Coping With Threats to Just‐World Beliefs: Derogate, Blame, or Help?¹

The present research investigated Lerner's (1970, 1980) just‐world theory by manipulating victim‐related factors in a scenario and measuring several possible strategies for dealing with the threat to participants' just‐world beliefs created by the victim's intense suffering. Participants read a story about a victim who varied in terms of his character (likeable vs. unlikeable) and behavioral responsibility for causing his accident (high vs. low). The general pattern of results showed that for the unlikeable low‐responsibility victim, the primary response to protect justice beliefs appeared to be character derogation; for the likeable high‐responsibility victim, the primary protective strategy appeared to be blame; and for the likeable low‐responsibility victim, the primary protective strategy appeared to be compensation. Implications for just‐world theory are discussed.