On an individual level, there are positives and negatives to the just-world hypothesis. Just-world beliefs can motivate us to act with morality and integrity, which is commonly thought of as ‘keeping good karma’. However, the world is not always as righteous as we would hope. By holding on tightly to the just-world hypothesis in the face of injustice, we are susceptible to making inaccurate conclusions and judgments about the world around us. UCLA social psychologists Zick Rubin and Letitia Ann Peplau aptly state, “People often exert tremendous effort in order to help right social wrongs and thus help restore justice in the world. At other times, however, people’s desire to live in a just world leads not to justice but to justification”.1 The firm belief in a just world yields a cognitive bias and can result in us justifying a person’s suffering through painting them negatively or minimizing their suffering altogether.

Let’s look at how this could apply in our everyday lives. For example, we might look at someone with a low-paying job and assume they are less hard-working than someone deemed more successful. Our judgments may ignore socioeconomic barriers that this person may face, as well as the long, hard hours they may work. We create these false narratives to protect our world theory. We want to believe that the world is fair, and if you work hard, you will get ahead; it can be easier to label someone as lazy or unmotivated rather than admit that the world can be unfair.

We can see in this example how this outlook is also driven by the fundamental attribution error, which refers to our tendency to focus on people’s traits rather than situational factors. This causes us to assume that those who deserve success will achieve it, but forget that the playing field is not always even.

The way in which we decide what deserves punishment and what merits reward dictates how we see the world. This outlook, shared by most people to varying degrees, has significant effects on political and legal outcomes. Individual variances in the cognitive strength of the just-world hypothesis (how much we believe that the world is truly just) and response to apparent injustices (i.e., rationalizing, ignoring, or intervening) are echoed in political opinions, especially regarding attitudes toward political leaders, innocent victims, and social activism.

Take, for instance, victims of assault. A study by researchers in Sweden explored how the just-world hypothesis affects perceptions of rape victims and perpetrators.⁴ The study included 164 participants who were randomly assigned to read one of four hypothetical rape scenarios, where the victim's gender (male or female) and age (young or middle-aged) were manipulated. They were then asked to rate the level of blame for both the victim and perpetrator, along with their belief in a just world.

The researchers found that people with just-world beliefs are more likely to blame victims and less likely to hold perpetrators accountable. Young male victims faced the most blame, particularly from male participants with high belief in a just world, while middle-aged female victims were also blamed more than younger women. Although perpetrators were generally held responsible across all participants, those with a strong belief in a just world assigned them less blame. This suggests that people with a just-world mindset try to make sense of injustice by assuming victims somehow caused their own suffering. These personal beliefs are problematic on a societal scale as they create an environment where victims—especially young men—are discouraged from coming forward due to fear of blame and stigma.

According to the just world hypothesis, people struggle to accept the reality that an injustice has occurred, as it challenges their belief in a fair world. When reality doesn’t align with our beliefs, this can cause a psychological discomfort called cognitive dissonance. To resolve this discomfort and regain moral balance, people may adjust their perception of the situation, such as finding fault or dishonest behavior in the victim, in order to make reality fit their belief system, rather than changing their just-world beliefs.⁵

People who strongly believe in a just world tend to see society as inherently fair, which influences how they engage with the world around them. Research shows that the stronger their belief in a just world, the less likely they are to support social activism.¹ Why advocate for change if you don’t believe that the system is unfair or unjust? Just-world believers also tend to admire political leaders and institutions, viewing them as legitimate and deserving of their power, and are more inclined to believe in personal control over life outcomes than non-believers. However, this perspective can also lead to negative attitudes toward disadvantaged groups, as just-world believers may assume that people in difficult circumstances are responsible for their own struggles rather than being affected by systemic inequalities.

We are socialized to believe that good is always rewarded and evil is punished. From early childhood, we read stories of courageous heroes saving the day and being rewarded with keys to the city, while villains are slain or banished. In these stories, the characters always reap what they sow. Rubin and Peplau cite research in childhood development, stating that we develop this sense of justice, which is expected to be inherent in the world relatively early on in our lives.²

As humans, we are often faced with an overwhelming amount of information. To make sense of our surroundings, we construct cognitive frameworks to guide our decision-making and predict outcomes. The just-world hypothesis serves as one of these frameworks, creating an understanding of positive and negative occurrences by attributing them to a larger karmic cycle.

Belief in a just world creates a seemingly predictable environment

Social psychologist and pioneer of just world research, Dr. Melvin J Lerner, describes how the just-world hypothesis installs an image of a “manageable and predictable world [which are] central to the ability to engage in long-term goal-directed activity”.³ Basically, we are more likely to work towards our goals if we feel like we can predict the result. Also, studies have shown that viewing the world as predictable and fair also protects people from helplessness, which is detrimental to human psychological and physical well-being.³

We often avoid or distort information that challenges our cognitive framework

When we feel physically uncomfortable, it’s almost second nature to do whatever it takes to put ourselves at ease. This happens mentally too. We can all probably relate to the feeling of discomfort when our beliefs are challenged or we are proved wrong. Sometimes, this can cause us to get defensive or find ways to invalidate opposing information. Social psychologist Leon Festinger coined this phenomenon as cognitive dissonance, stating that, “ if a person knows various things that are not psychologically consistent with one another, he will, in a variety of ways, try to make them more consistent”¹⁴. The just-world hypothesis causes mental distortions in order to cope with the apparent inconsistencies of the world.

The extent to which the just-world hypothesis influences us can profoundly shape our understanding of society, morality, and human behavior. It alters how we perceive others, often leading to assumptions that people deserve their circumstances based on their own actions rather than acknowledging systemic factors and injustices. This belief also imposes unrealistic expectations on ourselves, reinforcing the idea that hard work alone guarantees success and that failure is always a personal fault.

However, the desire for justice is not the same as believing the world is inherently just. True justice requires actively recognizing where inequality exists and resisting the instinct to blame victims for their misfortunes. If left unchecked, the just-world hypothesis can fuel harmful and delusional patterns of thought, legitimizing social, political, and legal injustices by framing them as inevitable or deserved. To foster meaningful change, we must develop the clarity to see unfairness for what it is and the empathy to understand people’s circumstances before passing judgment.

Behavioral scientists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky propose two disparate modes of thinking¹⁵. System 1 refers to our knee-jerk responses, our quickly made judgments, and our emotional reactions. System 2 refers to a slower, more rational, more calculated thinking process. Many of our biases are elicited through System 1 thinking, including the just-world hypothesis.

By understanding the two systems of thinking, we are better equipped to resist biases

Understanding the dual-processing mode of thinking can help us consciously hone in on the more analytic, System 2 type of thinking. A survey of various debiasing techniques found that they all shared a common thread of deliberately moving from System 1 thinking to System 2.7 Slowing down the process by which we make our judgments and considering all of the information at hand allows us to make better decisions.

With the just-world hypothesis, System 2 thinking means taking a step back to prevent ourselves from making distorted assessments. Sometimes, after looking at the full picture, we will still support our initial conclusion. Maybe we still feel that the punishment or reward at hand was warranted, and that is okay too. Working on debiasing the just-world hypothesis does not mean telling ourselves that the world is never just. What we want to open our minds to is a new way of dealing with cognitive dissonance instead of always taking the easiest route. By simply using System 2 thinking, we can think critically rather than instinctively. This will allow us to see injustices clearly and better prepare ourselves to combat them.

So how do we slow down and start using System 2 thinking? Well, the answer to this is less clear-cut. Just like when we are learning a new physical skill, building positive mental practices takes time and repetition. We now know what the just-world hypothesis is and how it happens, so we can be more aware of it in ourselves. At first, we might retroactively realize that when we think in a biased manner, we are making a quick judgment about someone. Through examining our intuitive judgments and looking at the larger picture, we can cultivate proactive System 2 thinking.

We can fight victim-blaming tendencies by cultivating empathy

One tool we can use to combat the negative attitudes towards victims sometimes unknowingly yielded by the just-world hypothesis is empathy. In one experiment led by researchers Aderman, Brehm, and Katz from Duke University, participants were asked to watch a video of a woman receiving electric shocks based on her performance in a learning task.⁹ Before watching this tape, participants were either asked to imagine themselves in the scenario or just asked to simply watch the woman in the tape. Those who were in the empathy-inducing group were much less likely to derogate the victim, demonstrating less influence of the just-world hypothesis. So, if we can remember to think critically rather than instinctively, and put ourselves in the shoes of others, we can more accurately assess the situation.

American Social Psychologist Dr. Melvin Lerner was the first to explicitly define and research the just-world theory in the 1960s. Lerner was doing his postdoctoral work in clinical psychology at a major mental institution when he discovered an interest in the phenomena.⁹ He worked alongside psychologists and therapists as they cared for patients and assessed if the patients were ready to be reintegrated into society. Yet, he noticed an unsettling pattern in the attitudes of the workers towards their patients. He saw these medical professionals relentlessly cross-examining patients in therapy sessions, which caused emotional distress, and he would hear them talking about patients in an incredibly derogatory manner.

After watching these strange behaviors elicited by otherwise compassionate and intelligent people, Lerner came to an interesting conclusion. He found that the psychologists’ and therapists’ demeaning attitude towards patients functioned as a defense mechanism against feeling that the patients were helpless. It also allowed them to cope with the patients’ suffering. From these observations and additional experimental research, Lerner formulated the just-world hypothesis as a way of “making sense of how people make sense of the world.” Almost two decades after he started, Lerner finally formalized his theory in his 1980 book, The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion.¹⁶ Since the just-world hypothesis was first developed, the construct has been used to investigate juror behavior, attitudes towards justice, and explanations for accidents and other misfortunes.⁶

Over the years, several academics working in the fields of social psychology and philosophy have developed frameworks for measuring the belief in a just world trait. The earliest and most rudimentary of these models was created by Rubin and Peplau in 1975 and included a 16-item self-report measure with a 6-point response scale (e.g., ‘I feel that most people get what they are entitled to have’).⁷ The pair then revised the framework two years later to a more sophisticated 20-item version. However, the scale has been deeply criticized, with some arguing that it’s too unidimensional and others claiming it’s multidimensional. Another scale was proposed by Furnham and Procter in 1988, but it also fell victim to intense criticism. Finally, in 1991, psychiatrist and behavioral scientist Isaac Lipkus developed a 7-item scale called the ‘Global Belief in a Just World Scale’ that seemed to satisfy everyone.⁸ Importantly, Lipkus’ scale clearly measured a single construct, was not complicated by gender factors, and had a high internal consistency.⁷ 

People often express support for ethical and fair-trade products. According to a 2024 survey by PwC,  consumers are willing to spend an average of 9.7% more on sustainably produced or sourced goods.¹⁰ However, their actual purchasing behavior doesn’t always match their intentions. One study used the just-world hypothesis to explore when consumers are most likely to choose fair-trade products based on their belief that the world is fair and that people get what they deserve. The researchers found that when consumers perceive high levels of injustice but see no clear way to fix it, they are less likely to support fair trade. However, if they are shown that their purchases can actively help reduce injustice, they become more likely to buy fair-trade products. The impact of these messages depends on factors like individual beliefs about justice and whether the product is a luxury or necessity, which can influence how consumers perceive their own privilege. The findings suggest that simply emphasizing urgent need in marketing can sometimes discourage action and that marketers should focus on empowering consumers by showing them how their choices directly contribute to justice.

Many fair-trade brands, such as Divine Chocolate, market their products by clearly explaining on the packets of their products how buying their goods directly supports and helps to improve the lives of farmers and workers.

People’s belief in a just world can influence how they view and interact with AI. A study conducted by researchers in Korea examined the individual’s acceptance of AI technology in decision-making processes based on the belief in a just world theory and system justification theory.¹² A variation on the just world hypothesis, system justification theory posits that people are motivated (to varying degrees) to defend, bolster, and justify prevailing social, economic, and political arrangements.¹³ In other words, the status quo. 

The researchers conducted two studies. In the first, participants were asked to compare AI and humans in performing various jobs. Five professions in which fairness and objectivity are crucial were chosen: judge, journalist, doctor, teacher, and caregiver. The participants were then asked to rate on a sliding scale whether they believed the AI or human would be fairer and competent. Participants’ belief in a just world level was also measured.

The second study focused on hiring decision-making. This time, participants were divided into four groups in a 2 (Human vs. AI decision-maker) × 2 (Accepted vs. Rejected outcome) design. All participants were asked to read a hiring scenario where a job applicant (fictional) applied for a position. They were then told that the decision to either hire or accept the applicant was made by AI or a human recruiter; half of the participants were told that the applicant was accepted, and the other half were told that they were rejected. The participants were then asked to rate how acceptable and fair they found the decision.

The results of the first study show that people with weaker belief in a just world perceive AI as fairer and competent than human decision-makers. AI’s perceived fairness acted as a mediator, influencing how competent participants believed AI was at performing job-related tasks. People with stronger beliefs in a just world (who trust human-led systems), however, favor human decision-makers over AI. In the second study, the researchers found that participants who had weaker belief in a just world were more likely to accept hiring decisions made by AI, but this was only significant when they were accepted for a job. And just like in the first study, those with stronger belief in a just world and the fairness of human-led systems showed higher acceptance of human-led hiring decisions.

Overall, the studies show that people with less trust in the fairness of the current human-led system are more open to AI decision-making, seeing it as more impartial and competent. The just-world hypothesis plays an important role in how we perceive the fairness and acceptability of AI decision-making.

In addition to impacting our perspectives on AI, the salience bias can also manifest in algorithmic decision-making. Models trained on biased data may reinforce unjust assumptions, such as blaming individuals for their misfortunes or underestimating systemic inequalities. This can lead to ethical concerns in areas like predictive policing, hiring, and social services.

In one study by Rubin and Peplau, participants’ responses to drawings of the National Draft Lottery for the Vietnam War were recorded and analyzed.¹⁰ Groups of drafted men were asked to listen to the live broadcast in which their lottery numbers were assigned either high priority or low priority. Those with high-priority lottery numbers were more likely to be inducted and face a more dangerous fate than those with low-priority numbers. The drawings were entirely random, thus, no predetermining factors indicated the men’s outcomes.

They found that, for the most part, participants acted with sympathy towards those with a high-priority drawing. However, the results differed in those who scored highly for the just-world hypothesis. These participants had more resentment for the losers (those who received a high-priority number and were more likely to be sent into war), even though the losers were entirely victims of circumstance. The researchers suggested that this resentment was yielded by the need to “justify an underlying moral order.”

In a 1973 study at UCLA, Peplau investigated how the just-world hypothesis influenced political attitudes.¹¹ They found that high scores in belief in a just world indicated higher approval ratings for major political institutions, such as the “US Congress, Supreme Court, military, big business, and labor unions”.

Incidentally, this study took place during the Watergate Scandal, where the Nixon administration was accused of organizing a break-in to the Democratic National Committee office. The researchers ended up finding that participants scoring highly on a measure for strength of the just-world hypothesis were less likely to believe that President Nixon was guilty. These participants associated such high levels of success with a strong character and moral compass, thus, they did not believe that Nixon was capable of such deceptive acts.

As this study shows, the just-world hypothesis can impact citizens’ attitudes towards the political institutions and systems that serve them. A study by Márton Hadarics and Anna Kende looked at this phenomenon in societies with poor governance and inequality.¹¹ Using data from 29 different countries, they found that the belief in a just world strengthens positive attitudes toward the system, especially in low-performing countries where political and institutional failures and dysfunction are more evident. This misperception acts as a psychological buffer, helping people maintain subjective well-being by reducing distress over societal injustices. Essentially, when people cling to the idea that the world is fair, they are more likely to rationalize systemic problems rather than challenge them, reinforcing the status quo. 

In these contexts, the just-world hypothesis can distort people’s perceptions of the reality in which they live and, paradoxically, prevent them from recognizing and addressing societal inequalities. A kind of self-induced complacency, as it were.

What it is

First researched by Melvin J. Lerner, the just-world hypothesis (also referred to as the just-world bias, just-world fallacy, or just-world theory) refers to the belief that the world is fair and how morally we act will determine our outcomes. In other words, good things happen to good people, while bad things inevitably happen to bad people. With the just-world hypothesis comes a tendency to rationalize information around us to fit this belief.

Why it happens

For us, a just world is a predictable world; we expect a reward when we work hard, and we expect punishment for wrongdoings. The just-world hypothesis is a lens for understanding the world around us that provides stability. So, when we are faced with a situation that seems unjust, this results in cognitive dissonance between our beliefs about the world and reality. We mitigate this dissonance by finding ways to justify the injustice.

Example 1 –  How the just-world hypothesis changes our reaction to situations of luck

In a study done on the drawing of priority numbers for men drafted into the Vietnam War, men with high scores for the just-world hypothesis were more likely to have negative feelings towards those who had a higher chance of being sent to war.

Example 2 – How the just-world hypothesis can skew our perception of leaders

Those who have a strong belief in a just world may have higher approval for political leaders due to the assumption that one achieves success through high merit and moral strength. In a study surveying political attitudes during the Watergate Scandal, the participants with high scores for the just-world hypothesis were more likely to deny Nixon’s guilt.

How to avoid it

We can learn to avoid judgments clouded by the just-world hypothesis by moving from System 1 thinking (quickly made, intuitive responses) to System 2 (slower, analytical processing). Additionally, we can visualize ourselves in someone else’s position to encourage empathy and prevent victim-blaming.

Illusion of Control

The just-world hypothesis laid the groundwork for Ellen Langer’s research on the illusion of control, our tendency to believe we have greater control over events than we actually do. As with the just world hypothesis, the illusion of control involves inventing causal explanations for events without necessarily applying reason or logic to them. 

Beyond Bias with Olivier Sibony

Judgment is an important concept in behavioral science and in our everyday lives. In this article and podcast episode, Brooke Struck talks to Olivier Sibony about the concept of noise, or the variability in human judgments that leads to inconsistent decision-making. Sibony explains that, unlike biases, which are systematic errors, noise represents random discrepancies that can significantly impact outcomes in areas like criminal justice and business.