Fate or Fortune: Unpacking the Just World Delusion
Believing people get what they deserve may color our view of fairness and justice.
Find an abridged version of this article here.
Imagine you witnessed two young boys snatch some ripe red apples from the local farmer’s orchard. You saw the farmer take notice and begin to chase the boys away. One child was grabbed by the angry countryman and berated, while the boy who could run faster slipped away. While the free boy crossed a stream, you saw him slip on a wet log and cut his leg badly.
Why did the boy cut his leg? The answer seems obvious, right? Because the log was slippery.
Yet when Jean Piaget asked a version of this question to young children, many said it was because the boy stole from the farmer. Piaget labeled this immanent justice, a belief that punishment should automatically follow bad behavior. Young children interpret misfortune as if it was some kind of punishment from God or the universe.
Many Religious People Believe in a Just World
Immanent justice is similar to what social psychologists call the Just-World hypothesis, a belief that the world is just — people get what they deserve. While common in young children, a belief in a just world is also prominent in religious and conservative communities. These populations may emphasize the just nature of God where the righteous are blessed and the wicked punished. They may also emphasize a meritocracy where hard work is rewarded in life and those who are idle inevitably experience negative consequences.
A belief that people ultimately get what they deserve can work to justify the status quo, including unequal economic societies and caste systems. Social psychologist John Jost and his team of researchers described it this way (p. 2):
The Hindu concept of karma, for instance, and the related doctrine of the transmigration of souls (i.e., reincarnation) commit individuals to believing that they deserve their present status in society and also that, if they live in a manner that is consistent with religious prescriptions, they will be rewarded in their next lives. Thus, belief in the doctrine of the transmigration of souls (i.e., reincarnation) helps to explain why ‘it is precisely the lowest classes, who would naturally be most desirous of improving their status in subsequent incarnations, that cling most steadfastly to their caste obligations, never thinking of toppling the caste system through social revolutions or reforms’ (Weber, 1922/1963, p. 43).
Researchers have found statistically significant positive correlations between participants’ reported level of religiosity and their endorsement of just world statements such as, “In the long run people will be compensated for injustices,” and “Justice always prevails over injustice.”
The Costs and Benefits of a Belief in a Just World
A belief in a just world meets certain psychological needs that lead one to be content with how things are. As Jost states, “Believing that economic inequality is legitimate and necessary is associated with increased life satisfaction….The holding of system-justifying beliefs is associated with the reduction of guilt, anxiety, dissonance, frustration, and moral outrage that might otherwise be triggered by social inequality (p. 228).”
The thought of living in a chaotic, unpredictable world where injustice abounds is terrifying. Researchers suggest that religion serves as a palliative function to increase feelings of predictability. Researchers have found that religiosity is associated with positive emotions, a sense of meaning, life satisfaction, and happiness. A person’s faith in the legitimacy of a religious system allows them to compensate for a lack of control experienced in other areas of life.
As poet W. H. Auden wrote in 1939,
There is a merciful mechanism in the human mind that prevents one from knowing how unhappy one is. One only realizes it if the unhappiness passes, and then wonders how one earth one was ever able to stand it. If the factory workers once got out of the factory life for six months, there would be a revolution such as the world has never seen. (p. 402)
According to the researchers, people with a belief in a just world are more likely to endorse hierarchal societies. If people get what they deserve, then marginalized groups must have done something to deserve their fate. Hence, this belief can lead to inaction, or in some cases, to actively blame and derogate real victims. For example, researchers asked participants to read a vignette about a man named Jason committing sexual assault. They found that religious people were more likely to endorse victim-blaming statements such as, “[The victim] should have known better.”
Just world beliefs are associated with higher attributions of blame to people with mental illness. Researchers have also found that those who justify inequality are less likely to have a physiological response to seeing a video of an unhoused person discussing their struggles. The comforting belief that the world is just can pacify our own worries that we can act to prevent ever needing to live on the streets, but this belief also prevents us from acting with compassion toward those struggling.
Justifying inequality through meritocratic beliefs “may have short-term palliative benefits as well as longer-term costs in terms of self-worth, group image, and collective action (p. 282).” Religious people are also more likely to support individual prosocial acts over collective ones. Researcher Robert Sapolsky noted,
The highly religious tend to view good works more in a personal, private context, helping to explain why religious Americans donate more of their income to charity than do the secular. In contrast, atheists are more likely to view good works as a collective responsibility, helping to explain why they are the ones who are more likely to support candidates advocating wealth redistribution to decrease inequality. (p. 259)
Paying attention to racial, economic, or other forms of injustice can be exhausting. It is easier to swipe away from sad news stories and convince ourselves it could never happen to us. It can be comforting to believe that we would have done something to avoid the tragedy. Conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly took this route in his reaction to the aftermath of a hurricane that struck New Orleans in 2005. To his audience he said,
The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina should be taught in every American school. If you don’t get educated, if you don’t develop a skill and force yourself to work hard, you’ll most likely be poor and sooner or later you’ll be waiting on a symbolic rooftop waiting for help, and chances are that it won’t be forthcoming. (As quoted by John Jost, p. 57)
While this type of thinking may have helped O’Reilly believe that he can smartly avoid tragedies in the future, it does nothing to help undeserving victims now. This rationalization is especially common when we feel powerless to right an injustice. For example, research participants who learned about a woman’s suffering and were denied the opportunity to help her directly were more likely to defame her character than participants who could compensate her in some way (see Jost, p. 36).
Meaning vs Happiness
Unfortunately, many wrongs in the world cannot be righted. We are powerless in the face of much of the suffering and injustices around the world. Would embracing a belief in a just world serve us in the end? If believing people get what they deserve has psychological benefits including a sense of certainty and control, should we actively work to foster it?
People who believe inequality in society is justified and fair are happier. Conservatives more often endorse economic inequality than liberals, and they also report higher levels of happiness. Researchers found that as inequality increases, happiness decreases. However, this decline in happiness is larger for liberals than conservatives. According to Jost, liberals “lacked conservatives’ ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of inequality (p. 288).”
Some theorists argue that a belief in a just world brings only superficial happiness. A religion that emphasizes a just God can help believers endure the chaotic nature of an unpredictable world, but it may “fail to promote genuine happiness because [the believers] do nothing to change an oppressive situation (p. 228).”
When those with just world beliefs do inevitably experience injustice, it can be especially harrowing. They may justify their own oppression in cases, blaming themselves for their misfortune. These beliefs can also lead some to suppress feelings of anxiety or depression. They may fall into toxic positivity because they mistakenly believe that negative emotions are a natural consequence of doing something wrong.
This begs the question, is happiness the goal? Happiness for who exactly? Certainly not happiness for a poor person who brought their misery upon themselves. Assuming they somehow deserved their plight is often easier than empathizing with them and feeling their pain with them. That can lead to empathic distress, which can cause one to turn away from suffering for their own emotional comfort.
As behavioral economist Dan Ariely has pointed out, there is a distinction between finding happiness and finding meaning. Being a victim himself, Dan Ariely was burned badly as a teenager. Years later, he was asked to give comfort to a teenage boy who had also burned much of his body in a car accident. Dan Ariely was faced with a decision. Should he talk with the boy and be reminded of some of the most horrific parts of his life? Or should he say no and justify it in some way such as by assuming the teen should have paid better attention on the road?
The latter likely would have made Ariely happier. In fact, he described experiencing intense distress when he visited the boy in the hospital and reflected on his past traumatic experiences. Yet Ariely chose to anyway because it was meaningful (rather than joyful). He states,
I achieved a complex but unique emotional lift that stemmed from shared pain. I became motivated by a feeling of identification and empathy for them. I felt that my own suffering had not been pointless. And that I could do something to help other human beings — something that I’m uniquely qualified to do. (p. 14)
While many religions emphasize meritocratic beliefs, not all do. Beliefs within and between religions can vary widely. Jost et al. (2014) found that participants who identified as Catholic and Protestant were more likely to endorse statements such as, “Society is set up so that people usually get what they deserve” than Jewish and Buddhist participants. Yet it was the late catholic monk and poet Thomas Mertin who said, “Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy.”
When we let go of blame and empathize with someone who is struggling, we are more likely to show compassion. We can find self-compassion in our own hardships and seek help. Accepting that people often do not get what they deserve can be a lonely and miserable path. Yet it is a path worth taking if we are to find meaning in this short journey together.
