In Search of the Silver Lining

Abstract

Past research has demonstrated that people's need to perceive the world as fair and just leads them to blame and derogate victims of tragedy. The research reported here shows that a positive reaction--bestowing additional meaning on the lives of individuals who have suffered--can also serve people's need to believe that the world is just. In two studies, participants whose justice motive was temporarily heightened or who strongly endorsed the belief that reward and punishment are fairly distributed in the world perceived more meaning and enjoyment in the life of someone who had experienced a tragedy than in the life of someone who had not experienced tragedy, but this pattern was not found for participants whose justice motive was not heightened or who did not strongly endorse a justice belief. These results suggest that being motivated to see the world as just--a motivation traditionally associated with victim derogation--also leads people to perceive a "silver lining" to tragic events.

Historical group victimization entails moral obligations for descendants

“…Learning of injustice can instigate meaning making in the form of benefit finding, implying that groups that have suffered compared to those that have not are morally obligated to refrain from harming others. The present research adds to the growing literature showing how observers restore a sense of justice after exposure to individuals who have experienced tragedy by believing that good can emerge from suffering (Anderson et al, 2010;Fernández et al, 2014;. The current studies go beyond prior work in demonstrating how the process underlying this effect-benefit finding for the victims-has consequences for groups who violate observers' expectations and engage in harm doing toward a new group.…”

“…Recent evidence indicates that when a threat to observers' belief in a just world exists, people perceive the victim of a personal tragedy as more likely to subsequently have a meaningful life compared to when that person has not experienced victimization (Anderson et al, 2010). Likewise, when observers consider the impact of injustice experienced by an individual in the form of childhood sexual abuse, they report expecting that as an adult that person should be a kinder and more ethical person compared to someone without a history of victimization .…”

Collectivism and the meaning of suffering.

“…Because of its focus on people's motivation to see the world as navigable and predictable, just-world research highlights people's tendency to give a causal account of suffering through victim blaming, rather than their need to give a teleological account of suffering (although some recent research inspired by just-world theory examines expected victim outcomes, which relate more to the attempt to justify suffering as having some ultimate purpose; see Anderson, Kay, & Fitzsimons, 2010). We assert, however, that the proclivity to explain suffering as caused by victim immorality is generally associated with a corresponding tendency to see suffering as having the ultimate purpose of reinforcing the social order.…”

Getting “Just Deserts” or Seeing the “Silver Lining”: The Relation between Judgments of Immanent and Ultimate Justice

“…In other words, through ultimate justice reasoning , people are able to extend the temporal framework of an injustice, such that any negative outcome previously endured will be ultimately compensated with a positive outcome. Research has confirmed that perceiving benefits in the later lives of victims of misfortunes is one way observers cognitively manage the threat imposed when observing undeserved suffering [7], [8], [9], [10]. For example, Anderson and colleagues found that participants, whose belief in a just world had been previously threatened, displayed a tendency to see a teenager's later life as more enjoyable and meaningful if he had been badly injured than if he suffered only a mild injury [7].…”

“…In Study 1, we sought to test this negative relation between these two types of justice reasoning empirically by assessing how people make sense out of misfortunes. We predicted that when people are given to ultimate justice reasoning (i.e., when the victim is a good person; see [7]), they would be less likely to engage in immanent justice reasoning. When people are given to immanent justice reasoning (i.e., when the victim is a bad person; see [14]), however, they would be less likely to perceive ultimate justice.…”