.1007/BF02333823</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001A27</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001A27</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?</title><author><name sortKey="Maes, Jurgen" sort="Maes, Jurgen" uniqKey="Maes J" first="Jürgen" last="Maes">Jürgen Maes</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Universiät Trier, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Social Justice Research</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Soc Just Res</title><idno type="ISSN">0885-7466</idno><idno type="eISSN">1573-6725</idno><imprint><publisher>Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>New York</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1994-03-01">1994-03-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="69">69</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="90">90</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0885-7466</idno></series><idno type="istex">16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1007/BF02333823</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BF02333823</idno><idno type="ArticleID">Art5</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0885-7466</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Abstract: The attribution of responsibility to victims of bad fate (“blaming the victim”) is discussed under the perspective of Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970). Whereas Just World Theory suggests that the belief in a just world is the decisive motive of increased attributions of responsibility, the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that these attributions are motivated by the need to believe in internal locus of control. Research evidence shows both motives as conceptually linked and empirically correlated. The central question is whether belief in a just world and belief in internal control are facets of the same latent variable or empirically distinguishable constructs, and whether they contribute independently to attributions of responsibility and blame to victims of misfortune. Results of a questionnaire study assessing opinions about cancer and cancer victims are reported. There is evidence from factor analyses that the two motives are indeed distinguishable constructs. The correlation patterns and the results of multiple regression analyses show that both motives are meaningfully related to attributions of responsibility. Moreover, it is suggested that belief in a just world is not a homogeneous construct. Belief in immanent justice according to which present misfortune is seen as a consequence of prior faults and sins is differentiated from belief in ultimate justice according to which one can be sure that present misfortune will be compensated in the long run. Whereas belief in immanent justice is the most important predictor for attributions of responsibility, the suggested emotional consequences of such attributions, like belief in invulnerability or confidence in coping, can be predicted by belief in internal control and belief in ultimate justice. Finally, suggestions are made to extend Just World Theory to clarify the function of justice motives in the person's search for meaning in his or her life.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>springer</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Jürgen Maes</name><affiliations><json:string>Universiät Trier, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>BF02333823</json:string><json:string>Art5</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>OriginalPaper</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: The attribution of responsibility to victims of bad fate (“blaming the victim”) is discussed under the perspective of Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970). Whereas Just World Theory suggests that the belief in a just world is the decisive motive of increased attributions of responsibility, the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that these attributions are motivated by the need to believe in internal locus of control. Research evidence shows both motives as conceptually linked and empirically correlated. The central question is whether belief in a just world and belief in internal control are facets of the same latent variable or empirically distinguishable constructs, and whether they contribute independently to attributions of responsibility and blame to victims of misfortune. Results of a questionnaire study assessing opinions about cancer and cancer victims are reported. There is evidence from factor analyses that the two motives are indeed distinguishable constructs. The correlation patterns and the results of multiple regression analyses show that both motives are meaningfully related to attributions of responsibility. Moreover, it is suggested that belief in a just world is not a homogeneous construct. Belief in immanent justice according to which present misfortune is seen as a consequence of prior faults and sins is differentiated from belief in ultimate justice according to which one can be sure that present misfortune will be compensated in the long run. Whereas belief in immanent justice is the most important predictor for attributions of responsibility, the suggested emotional consequences of such attributions, like belief in invulnerability or confidence in coping, can be predicted by belief in internal control and belief in ultimate justice. Finally, suggestions are made to extend Just World Theory to clarify the function of justice motives in the person's search for meaning in his or her life.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>590.28 x 835.28 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><keywordCount>0</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>2024</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>6297</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>37780</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>22</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>302</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?</title><refBibs><json:item><author><json:item><name>C,S Alexander</name></json:item></author><host><volume>21</volume><pages><last>33</last><first>22</first></pages><author></author><title>Z Health Soc. Behav</title><publicationDate>1980</publicationDate></host><title>The responsible victim: Nurses' perceptions of victims of rape</title><publicationDate>1980</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S Anthony</name></json:item></author><host><volume>93</volume><pages><last>91</last><first>85</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1976</publicationDate></host><title>The attribution of responsibility for the outcome of an interpersonal interaction</title><publicationDate>1976</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E Bloch</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Das Prinzip Hoffnung</title><publicationDate>1980</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>1980</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J,S Bridges</name></json:item><json:item><name>C,A Mcgrail</name></json:item></author><host><volume>21</volume><pages><last>286</last><first>273</first></pages><author></author><title>Sex Roles</title><publicationDate>1989</publicationDate></host><title>Attributions of responsibility for date and stranger rape</title><publicationDate>1989</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S,D Broussard</name></json:item><json:item><name>W,G Wagner</name></json:item></author><host><volume>12</volume><pages><last>569</last><first>563</first></pages><author></author><title>Child Abuse Neglect</title><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate></host><title>Child sexual abuse: Who is to blame?</title><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>R,J Bulman</name></json:item><json:item><name>C,B Wortman</name></json:item></author><host><volume>35</volume><pages><last>363</last><first>351</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Pers. Soc. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></host><title>Attributions of blame and coping in the "real world": Severe accident victims react to their lot</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J,M Burger</name></json:item></author><host><volume>90</volume><pages><last>512</last><first>496</first></pages><author></author><title>PsychoL Btdl</title><publicationDate>1981</publicationDate></host><title>Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: a meta-analysis of the Defensive-Attribution Hypothesis</title><publicationDate>1981</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>B,E Collins</name></json:item></author><host><volume>29</volume><pages><last>391</last><first>381</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Pet's. Soc. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1974</publicationDate></host><title>Four components of the Rotter Internal-External scale: Belief in a difficult world, a just world, a predictable world, and a politically responsive world</title><publicationDate>1974</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>G,J Connors</name></json:item><json:item><name>S,S Ranish</name></json:item><json:item><name>S,A Maisto</name></json:item></author><host><volume>43</volume><pages><last>1256</last><first>1251</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Stud. Alcohol</title><publicationDate>1982</publicationDate></host><title>Alcohol and victim compensation as determinants of responsibility attribution in traffic accidents</title><publicationDate>1982</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J,S Fleming</name></json:item><json:item><name>P,S Spooner</name></json:item></author><host><volume>41</volume><pages><last>517</last><first>512</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Clin. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></host><title>Five factor scales for internal-external control and their relations to measures of adjustment</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A Furnham</name></json:item><json:item><name>E Procter</name></json:item></author><host><volume>45</volume><pages><last>280</last><first>265</first></pages><author></author><title>Hum. Rel</title><publicationDate>1992</publicationDate></host><title>Sphere-specific just world beliefs and attitudes to AIDS</title><publicationDate>1992</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J,M Gleason</name></json:item><json:item><name>Harris </name></json:item><json:item><name>V,A </name></json:item></author><host><volume>4</volume><pages><last>176</last><first>171</first></pages><author></author><title>Soc. Behav. Pers</title></host><title>Perceived freedom, accident severity and empathic value as determinants of the attribution of responsibility</title></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>E Herbst</name></json:item></author><title>Zuschreibungen von Verantwortlichkeit und Schuld gegeniaber Opfern durch unbeteiligte Dritte in ihrer Abh~ingigkeit von Gerechtigkeits-und Kontrollierbarkietsiiberzeugungen sowie Gerechtigkeits-und Kontrollierbarkeits-zentralit~it</title><publicationDate>1992</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>W,F Kaemmerer</name></json:item><json:item><name>A,I Schwebel</name></json:item></author><host><volume>39</volume><pages><last>114</last><first>107</first></pages><author></author><title>Psychol. Rep</title><publicationDate>1976</publicationDate></host><title>Factors of the Rotter Internal-External Scale</title><publicationDate>1976</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P Kordmann</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Unver6ffentlichte Diplomarbeit</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></host><title>Determinanten der Opferbeurteilung Einfliisse von Gerechtigkeits-und Kontrollierbarkeits</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T Langley</name></json:item><json:item><name>E,A Yost</name></json:item><json:item><name>E,C Neal</name></json:item><json:item><name>S,L Taylor</name></json:item></author><host><volume>17</volume><pages><last>54</last><first>43</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Offender Rehabil</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></host><title>Models of rape judgment: Attributions concerning event, perpetrator, and victim</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M,J Lerner</name></json:item></author><host><volume>1</volume><pages><last>360</last><first>355</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Pers. Soc. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1965</publicationDate></host><title>Evaluation of performance as a function of performer's reward and attractiveness</title><publicationDate>1965</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M,J Lerner</name></json:item></author><host><volume>45</volume><pages><last>52</last><first>1</first></pages><author></author><title>Z Pers</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></host><title>The justice motive in social behavior. Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M,J Lerner</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>237</last><first>229</first></pages><author></author><title>but nobody liked the Indians</title><publicationDate>1978</publicationDate></host><title>Belief in a just world" versus the</title><publicationDate>1978</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>M,J Lerner</name></json:item></author><title>Belief h~ a Just World. A Fundamental Delusion</title><publicationDate>1980</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M,J Lerner</name></json:item><json:item><name>D,T Miller</name></json:item></author><host><volume>85</volume><pages><last>1051</last><first>1030</first></pages><author></author><title>Psychol. Btdl</title><publicationDate>1978</publicationDate></host><title>Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead</title><publicationDate>1978</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M,J Lerner</name></json:item><json:item><name>C,H Simmons</name></json:item></author><host><volume>4</volume><pages><last>210</last><first>203</first></pages><author></author><title>Soc. PsychoL</title><publicationDate>1966</publicationDate></host><title>The observer's reaction to the "innocent victim": compassion or rejection.'? Z Pers</title><publicationDate>1966</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>H Levenson</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>262</last><first>261</first></pages><author></author><title>Proceedings of the 80th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association</title><publicationDate>1972</publicationDate></host><title>Distinctions within the concept of internal-external control: Development of a new scale</title><publicationDate>1972</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>I Lipkus</name></json:item></author><host><volume>12</volume><pages><last>1178</last><first>1171</first></pages><author></author><title>Pers. Indiv. Diff</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></host><title>The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>D,T Miller</name></json:item></author><host><volume>13</volume><pages><last>126</last><first>113</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Exp. Soc. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></host><title>Altruism and threat to the belief in a just world</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>L Montada</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Justice in Human Relations</title><publicationDate>1986</publicationDate></host><title>Life stress, injustice, and the questionWho is responsible</title><publicationDate>1986</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>L Montada</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Life Crises and the Experience of Loss in Adulthood</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></host><title>Attribution of responsibility for losses and perceived injustice</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>L Montada</name></json:item><json:item><name>M Schmitt</name></json:item><json:item><name>C Dalbert</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>143</last><first>125</first></pages><author></author><title>Justice in Social Relations</title><publicationDate>1986</publicationDate></host><title>Thinking about justice and dealing with one's own privileges: A study on existential guilt</title><publicationDate>1986</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J Piaget</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Le Jugement Moral Chez L'enfant</title><publicationDate>1983</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>1983</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Y Rim</name></json:item></author><host><volume>2</volume><pages><last>87</last><first>85</first></pages><author></author><title>Indiv. Diff</title><publicationDate>1981</publicationDate></host><title>Who believes in graphology? Pers</title><publicationDate>1981</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J,B Rotter</name></json:item></author><host><volume>80</volume><pages><first>28</first></pages><issue>608</issue><author></author><title>Psychol. Mongr</title><publicationDate>1966</publicationDate></host><title>Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement</title><publicationDate>1966</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Z Rubin</name></json:item><json:item><name>L,A Peplau</name></json:item></author><host><volume>29</volume><pages><last>93</last><first>73</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Soc. Issues</title><publicationDate>1973</publicationDate></host><title>Belief in a just world and reactions to another's lot: A study of participants in the National Draft Lottery</title><publicationDate>1973</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Z Rubin</name></json:item><json:item><name>L,A Peplau</name></json:item></author><host><volume>31</volume><pages><last>90</last><first>65</first></pages><issue>3</issue><author></author><title>Issues</title><publicationDate>1975</publicationDate></host><title>Who believes in a just world? Z Soc</title><publicationDate>1975</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>W Ryan</name></json:item></author><title>Blaming the Victbn</title><publicationDate>1971</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>D Sadow</name></json:item></author><host><volume>52</volume><pages><last>406</last><first>403</first></pages><author></author><title>Psychol. Rep</title><publicationDate>1983</publicationDate></host><title>Irrational attributions of responsibility: Who, what, when, and why</title><publicationDate>1983</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>K,G Shaver</name></json:item></author><host><volume>14</volume><pages><last>113</last><first>101</first></pages><author></author><title>Z Pers. Soc. P~ychol</title><publicationDate>1970</publicationDate></host><title>Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident</title><publicationDate>1970</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E Skinner</name></json:item><json:item><name>M Chapman</name></json:item><json:item><name>P,B Baltes</name></json:item></author><host><volume>54</volume><pages><last>133</last><first>117</first></pages><author></author><title>Pers. Soc. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate></host><title>Control, means-ends, and agency beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement during childhood</title><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>S Sontag</name></json:item></author><title>Illness as a Metaphor</title><publicationDate>1979</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>R,H Sosis</name></json:item></author><host><volume>30</volume><pages><last>399</last><first>393</first></pages><author></author><title>Soc. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1974</publicationDate></host><title>Internal-external control and the perception of responsibility of another for an accident. Z Pers</title><publicationDate>1974</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>B Thornton</name></json:item><json:item><name>R,M Ryekman</name></json:item><json:item><name>M,A Robbins</name></json:item></author><host><volume>35</volume><pages><last>330</last><first>321</first></pages><author></author><title>Hum. Rel</title><publicationDate>1982</publicationDate></host><title>The relationships of observer characteristics to beliefs in the causal responsibility of victims of sexual assault</title><publicationDate>1982</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>D,C Ugwuegbu</name></json:item><json:item><name>C Hendrick</name></json:item></author><host><volume>2</volume><pages><last>86</last><first>76</first></pages><author></author><title>Soc. Behav. Pers</title><publicationDate>1974</publicationDate></host><title>Personal causality and attribution of responsibility</title><publicationDate>1974</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S Valentine-French</name></json:item><json:item><name>Radtke </name></json:item><json:item><name>H,L </name></json:item></author><host><volume>21</volume><pages><last>555</last><first>545</first></pages><author></author><title>Sex Roles</title><publicationDate>1989</publicationDate></host><title>Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting</title><publicationDate>1989</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>R,R Vallacher</name></json:item><json:item><name>K Selz</name></json:item></author><host><volume>9</volume><pages><last>219</last><first>194</first></pages><author></author><title>Soc. Cognit</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></host><title>Who's to blame? Action identification in allocating responsibility for alleged rape</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E Walster</name></json:item></author><host><volume>3</volume><pages><last>79</last><first>73</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Pers. Soc. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1966</publicationDate></host><title>Assignment of responsibility for an accident</title><publicationDate>1966</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>L,A Witt</name></json:item></author><host><volume>129</volume><pages><last>717</last><first>715</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Soc. Psychol</title><publicationDate>1989</publicationDate></host><title>Urban-nonurban differences in social cognition: Locus of control and perceptions of a just world</title><publicationDate>1989</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M Zuekerman</name></json:item><json:item><name>K,C Gerbasi</name></json:item></author><host><volume>45</volume><pages><last>378</last><first>356</first></pages><author></author><title>J. Pers</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></host><title>Belief in internal control or belief in a just world: The use and misuse of the I-E-scale in prediction of attitudes and behavior</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M Zuckerman</name></json:item><json:item><name>K,C Gerbasi</name></json:item><json:item><name>S,P Marion</name></json:item></author><host><volume>37</volume><pages><last>381</last><first>375</first></pages><author></author><title>Educ. Psychol. Measur</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></host><title>Correlates of the just world factor of Rotter's I-E Scale</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></json:item></refBibs><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>7</volume><pages><last>90</last><first>69</first></pages><issn><json:string>0885-7466</json:string></issn><issue>1</issue><subject><json:item><value>Philosophy</value></json:item><json:item><value>Anthropology/Archaeometry</value></json:item><json:item><value>Political Science</value></json:item><json:item><value>Sociology</value></json:item><json:item><value>Personality & Social Psychology</value></json:item><json:item><value>Social Policy</value></json:item></subject><journalId><json:string>11211</json:string></journalId><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1573-6725</json:string></eissn><title>Social Justice Research</title><publicationDate>1994</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1994</copyrightDate></host><publicationDate>1994</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1994</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1007/BF02333823</json:string></doi><id>16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D</id><score>0.8822316</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>New York</pubPlace><availability><p>Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1994</p></availability><date>1994</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Jürgen</forename><surname>Maes</surname></persName><affiliation>Universiät Trier, Germany</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Social Justice Research</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Soc Just Res</title><idno type="journal-ID">11211</idno><idno type="pISSN">0885-7466</idno><idno type="eISSN">1573-6725</idno><idno type="issue-article-count">6</idno><idno type="volume-issue-count">4</idno><imprint><publisher>Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>New York</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1994-03-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="69">69</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="90">90</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1007/BF02333823</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BF02333823</idno><idno type="ArticleID">Art5</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1994</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Abstract: The attribution of responsibility to victims of bad fate (“blaming the victim”) is discussed under the perspective of Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970). Whereas Just World Theory suggests that the belief in a just world is the decisive motive of increased attributions of responsibility, the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that these attributions are motivated by the need to believe in internal locus of control. Research evidence shows both motives as conceptually linked and empirically correlated. The central question is whether belief in a just world and belief in internal control are facets of the same latent variable or empirically distinguishable constructs, and whether they contribute independently to attributions of responsibility and blame to victims of misfortune. Results of a questionnaire study assessing opinions about cancer and cancer victims are reported. There is evidence from factor analyses that the two motives are indeed distinguishable constructs. The correlation patterns and the results of multiple regression analyses show that both motives are meaningfully related to attributions of responsibility. Moreover, it is suggested that belief in a just world is not a homogeneous construct. Belief in immanent justice according to which present misfortune is seen as a consequence of prior faults and sins is differentiated from belief in ultimate justice according to which one can be sure that present misfortune will be compensated in the long run. Whereas belief in immanent justice is the most important predictor for attributions of responsibility, the suggested emotional consequences of such attributions, like belief in invulnerability or confidence in coping, can be predicted by belief in internal control and belief in ultimate justice. Finally, suggestions are made to extend Just World Theory to clarify the function of justice motives in the person's search for meaning in his or her life.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>Psychology</head><item><term>Philosophy</term></item><item><term>Anthropology/Archaeometry</term></item><item><term>Political Science</term></item><item><term>Sociology</term></item><item><term>Personality & Social Psychology</term></item><item><term>Social Policy</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1994-03-01">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-11-22">References added</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-01-20">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Springer, Publisher found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//Springer-Verlag//DTD A++ V2.4//EN" URI="http://devel.springer.de/A++/V2.4/DTD/A++V2.4.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><Publisher><PublisherInfo><PublisherName>Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers</PublisherName><PublisherLocation>New York</PublisherLocation></PublisherInfo><Journal><JournalInfo JournalProductType="ArchiveJournal" NumberingStyle="Unnumbered"><JournalID>11211</JournalID><JournalPrintISSN>0885-7466</JournalPrintISSN><JournalElectronicISSN>1573-6725</JournalElectronicISSN><JournalTitle>Social Justice Research</JournalTitle><JournalAbbreviatedTitle>Soc Just Res</JournalAbbreviatedTitle><JournalSubjectGroup><JournalSubject Type="Primary">Psychology</JournalSubject><JournalSubject Type="Secondary">Philosophy</JournalSubject><JournalSubject Type="Secondary">Anthropology/Archaeometry</JournalSubject><JournalSubject Type="Secondary">Political Science</JournalSubject><JournalSubject Type="Secondary">Sociology</JournalSubject><JournalSubject Type="Secondary">Personality & Social Psychology</JournalSubject><JournalSubject Type="Secondary">Social Policy</JournalSubject></JournalSubjectGroup></JournalInfo><Volume><VolumeInfo TocLevels="0" VolumeType="Regular"><VolumeIDStart>7</VolumeIDStart><VolumeIDEnd>7</VolumeIDEnd><VolumeIssueCount>4</VolumeIssueCount></VolumeInfo><Issue IssueType="Regular"><IssueInfo TocLevels="0"><IssueIDStart>1</IssueIDStart><IssueIDEnd>1</IssueIDEnd><IssueArticleCount>6</IssueArticleCount><IssueHistory><CoverDate><Year>1994</Year><Month>3</Month></CoverDate></IssueHistory><IssueCopyright><CopyrightHolderName>Plenum Publishing Corporation</CopyrightHolderName><CopyrightYear>1994</CopyrightYear></IssueCopyright></IssueInfo><Article ID="Art5"><ArticleInfo ArticleType="OriginalPaper" ContainsESM="No" Language="En" NumberingStyle="Unnumbered" TocLevels="0"><ArticleID>BF02333823</ArticleID><ArticleDOI>10.1007/BF02333823</ArticleDOI><ArticleSequenceNumber>5</ArticleSequenceNumber><ArticleTitle Language="En">Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?</ArticleTitle><ArticleFirstPage>69</ArticleFirstPage><ArticleLastPage>90</ArticleLastPage><ArticleHistory><RegistrationDate><Year>2006</Year><Month>2</Month><Day>16</Day></RegistrationDate></ArticleHistory><ArticleCopyright><CopyrightHolderName>Plenum Publishing Corporation</CopyrightHolderName><CopyrightYear>1994</CopyrightYear></ArticleCopyright><ArticleGrants Type="Regular"><MetadataGrant Grant="OpenAccess"></MetadataGrant><AbstractGrant Grant="OpenAccess"></AbstractGrant><BodyPDFGrant Grant="Restricted"></BodyPDFGrant><BodyHTMLGrant Grant="Restricted"></BodyHTMLGrant><BibliographyGrant Grant="Restricted"></BibliographyGrant><ESMGrant Grant="Restricted"></ESMGrant></ArticleGrants><ArticleContext><JournalID>11211</JournalID><VolumeIDStart>7</VolumeIDStart><VolumeIDEnd>7</VolumeIDEnd><IssueIDStart>1</IssueIDStart><IssueIDEnd>1</IssueIDEnd></ArticleContext></ArticleInfo><ArticleHeader><AuthorGroup><Author AffiliationIDS="Aff1"><AuthorName DisplayOrder="Western"><GivenName>Jürgen</GivenName><FamilyName>Maes</FamilyName></AuthorName></Author><Affiliation ID="Aff1"><OrgName>Universiät Trier</OrgName><OrgAddress><Country>Germany</Country></OrgAddress></Affiliation></AuthorGroup><Abstract ID="Abs1" Language="En"><Heading>Abstract</Heading><Para>The attribution of responsibility to victims of bad fate (“blaming the victim”) is discussed under the perspective of Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970). Whereas Just World Theory suggests that the belief in a just world is the decisive motive of increased attributions of responsibility, the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that these attributions are motivated by the need to believe in internal locus of control. Research evidence shows both motives as conceptually linked and empirically correlated. The central question is whether belief in a just world and belief in internal control are facets of the same latent variable or empirically distinguishable constructs, and whether they contribute independently to attributions of responsibility and blame to victims of misfortune. Results of a questionnaire study assessing opinions about cancer and cancer victims are reported. There is evidence from factor analyses that the two motives are indeed distinguishable constructs. The correlation patterns and the results of multiple regression analyses show that both motives are meaningfully related to attributions of responsibility. Moreover, it is suggested that belief in a just world is not a homogeneous construct. Belief in immanent justice according to which present misfortune is seen as a consequence of prior faults and sins is differentiated from belief in ultimate justice according to which one can be sure that present misfortune will be compensated in the long run. Whereas belief in immanent justice is the most important predictor for attributions of responsibility, the suggested emotional consequences of such attributions, like belief in invulnerability or confidence in coping, can be predicted by belief in internal control and belief in ultimate justice. Finally, suggestions are made to extend Just World Theory to clarify the function of justice motives in the person's search for meaning in his or her life.</Para></Abstract><KeywordGroup Language="En"><Heading>Key Words</Heading><Keyword>attribution of responsibility</Keyword><Keyword>attribution of blame</Keyword><Keyword>belief in a just world</Keyword><Keyword>locus of control</Keyword><Keyword>victimization</Keyword><Keyword>cancer</Keyword><Keyword>invulnerability</Keyword></KeywordGroup></ArticleHeader><NoBody></NoBody></Article></Issue></Volume></Journal></Publisher></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jürgen</namePart><namePart type="family">Maes</namePart><affiliation>Universiät Trier, Germany</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="OriginalPaper"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">New York</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1994-03-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1994</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Abstract: The attribution of responsibility to victims of bad fate (“blaming the victim”) is discussed under the perspective of Just World Theory (Lerner, 1980) and the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis (Walster, 1966; Shaver, 1970). Whereas Just World Theory suggests that the belief in a just world is the decisive motive of increased attributions of responsibility, the Defensive Attribution Hypothesis assumes that these attributions are motivated by the need to believe in internal locus of control. Research evidence shows both motives as conceptually linked and empirically correlated. The central question is whether belief in a just world and belief in internal control are facets of the same latent variable or empirically distinguishable constructs, and whether they contribute independently to attributions of responsibility and blame to victims of misfortune. Results of a questionnaire study assessing opinions about cancer and cancer victims are reported. There is evidence from factor analyses that the two motives are indeed distinguishable constructs. The correlation patterns and the results of multiple regression analyses show that both motives are meaningfully related to attributions of responsibility. Moreover, it is suggested that belief in a just world is not a homogeneous construct. Belief in immanent justice according to which present misfortune is seen as a consequence of prior faults and sins is differentiated from belief in ultimate justice according to which one can be sure that present misfortune will be compensated in the long run. Whereas belief in immanent justice is the most important predictor for attributions of responsibility, the suggested emotional consequences of such attributions, like belief in invulnerability or confidence in coping, can be predicted by belief in internal control and belief in ultimate justice. Finally, suggestions are made to extend Just World Theory to clarify the function of justice motives in the person's search for meaning in his or her life.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Social Justice Research</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Soc Just Res</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" displayLabel="Archive Journal"></genre><originInfo><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1994-03-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1994</copyrightDate></originInfo><subject><genre>Psychology</genre><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Anthropology/Archaeometry</topic><topic>Political Science</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Personality & Social Psychology</topic><topic>Social Policy</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0885-7466</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1573-6725</identifier><identifier type="JournalID">11211</identifier><identifier type="IssueArticleCount">6</identifier><identifier type="VolumeIssueCount">4</identifier><part><date>1994</date><detail type="volume"><number>7</number><caption>vol.</caption></detail><detail type="issue"><number>1</number><caption>no.</caption></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>69</start><end>90</end></extent></part><recordInfo><recordOrigin>Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1994</recordOrigin></recordInfo></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1007/BF02333823</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">BF02333823</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">Art5</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1994</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>SPRINGER</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1994</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001A27 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001A27 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:16C7429D6F7250D26796901DCB2FD860F05F3B8D
|texte= Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |