A cross-national study with university students from Germany (n = 1135) and Turkey (n = 634) tested whether personal belief in a just world (PBJW) predicts students’ life satisfaction and academic cheating. Based on the just-world theory and empirical findings in the school context, we expected university students with a stronger personal BJW to be more satisfied with their lives and cheat less than those with a weaker BJW. Further, we investigated the mediating role of justice experiences with lecturers and fellow students in these relations. Differences in PBJW directly and indirectly predicted undergraduates’ life satisfaction. Students’ justice experiences with peers mediated the relationship between PBJW and life satisfaction. Differences in PBJW indirectly predicted undergraduates’ academic cheating. Students’ justice experiences with lecturers mediated the relationship between PBJW and academic cheating. The results did not differ between German and Turkish students and persisted when we controlled for gender, start of studies, socially desirable responding, general BJW, and self-efficacy. We discussed the importance of personal BJW’s adaptive functions and their relevance for international university research and practice.
The Just World Hypothesis states that people need to believe in a just world in which they get what they deserve and deserve what they get. This study examines the longitudinal associations between personal belief in a just world (BJW), the belief that events in one's own life are just and teacher justice in different status groups. It is posited that the more individuals believe in a personal just world, the more they feel they are treated justly by others, and this should be particularly true for students with a low‐status background. Longitudinal questionnaire data were obtained from students with German and Turkish/Muslim backgrounds over a period of 3–4 months. The pattern of results revealed that personal BJW was important for the Turkish/Muslim students in evaluating teachers as more just over a given period of time, but not for the German students. That is, the buffering effect of personal BJW was crucial for the disadvantaged students.
The purpose of this study was to understand the complex relationships between belief in a just world (BJW), perceived control, perceived risk to self and others, and hopelessness among a globally diverse sample during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The just-world hypothesis suggests that people need to believe in a just world in which they get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Studies have shown that believing in a just world has an adaptive function for individuals. Samples from six countries completed an online questionnaire. A total of 1,250 people participated (934 female) and ages ranged from 16 to 84 years old (M = 36.3, SD = 15.5). The results showed that, when controlling for gender, age, country of residence, and being in a risk group for COVID-19 (e.g., smoker, old age, chronic disease etc.), a stronger personal and general BJW and higher perceived control over the COVID-19 pandemic predicted lower levels of hopelessness. How at-risk participants perceived themselves to be for COVID-19 positively predicted hopelessness, but how risky participants perceived the disease to be for others negatively predicted hopelessness. This study highlights how the distinction between self and others influences hopelessness and how BJW, especially personal BJW, can serve as a psychological resource during times of historic uncertainty.
KeywordsBelief in a just world • Perceived risk • Perceived control • Hopelessness • COVID-19
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.