Belief in a just world, self-efficacy to promote justice in the world and helping behavior

Just world theory (Lerner, Reference Lerner1980) states that individuals are motivated to perceive the world as a just place where people get what they deserve. The perception that the world is just gives people confidence that no unjust events will happen to them. Such fundamental perception can be preserved in two main ways (Lerner, Reference Lerner1980): if individuals perceive they can actually restore justice, they will try to improve the situation of the victims, for instance by helping them. On the contrary, when individuals perceive their actions cannot be effective in relieving victim suffering, they are unlikely to try to help. Instead, they restore justice cognitively by simply changing their perceptions of the situation. For instance, they will perceive innocent victims as people who deserve to suffer. Thus, attempts to restore justice in reality or simply cognitively depend on the interaction of two factors: individuals’ motivation to reestablish justice and their perceived efficacy to eliminate injustice (Lerner, Reference Lerner1980). A strong (versus a weak) motivation to reestablish justice is more likely to lead to helping behavior when individuals think they are actually able to eliminate injustice; if individuals think they are unable, a strong (versus weak) motivation to reestablish justice will likely lead to victim derogation.

In other words, perceived efficacy to restore justice moderates the impact of BJW on helping behavior. In fact, when helping is likely to be efficacious, high versus low just world believers are more likely to help people in a real life emergency (Bierhoff, Klein, & Kramp, Reference Bierhoff, Klein and Kramp1991), or to help an innocent hospitalized patient (DePalma, Madey, Tillman, & Wheeler, Reference DePalma, Madey, Tillman and Wheeler1999). In two experiments, Miller (Reference Miller1977) showed that high versus low believers in a just world gave more time and money to victims when their help could be effective than when it could not. In the same line, White, MacDonnell, and Ellard (Reference White, MacDonnell and Ellard2012) showed that when consumers think they can help disfavored producers increase their living conditions, high believers in a just world support fair trade to a higher extent than low believers. In fact, for low believers in a just world there was no difference in their support regardless of whether they thought their purchases would or would not alleviate injustice.

Both the motivation to reestablish justice and SEJW have been examined from a situational and a dispositional perspective. As a situational variable, the motivation to reestablish justice has been operationalized as the degree of injustice the victim suffers. Very often this construct is operationalized by presenting victims as responsible or non-responsible for their suffering, that is as non-innocent or innocent victims respectively (i.e., DePalma et al., Reference DePalma, Madey, Tillman and Wheeler1999), with the latter representing threats to the BJW, and especially for people who more strongly endorse a high BJW. As a disposition, the motivation to reestablish justice has been operationalized as the degree to which individuals endorse the BJW (i.e., White et al., Reference White, MacDonnell and Ellard2012, Study 1). Although there has been much controversy surrounding the extent to which scores on BJW scales actually assess the motivation to perceive the world as just (i.e., Hafer & Bègue, Reference Hafer and Bègue2005), scores on BJW scales and experimental threats to the BJW similarly predict reaction to victims and helping behaviors.

Perceived efficacy to restore justice in the world as a situational variable has been operationalized according to the characteristics of the situation the person in need is in (Miller, Reference Miller1977). As a disposition it has been operationalized as the degree to which perceivers believe they can actually eliminate the injustice (i.e., White et al., Reference White, MacDonnell and Ellard2012, Pilot Study).

As far as we know, only one study considered self-efficacy to restore justice in the world as a general measure and considered it as an individual difference characteristic. Specifically, self-efficacy to promote justice in the world (SEJW; Mohiyeddini & Montada, Reference Mohiyeddini, Montada, Montada and Lerner1998) was conceptualized as indicating the degree to which individuals judged themselves capable of correcting or reducing injustice.

According to Mohiyeddini and Montada (Reference Mohiyeddini, Montada, Montada and Lerner1998), BJW and SEJW are independent constructs that may jointly explain attitudes towards victims and willingness to change unjust situations. One study tested the prediction that the SEJW could decrease the negative association between the BJW and positive attitudes towards victims (Mohiyeddini & Montada, Reference Mohiyeddini, Montada, Montada and Lerner1998). In that study the participants were employed adults and the victims were unemployed. The study took place in the period after the reunification of Germany where unemployment in some regions of Germany was relatively high. It is thus possible to deduce that participants did not consider the situation of these victims could be solved easily and rapidly. In this case, BJW theory would predict a cognitive restoration of justice, for instance through negative attitudes towards victims. In that study participants answered to four variables: sympathy with the unemployed, blaming the unemployed for self-infliction of their fate, willingness to fight against unemployment financially, and willingness to fight against unemployment politically. The results showed that SEJW correlated positively with willingness to fight against unemployment (either financially or politically). BJW correlated positively with blaming the unemployed for self-infliction of their fate. For participants with high BJW, SEJW was associated with positive attitudes towards the unemployed. For participants with low BJW, SEJW was even more strongly associated with positive attitudes towards the unemployed. This presumably resulted from the fact that for low just world believers, the victim situation does not represent a threat.

Volunteering, belief in a just world, and helping attitudes

Volunteerism is a particular type of nonspontaneous help that requires active planning. It includes seeking out opportunities to help others, deciding which organization to volunteer to, which type of task to do, and how much time to dedicate to it (Bierhoff, Reference Bierhoff2002; Clary et al., Reference Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen and Miene1998). Therefore, it is “voluntary sustained and ongoing helpfulness” (Clary et al., Reference Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen and Miene1998, p. 1517). Volunteers often commit themselves to these helping activities over extended periods of time that may entail considerable personal costs of time, energy, and opportunity (Clary et al., Reference Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen and Miene1998).

Psychology has focused on why people help and which people help or do not help (i.e., Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch, Reference Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley and Birch1981). Both situational (i.e., Darley & Latane, Reference Darley and Latané1968) and intrapersonal factors (i.e., Benson et al., Reference Benson, Dehority, Garman, Hanson, Hochschwender, Lebold and Sullivan1980) are important predictors of spontaneous helping behavior. On the contrary intrapersonal factors better predict non-spontaneous helping behavior than situational factors (Clary & Snyder, Reference Clary and Snyder1999). In fact, intrapersonal factors, such as social responsibility and intrinsic religious orientation, have been found to be good predictors of volunteering (Benson et al., Reference Benson, Dehority, Garman, Hanson, Hochschwender, Lebold and Sullivan1980). Also, Other-Oriented Empathy and Helpfulness, two factors of the Prosocial Personality Orientation (Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, & Freifeld, Reference Penner, Fritzsche, Craiger, Freifeld, Butcher and Spielberger1995), correlate with volunteerism (Penner & Fritzsche, 1993, cited in Penner & Finkelstein, Reference Penner and Finkelstein1998). However, the predominant research approach to volunteerism has been functional and has focused on understanding the motivations that lead people to become volunteers and to sustain their efforts over time (Clary et al., Reference Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen and Miene1998). Surprisingly, no studies on belief in a just world theory have been conducted among volunteers. However, a recent study (Moreno-Jiménez, Reference Moreno-Jiménez2015) showed that people that have a higher level of community participation, which includes volunteering, are the ones that least consider the social and economic system as fair.

Theoretically the BJW, conceptualized as a justice motive (Dalbert, Reference Dalbert2001), is indicative of a personal contract (Lerner, Reference Lerner1980) that compels individuals to behave fairly and to restore justice when injustice occurs. In fact, high (versus low) just world believers seem to avoid behaving unjustly and to strive more for justice. Specifically, they indicate fewer delinquent intentions (Sutton & Winnard, Reference Sutton and Winnard2007), fewer rule-breaking behaviours (Otto & Dalbert, Reference Otto and Dalbert2005) including bullying (Correia & Dalbert, Reference Correia and Dalbert2008), and more commitment to just means (Hafer, Reference Hafer2000). Also the self-esteem of individuals endorsing high BJW decreases when they are aware their behavior is unfair (Dalbert, Reference Dalbert1999).

According to BJW theory (Lerner, Reference Lerner1980), helping behavior can be conceived not only as reactive actions to restore justice, but also as a proactive tool to cognitively increase the likelihood of good rewards for the self. In fact, in a just world, good actions make the person more deserving of good outcomes, even when the outcomes are not directly related to their actions. This claim received empirical support by Zuckerman (Reference Zuckerman1975). In that study when people needed to believe they would get good outcomes (i.e., immediately before university exams), high versus low believers in a just world were more available to help. Some weeks before the exams this difference was not significant.

We may wonder if the relations between BJW, SEJW and helping are different for people in general and for volunteers. If volunteers try somehow, even unconsciously, to increase their deservingness of good rewards through helping behavior, it could be expected BJW to positively predict helping attitudes. Nevertheless, since individuals endorsing a stronger BJW tend to help more when they perceive their help can be efficacious, we can predict that BJW will only predict helping attitudes positively when SEJW is also high. Therefore we may expect BJW and SEJW to jointly predict helping attitudes in a sample of volunteers. For a sample where people are not committed with planned helping, the motivation to get good rewards through helping may be weaker and helping attitudes may not be associated with the BJW. These people may be motivated to get good rewards in the future simply by being honest (just) citizens who follow social rules and respect other people.

With the present study we first aimed to investigate if the joint effect between BJW and SEJW can be extended to predict helping attitudes in two samples that differ in their planned helping behavior: a convenience sample of university students, which have been often used in BJW and helping behavior studies, and a convenience sample comprising only volunteers, who are formally committed to helping other people. As far as we know, volunteers have never been used to test relations between BJW and helping behavior.

We also introduced two modifications to research conducted by Mohiyeddini and Montada (Reference Mohiyeddini, Montada, Montada and Lerner1998). Firstly, we considered helping attitudes in general instead of willingness to support a particular type of victim whose situation is difficult to change, such as the unemployed. Given that our predictor variables, BJW and SEJW, are measured at a general level, it is relevant to study their association with helping attitudes also defined at a general level. Secondly, we assessed BJW with two different measures: in addition to the general belief in a just world scale (GBJW; Dalbert, Montada, & Schmitt, Reference Dalbert, Montada and Schmitt1987) as in Mohiyeddini and Montada (Reference Mohiyeddini, Montada, Montada and Lerner1998), we also used personal BJW scale (PBJW; Dalbert, Reference Dalbert1999). General BJW measures the degree to which people believe people in general get what they deserve whilst personal BJW indicates the degree to which individuals believe that they themselves get what they deserve (Dalbert, Reference Dalbert1999). Individuals tend to endorse personal BJW more strongly than general BJW (i.e., Correia & Dalbert, Reference Correia and Dalbert2007), and personal BJW seems to be a better predictor of just behavior than general BJW (Sutton & Winnard, Reference Sutton and Winnard2007). By measuring both constructs we were be able to compare the predictive power of the interaction between each sphere of the BJW (personal and general) and SEJW on helping attitudes.

In sum, first we aim to investigate if the BJW and SEJW interact to predict a more general measure of helping, such as helping attitudes. Secondly, we aim to study this association in a sample of volunteers. Thirdly, we aim to compare the predictive power of the interaction between each sphere of BJW (personal BJW and general BJW) and SEJW. We expect that for people who strongly endorse SEJW, BJW will be positively associated with helping attitudes. For people who weakly endorse the SEJW, BJW will not be significantly associated with helping attitudes because people are likely to perceive their efforts as not leading to a change of the victims’ situation. Since helping attitudes are related with the restoration of justice by the self we expect personal BJW (reflecting the motivation to perceive the world as just for the self) to be a better predictor of these attitudes than general BJW (which reflects the motivation to perceive the world in general as just). We expect this association to happen especially on the volunteer sample.