UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A test of the just world hypothesis : sympathy for victims, blame for victimizers Boutilier, Robert Gordon 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 B68.pdf [ 5.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093876.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093876-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093876-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093876-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093876-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093876-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093876-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093876-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093876.ris

Full Text

A TEST OF THE JUST WORLD HYPOTHESIS: SYMPATHY FOR VICTIMS, BLAME FOR VICTIMIZERS by ROBERT GORDON BOUTILIER B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f Western O n t a r i o , 1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  i n the Department of Psychology  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming required  t o the  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1975  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  an advanced degree at the L i b r a r y s h a l l I  f u r t h e r agree  in p a r t i a l  fulfilment of  the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  make i t  freely available  that permission  for  the requirements f o r  Columbia,  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  this  that  study. thesis  f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s of  representatives.  this  thesis  It  is understood that  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l  written permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  Date  kJ<nS >Z~Y  Columbia  copying or p u b l i c a t i o n  not be allowed without my  ABSTRACT  The performance before p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis  speci-  f i e s t h a t v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n o n l y occurs when w i t n e s s e s cannot  f i n d the v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the s u f f e r i n g on  b a s i s of any performed  act.  the  D e v a l u a t i o n c o n s i s t s of a t t r i b u t -  i n g negative p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t o a v i c t i m and c l a i m i n g t h a t he deserved t o s u f f e r .  The J u s t World Hypothesis  attempts  to  p r o v i d e a m o t i v a t i o n a l e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the phenomenon.  In so  doing, i t a t t r i b u t e s two  the  needs t o the o b s e r v e r .  First,  v i c t i m i z a t i o n evokes i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y which must be  reduced.  I t can be reduced by c o n s t r u i n g the v i c t i m i z a t i o n as fied.  justi-  Second, observers are t h e r e f o r e h y p o t h e s i z e d to have  a need t o b e l i e v e t h a t the world i s j u s t .  Consequently,  observers devalue v i c t i m s thereby denying the occurrence of injustice.  Since t h i s p r e s e r v e s the j u s t world b e l i e f , i t  a l s o helps reduce  inequity anxiety.  In the o n l y p u b l i s h e d experiment Belief  (JWB)  c o r r e l a t i n g J u s t World  scores with v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n (Rubin and  Peplau,  1973), u n c o n t r o l l a b l e confounds and e q u i v o c a l r e s u l t s p r e vented any c o n c l u s i v e data i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . used items f o r two JWB.  The  independent  The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h  sources to assess s u b j e c t s  1  scores were combined to produce a t h i r d , h i g h l y  homogenious index of  JWB.  A f t e r a c r i t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e review, two  addenda, and  a l t e r n a t i v e , to the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y  one  subhypothesis  iii  were presented. hypothesis.  The a l t e r n a t i v e was the blame-sympathy-  The p r e d i c t i o n s o f both hypotheses were compared.  S e v e r a l p o s s i b l e meanings o f the term " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and the dependent v a r i a b l e s designed  t o assess  them were d i s -  cussed. S i x t y - t h r e e s u b j e c t s completed two JWB s c a l e s three t o f o u r weeks before p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the experimental along with  31 unpretested  volunteers.  Among the 12 t o 19  s u b j e c t s assembled f o r each s e s s i o n was a female The  sessions  confederate.  experimenter s t a t e d t h a t i n o r d e r t o study people's per-  c e p t i o n s o f o t h e r people i n s t r e s s i t would be necessary t o s e l e c t one person t o r e c e i v e shocks i n a v e r b a l l e a r n i n g task which would be broadcast  over c l o s e d c i r c u i t T.V.  By a con-  t r i v a n c e , t h e c o n f e d e r a t e - v i c t i m appeared t o be randomly chosen to  be the " l e a r n e r " .  She l e f t the room before the experimenter  began p l a y i n g one o f two v e r s i o n s o f a videotape victimizer-experimenter  (another  confederate)  on which the  shocked the  v i c t i m e i t h e r c o n t i n g e n t l y upon wrong responses or n o n - c o n t i n g e n t l y task.  (CS c o n d i t i o n )  (NCS) a t random i n t e r v a l s throughout the  A t t h e end o f the videotape  s u b j e c t s completed a  q u e s t i o n n a i r e which measured p e r s o n a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s and a t t r i b u t i o n s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the v i c t i m and the v i c t i m i z e r . The J u s t World Hypothesis was not supported. nothing.  No v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n o c c u r r e d .  JWB p r e d i c t e d  JWB may be r e l a t e d  to v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n but the J u s t World Hypothesis i s not d e t a i l e d enough to p r e d i c t when i t w i l l occur.  The absence  of v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n may be a r e s u l t o f an i n t e r a c t i o n between  iv  information unfairness  provided  by p o s t - t e s t items and the p e r c e i v e d  o f the shock contingency c o n d i t i o n s .  The f a c t  t h a t , i n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y items, an experimenter was s u b j e c t s t o comment on h i s own r e s e a r c h  asking  e t h i c s may have  c r e a t e d demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e s p e c i a l l y i n the c o n d i t i o n where the v i c t i m s u f f e r e d g r e a t e r anxiety  inequity  (NCS).  Inequity  does, a t l e a s t , i n f l u e n c e the i n t e n s i t y o f r e a c t i o n s  to both v i c t i m s and v i c t i m i z e r s .  There are many a l t e r n a t e  pathways along which the i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y might be manifested. I t was suggested t h a t a move towards more mundane r e a l i s m i n t h i s l i n e o f r e s e a r c h might e l i m i n a t e  some o f the pathways  which a r i s e p r i m a r i l y from a r t i f a c t t i a l sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n embedded i n t h e context The  o f the psychology experiment i t s e l f .  performance before  no support. supported. contingency.  p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis  received  The a l t e r n a t i v e blaming h y p o t h e s i s was s t r o n g l y There was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r shock In the NCS c o n d i t i o n the v i c t i m i z e r was blamed  while the v i c t i m r e c e i v e d  sympathy.  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.  Introduction  2.  CHAPTER ONE: AN EXPLICATION OF THE JUST WORLD  .  HYPOTHESIS  3.  x  3  A.  The V i c t i m Devaluation  Phenomenon  3  B.  Informational  C.  J u s t World B e l i e f and Inequity  D.  Important Moderating V a r i a b l e s  E.  Performance Before P e r s o n a l i t y Subhypothesis .  10  F.  Summary.  12  vs. Motivational Explanations. Anxiety  .  . . . .  14  Research E x t r a p o l a t i n g from S i t u a t i o n a l l y Aroused I n e q u i t y Anxiety  t o J u s t World  Belief  14  B.  Research Measuring J u s t World B e l i e f  C.  Evidence Bearing  18  on the Performance Before  P e r s o n a l i t y Subhypothesis Lerner The D.  7 9  CHAPTER TWO: TESTING THE JUST WORLD HYPOTHESIS . . . A.  4  21  and Matthews  22  Blaming Hypothesis  25  Assessment S t r a t e g i e s f o r the Performance Before P e r s o n a l i t y Subhypothesis and A l t e r n a t i v e Hypotheses The  R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Items  Hypothesized I n t e r - i t e m R e l a t i o n s h i p s . E.  26 26 . .  34  I n t e r n a l V a l i d i t y : C o n t r o l F a c t o r s and Manipulation  Checks  37  vi Page F. 4.  Summary and  Formal Hypotheses  CHAPTER THREE: METHOD  41  A.  Subjects  41  B.  Materials  43  Pretest Questionnaires.  C. 5.  39  . .  43  Videotape  43  Post-Experimental Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  44  Procedure  46  CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS  50  A.  F a i l u r e to Confirm the J u s t World Hypothesis.  50  B.  Main E f f e c t f o r Shock Contingency  53  C.  F a i l u r e to Confirm the Performance Before P e r s o n a l i t y Subhypothesis  6.  57  D.  Victimzer  Blame and V i c t i m Sympathy  59  E.  I n t e r n a l V a l i d i t y : M a r g i n a l Order E f f e c t . . .  62  F.  Summary  64  CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION A.  Inequity and  B.  66  A n x i e t y as an I n t e n s i t y Parameter  the I n e f f i c a c y of J u s t World B e l i e f . .  R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A t t r i b u t i o n s and  66  Personality  Evaluations  68  F a i l u r e of the Performance Before Personality Predictions Unpredicted Blame and C.  Sympathy  E x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the Absence o f Devaluation . . . . .  68 69  Victim 70  vii Page Adequacy o f the Deception  70  I n t e r a c t i o n Between V i c t i m i z e r E v a l u a t i o n s and P e r c e i v e d U n f a i r e n e s s D.  71  A r t i f a c t u a l Information V a r i a b l e s as D i r e c t i o n Parameters  E.  72  A t t r i b u t i o n a l S e t : An Information P r e r e q u i s i t e f o r Blame and Sympathy?  F.  Suggestions  74  f o r Future Research Using an  Informational Orientation  77  Problems t o be Considered Advantages o f Greater Mundane Realism G.  Summary  77 . . .  78 81  7.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  83  8.  APPENDICIES  86  Appendix A:  Pretest Questionnaires  Appendix B:  Post-Experimental  86  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . . . . 100  viii  LIST OF TABLES Page 1.  Dependent v a r i a b l e s :  Code numbers, item l a b e l s  and o r d i n a l p o s i t i o n s on p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l questionnaires  . .  2.  Account o f s u b j e c t  participation  3.  Frequencies produced by median and t e r t i l e  27 42  splits  on  two measures o f J u s t World B e l i e f f a c t o r 4.  MANOVA summary of shock main e f f e c t  5.  C o r r e l a t i o n matrix f o r blame c l u s t e r o f v a r i a b l e s .  52 54 .  61  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I would l i k e t o express my g r a t i t u d e t o Dr. Thomas Storm and Dr. W i l l i a m T u r n b u l l f o r t h e i r h e l p f u l , thought suggestions and c r i t i c i s m s a t every stage o f t h i s  provoking  study.  I would a l s o l i k e t o thank N e i l Kyle and Katherine Doran f o r t h e i r c o n v i n c i n g p o r t r a y a l s o f the v i c t i m i z e r and the victim  respectively.  1  A TEST OF THE SYMPATHY FOR  The  JUST WORLD HYPOTHESIS:  VICTIMS, BLAME FOR  VICTIMIZERS  study o f o b s e r v e r s ' r e a c t i o n s t o i n n o c e n t l y s u f f e r i n g  v i c t i m s has b e a r i n g upon a number of c u r r e n t t o p i c s of g a t i o n i n s o c i a l psychology.  A t t r i b u t i o n theory i n g e n e r a l ,  and more d i r e c t l y , a t t r i b u t i o n s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y may e x p l a i n o b s e r v e r s ' r e a c t i o n s to v i c t i m s . of  these r e a c t i o n s themselves  the a t t r i b u t i o n a l p r o c e s s .  investi-  help  Moreover, the study  can p r o v i d e new  p e r s p e c t i v e s on  The observer's r e a c t i o n to an  i n c i d e n t of v i c t i m i z a t i o n i s a l s o i n e x t r i c a b l y bound up i n the phenomenon o f bystander n o n - i n t e r v e n t i o n .  The type o f v i c t i m -  i z a t i o n emphasized i n the bystander r e s e a r c h u s u a l l y i n v o l v e s some type o f c r i s i s or emergency event.  There a r e , however,  o t h e r kinds o f v i c t i m i z a t i o n which do not t r a n s p i r e i n emergency situations.  These are of a more g e n e r a l nature and  probably  c o n s t i t u t e the bulk of v i c t i m i z a t i o n i n c i d e n t s a person i s likely  to encounter  i n his daily l i f e .  In t h i s category  we  f i n d such phenomena as u n f a i r laws and i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e g u l a t i o n s as w e l l as the abuse of a u t h o r i t y by v a r i o u s o f f i c i a l s and b u r e a u c r a t s .  The poverty i n Black ghettos and  r e s e r v e s i n North America r e f l e c t an extremely  Indian  complicated  process of e x p l o i t a t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n g a form of v i c t i m i z a t i o n which does not occur i n emergency s i t u a t i o n s . i n d i f f e r e n c e o f New  I t was  the  York medical students t o the tremendous  problems f a c i n g ghetto d w e l l e r s attempting t o o b t a i n adequate  2  medical s e r v i c e s which l e d M e l v i n J . L e r n e r t o stop t e a c h i n g community medicine and begin doing r e s e a r c h on the phenomenon of v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n .  3  CHAPTER ONE:  AN EXPLICATION OF THE  JUST WORLD HYPOTHESIS  Under the g e n e r a l r u b r i c of the " J u s t World Hypothesis" Lerner  (1970) p r e s e n t s experimental r e s u l t s and  hypothesized  e x p l a n a t i o n s which are fundamental enough to apply t o a l l types of v i c t i m i z a t i o n .  Without r e f e r r i n g t o any  specific  experimental r e s u l t s , t h i s chapter p r o v i d e s a b r i e f summary of  the concepts  i n v o l v e d i n the J u s t World Hypothesis and  they are i n t e r r e l a t e d . i s d e a l t w i t h i n Chapter  how  The e m p i r i c a l v a l i d i t y of the hypothesis 2.  In the present chapter the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the phenomenon to be e x p l a i n e d i s f o l l o w e d by i t s h y p o t h e s i z e d e x p l a n a t i o n . Then, some o f the important moderating  v a r i a b l e s are d i s c u s s e d .  F i n a l l y , an important q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f the h y p o t h e s i z e d  explan-  a t i o n i s examined. A.  The V i c t i m D e v a l u a t i o n Phenomenon The J u s t World Hypothesis p u r p o r t s t o e x p l a i n the  phenomenon of v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n . set  Victim devaluation i s a  o f a t t r i b u t i o n s made by an observer about a v i c t i m .  a t t r i b u t i o n s f a l l i n t o two main c l a s s e s . o f t e n derogates  These  F i r s t , the observer  the p e r s o n a l worth o f the v i c t i m .  That i s ,  he a t t r i b u t e s to the v i c t i m any v a r i e t y o f n e g a t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s such as s t u p i d i t y , immaturity,  s e l f i s h n e s s , and so on.  Second, the observer i s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y prone t o making  judge-  ments about the j u s t n e s s of the v i c t i m ' s predicament.  More  explicitly,  he tends t o say t h a t the v i c t i m deserved h i s f a t e .  4  There are two h y p o t h e t i c a l p r e c o n d i t i o n s f o r v i c t i m devaluation.  I t o n l y occurs when the v i c t i m i s innocent  the observer needs to b e l i e v e t h a t the world i s j u s t . c o n d i t i o n s , however, are not s u f f i c i e n t . d i s c o v e r e d f a c t o r s are a l s o necessary. example, must be unable  and  These  Several empirically The o b s e r v e r , f o r  to help the v i c t i m .  F u r t h e r , the  observer must p e r c e i v e no a l t e r n a t i v e t a r g e t s f o r blame besides the v i c t i m .  A number of o t h e r v a r i a b l e s have a l s o been  to determine  the occurrence o f v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n .  Generally,  i t c o u l d be s a i d t h a t the phenomenon occurs o n l y under unusual circumstances. have succeeded  found  fairly  N e v e r t h e l e s s , Lerner and h i s c o l l e a g u e s  i n r e p r o d u c i n g these circumstances many times  i n the l a b o r a t o r y . Before a r t i c u l a t i n g the d e t a i l s o f the J u s t World Hypothesis,  an attempt  i s made t o h i g h l i g h t i t s u n d e r l y i n g  assumptions by c o n t r a s t i n g i t with another p o s s i b l e approach to e x p l a i n i n g the v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n phenomenon. B.  Information vs. M o t i v a t i o n a l E x p l a n a t i o n s There are two b a s i c approaches t h a t one may  take.  The  i n f o r m a t i o n a l approach t r i e s to s p e c i f y what i n f o r m a t i o n l e d to the observer's r e a c t i o n .  I t assumes t h a t the observer  makes a t t r i b u t i o n s towards persons  being v i c t i m i z e d a c c o r d i n g  to the same processes through which he makes a t t r i b u t i o n s t o anyone e l s e i n any o t h e r s i t u a t i o n . processes are understood, d e r o g a t i o n reduces  Once normal a t t r i b u t i o n  the problem of e x p l a i n i n g v i c t i m  t o one of i s o l a t i n g the items of i n f o r m a t i o n  5  t h a t produced these p a r t i c u l a r a t t r i b u t i o n s about the v i c t i m and  about the c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The m o t i v a t i o n a l  approach, on the other hand, seeks t o  account f o r the phenomenon by i d e n t i f y i n g exceptions  t o the  normal a t t r i b u t i o n a l process when i t i s a p p l i e d t o observers' reactions to victims.  These exceptions  d e r i v e from c e r t a i n  needs o r motives which are aroused i n people when they observe incidents of v i c t i m i z a t i o n . information  T h i s approach assumes t h a t the  a v a i l a b l e and a s s i m i l a t e d f o r p r o c e s s i n g  form f o r a l l o b s e r v e r s .  i s uni-  The J u s t World Hypothesis f a l l s  into  t h i s class of explanation. The  J u s t World Hypothesis i s r e c u r s i v e i n s o f a r as i t  turns the a t t r i b u t i o n a l process back onto the observer o f the v i c t i m .  I t proposes t h a t a l l observers p e r c e i v e the  v i c t i m as innocent psychoanalytic  but then deny t h a t p e r c e p t i o n .  From a  viewpoint, d e n i a l i s always e x p l a i n e d  of a subconscious need o r d e s i r e .  i n terms  The J u s t World Hypothesis  suggests t h a t t h i s need i s the need t o b e l i e v e t h a t the world is just.  T h i s motive i s a t t r i b u t e d t o the o b s e r v e r on the  b a s i s o f i n f e r e n c e s made from h i s behavior.  The reasoning  may be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as f o l l o w s : (a)  I t i s obvious t o everyone t h a t the v i c t i m i s innocent.  (b)  This inequity creates inequity anxiety  i n everyone  who observes t h e v i c t i m i z a t i o n . (c)  O v e r t l y , the observer denies the i n e q u i t y by saying  t h a t the v i c t i m deserved h i s f a t e .  6  (d)  Since  the o b s e r v e r ' s a t t r i b u t i o n s c o n t r a d i c t the f a c t s  presented to him, he must be engaging i n some form o f c o g n i t i v e distortion. (e)  I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t the c o g n i t i v e d i s t o r t i o n a r i s e s  from a c o n f l i c t between what the observer wants t o p e r c e i v e and what he a c t u a l l y does p e r c e i v e . (f)  The observer a s s e r t s t h a t what he wants t o be t r u e , i s  true. (g)  The o b s e r v e r then  his perception  (apparently  unconsciously)  reformulates  o f the s i t u a t i o n t o make i t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h how  he wants the s i t u a t i o n t o be. A l l t h a t remains i s t o s p e c i f y i n statement i s t h a t t h e observer wants t o p e r c e i v e .  (e) what i t  Since t h i s i s appar-  e n t l y an unconscious d e s i r e i t cannot be observed d i r e c t l y . We can, however, observe the observer's r e f o r m u l a t e d of the s i t u a t i o n and then e x t r a p o l a t e observer has reformulated  backwards.  h i s perception  perception  Since the  o f the s i t u a t i o n t o  be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a b e l i e f t h a t t h e world i s j u s t , he must want t o b e l i e v e t h a t the world i s j u s t .  That i s , he wants t o  b e l i e v e t h a t people get what they deserve and deserve what they get.  T h i s i s a concept o f j u s t i c e based on the p r i n c i p l e o f  equity.  A person's " e q u i t y r a t i o " i s a measure o f the p r o -  p o r t i o n a l i t y o f h i s i n p u t s i n t o a s i t u a t i o n t o h i s outcomes from t h e s i t u a t i o n .  The J u s t World Hypothesis proposes t h a t  the observer needs t o b e l i e v e t h a t everyone's, p a r t i c u l a r l y the v i c t i m ' s outcomes a p p r o p r i a t e l y r e f l e c t h i s i n p u t s . b e l i e f i s valued  This  and guarded because i t has the power t o reduce  7  inequity anxiety. more fundamental  A l l observers are a t t r i b u t e d w i t h an even  need than J u s t World B e l i e f .  Specifically,  everyone needs t o reduce i n e q u i t y when i t has been aroused. C.  J u s t World B e l i e f and I n e q u i t y A n x i e t y A c c o r d i n g to L e r n e r , what motivates a person to p r o t e c t  h i s b e l i e f i n a j u s t world i s the need t o a v o i d the a n x i e t y t h a t would accompany the a l t e r n a t i v e b e l i e f .  Novak and Lerner  (1968, p. 147)  " I f people were  e x p l a i n t h i s need as f o l l o w s :  not able to b e l i e v e they c o u l d get what they wanted and a v o i d what they d i s l i k e by performing c e r t a i n a p p r o p r i a t e a c t s , they would be anxious and,  i n the extreme, i n c a p a c i t a t e d . "  Thus, people t r y to p r o t e c t the b e l i e f t h a t they have c o n t r o l over t h e i r own happens to them.  f a t e s and are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r what  The s u f f e r i n g o f an innocent v i c t i m i s an  example o f someone r e c e i v i n g an undeserved  negative fate  as such i s a t h r e a t to the J u s t World B e l i e f .  and  In o r d e r to  r e s t o r e the p e r c e p t i o n of j u s t i c e , people devalue the v i c t i m ' s p e r s o n a l i t y , thereby making i t p o s s i b l e t o c l a i m t h a t no i n j u s t i c e has t r a n s p i r e d because  the v i c t i m was  and t h e r e f o r e "deserved" to s u f f e r .  a bad person  The o b s e r v e r , t h e r e f o r e ,  can a l l a y h i s a n x i e t y about r e c e i v i n g undeserved  punishment  ( i . e . i n e q u i t y anxiety) by reminding h i m s e l f t h a t s i n c e t h i n g s o n l y happen t o bad people, he  bad  (being a good person)  nothing to fear. The v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n phenomenon i s h y p o t h e s i z e d to occur among those i n d i v i d u a l s who  d e a l w i t h the a r o u s a l o f  has  8  i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y by denying the e x i s t e n c e According disposed  to Lerner,  do not need to b e l i e v e t h a t the world i s j u s t i s t h a t they  how  No  account i s o f f e r e d  they d e a l with t h e i r i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y .  the response to i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y on at l e a s t one Inequity  Nonetheless,  d i f f e r s among i n d i v i d u a l s  a n x i e t y , however, i s manifested not o n l y as a Some s i t u a t i o n s are so  t h a t everyone, no matter how world to be,  regard-  dimension, t h a t of J u s t World B e l i e f .  t r a i t but a l s o as a s t a t e .  inequitable  j u s t o r u n j u s t he b e l i e v e s  i s t r o u b l e d by the i n j u s t i c e he observes.  s i t u a t i o n s can be c o n t r i v e d which w i l l of inequity anxiety. v i c t i m evaluations  The  arouse v a r y i n g  e f f e c t s of i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y  can be s t u d i e d by a r o u s i n g  When t h i s i s the aim o f the r e s e a r c h , any  deserved  A l l t h a t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d with r e s p e c t t o people  engage i n l e s s v i c t i m d e r o g a t i o n . ing  inequity.  these J u s t World B e l i e v e r s are more p r e -  to r e i n t e r p r e t i n e q u i t a b l e s u f f e r i n g as  suffering. who  o f the  the Thus,  degrees on  i t directly.  there i s no need to take  account o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n J u s t World B e l i e f  s i n c e the m a n i p u l a t i o n of the v i c t i m ' s e q u i t y r a t i o i n a s i t u a t i o n w i l l arouse v a r y i n g  l e v e l s of i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y  in  everyone. Once the r e l a t i o n s h i p between high s t a t e i n e q u i t y and  high v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n  has  anxiety  been e s t a b l i s h e d , however, the  mediating f u n c t i o n o f J u s t World B e l i e f becomes important. J u s t World B e l i e f i s a h y p o t h e t i c a l mechanism e x p l a i n i n g relationship.  When the purpose o f the r e s e a r c h  the  i s to e s t a b l i s h  the adequacy o f J u s t World B e l i e f as a mediating v a r i a b l e , a  9  change i n s t r a t e g y i s r e q u i r e d .  Since J u s t World B e l i e f i s  a t r a i t - l i k e c o n s t r u c t i t cannot be d i r e c t l y manipulated as can  inequity anxiety.  person to person. anxiety  We  can only measure i t s v a r i a t i o n from  I f J u s t World B e l i e f does i n f a c t t r a n s l a t e  into v i c t i m devaluation  then J u s t World B e l i e f  be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n .  should  Before J u s t  World B e l i e f can even be c o r r e l a t e d with v i c t i m  devaluation,  they must both be measured. D.  Important Moderating V a r i a b l e s The  v a r i a b l e s which have most o f t e n been shown to moder-  ate v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n  d e a l w i t h the i n t e n s i t y and  the v i c t i m ' s s u f f e r i n g .  duration  E s s e n t i a l l y , these v a r i a b l e s  degrees o f i n e q u i t y o r i n j u s t i c e .  of  reflect  Thus, those v a r i a b l e s  are  q u a n t i f i c a t i o n s o f a c e n t r a l concept i n the J u s t World Hypothesis, the concept o f i n e q u i t y .  The e f f e c t s o f one  however, have n e c e s s i t a t e d the f o r m u l a t i o n to account f o r them. ality"  subhypothesis.  T h i s i s the  other v a r i a b l e ,  of a subhypothesis  "performance before  person-  I t i s concerned w i t h the e f f e c t s o f  v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and  i s d e a l t with  F i r s t l e t us c o n s i d e r  later.  the v a r i a b l e s which i n f l u e n c e  i n t e n s i t y o f the v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n .  Since  the  the o b s e r v e r needs  to b e l i e v e t h a t the v i c t i m ' s outcomes from the s i t u a t i o n a p p r o p r i a t e l y match h i s i n p u t s , any would t h r e a t e n  the o b s e r v e r ' s J u s t World B e l i e f by  inequity anxiety aroused should  evidence to the  i n him.  The  contrary evoking  amount o f the i n e q u i t y  anxiety  be a f u n c t i o n of the amount of i n e q u i t y  suffered  10  by the v i c t i m .  Given two  v i c t i m s who  made equal  inputs into  the same s i t u a t i o n , the v i c t i m with the more negative would arouse more i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y i n o b s e r v e r s . observers  along dimensions such as the  the i n t e n s i t y o f the s u f f e r i n g .  Likewise,  a v i c t i m who  E.  The  (Lerner, 1971b; Hardy,  l e s s than one  (Lerner, 1971b; Lerner  Performance Before  duration  r e c e i v e d monetary compensation  f o r h i s s u f f e r i n g would be devalued no compensation  who  received  and Simmons, 1966).  P e r s o n a l i t y Subhypothesis  degree o f v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n  can a l s o be  influenced  by the extent of the v i c t i m ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s suffering.  Victim  Longer and more i n t e n s e  s u f f e r i n g leads to g r e a t e r d e v a l u a t i o n 1972).  Hence, the  would devalue t h a t v i c t i m more vehemently.  outcomes are e v a l u a t e d and  outcome  own  T h i s seemingly s t r a i g h t forward o b s e r v a t i o n  led to complications  f o r the J u s t World Hypothesis.  the problems a r i s e from the d i f f i c u l t i e s  associated  has  Ultimately, with  o b j e c t i v e l y determining  a person's g u i l t o r innocence without  f i r s t making some value  laden assumptions about when i t i s  appropriate  and  j u s t to h o l d someone r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the out-  comes of h i s a c t i o n s . hypothesis  The  performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y  i s a step i n the d i r e c t i o n of a value  decision rule.  sub-  free, objective  I t i s a p r e l i m i n a r y step towards o p e r a t i o n a l l y  d e f i n i n g what types of i n p u t s , given equal outcomes, d i s t i n g u i s h "innocent  v i c t i m s " from people who  i n g upon themselves.  do i n f a c t b r i n g t h e i r s u f f e r -  I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , a move towards d e f i n i n g  the l i m i t s of a p p l i c a b i l i t y f o r the J u s t World Hypothesis.  11  That i s because the J u s t World Hypothesis o n l y seeks t o e x p l a i n r e a c t i o n s to innocent v i c t i m s . People who are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own s u f f e r i n g have made negative i n p u t s i n t o a s i t u a t i o n .  Since these i n p u t s are  a p p r o p r i a t e l y matched w i t h n e g a t i v e outcomes, no i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y i s aroused and t h e r e f o r e no v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n o c c u r s . The observer's J u s t World B e l i e f i s o n l y threatened by innocent v i c t i m s , v i c t i m s who a r e not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own s u f f e r ing.  The observer copes w i t h t h i s t h r e a t by c l a i m i n g t h a t the  innocent v i c t i m i s not innocent.  In order t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s  c l a i m the observer must d i s c o v e r some h i t h e r t o u n n o t i c e d negat i v e i n p u t t h a t the v i c t i m makes i n the s i t u a t i o n .  Furthermore,  t h i s n e g a t i v e i n p u t must be o f the type t h a t w i l l most e f f e c t i v e l y reduce  the observers i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y .  The performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y hypothesis d i v i d e s i n p u t s i n t o two types. his  A v i c t i m can be construed as d e s e r v i n g  f a t e on the b a s i s o f e i t h e r what he d i d o r what he i s l i k e .  R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e s u f f e r i n g can be seen as a f u n c t i o n o f e i t h e r type o f negative i n p u t ; a performed  a c t which p r e c i p i -  t a t e s the s u f f e r i n g , o r an u n d e s i r a b l e p e r s o n a l t r a i t which invites retributive justice. p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis  S u c c i n c t l y , the performance before  i s t h a t observers w i l l only a t t r i b u t e  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on t h e b a s i s o f p e r s o n a l i t y when they f i n d any performed  cannot  a c t t h a t made the v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b l e .  follows i s a personal i n t e r p r e t a t i o n The subhypothesis  of t h i s  What  subhypothesis.  can be thought o f as an e x t e n s i o n and  a refinement o f the i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y concept.  Inequity anxiety  11  i s a r e a c t i o n to the b e l i e f t h a t one or avoid what one  cannot get what one  d i s l i k e s by performing a p p r o p r i a t e  i s not a r e a c t i o n to the b e l i e f t h a t one  wants  acts.  It  cannot get goodies or  avoid n a s t i e s simply by v i r t u e of p e r s o n a l worth independent of a c t s .  P e r s o n a l worth i s only  tangentially relevant.  performance before p e r s o n a l i t y h y p o t h e s i s i m p l i e s observer, p e r s o n a l i t y based r e s p o n s i b l i t y f o r g o a l i s a more a b s t r a c t and ascribed  tenuous c a u s a l  factor.  a t t r i b u t e which summarizes any  based e f f i c a c y h a b i t u a l l y d i s p l a y e d Therefore, inequity anxiety  t h a t to  Generalizing  It is a hastily  type o f performance  by a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l .  i s more e f f e c t i v e l y reduced  first  suffering equitable.  Only  Hence, the performance b e f o r e defines  who  observable a c t to b r i n g the  upon  an  victim's  personality  subhypothesis i m p l i c i t l y not performed any  there-  of a j u s t world by  when t h i s i s i m p o s s i b l e w i l l the observer devalue the  has  than  t h i s to the v i c t i m , the observer w i l l  f o r an a c t which made the  p e r s o n a l worth.  by  traits.  f o r e t r y to preserve h i s p e r c e p t i o n looking  the  attainment  matching n e g a t i v e outcomes w i t h n e g a t i v e a c t s r a t h e r with negative p e r s o n a l i t y  The  "innocent" v i c t i m as  one  suffering  himself. I t should be noted i n p a s s i n g t h a t what t h i s subhypothesis  f a i l s to make c l e a r i s how  the observer a r r i v e s at h i s a t t r i b u -  t i o n s of s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y defects negative a t t r i b u t i o n s are  i n the v i c t i m .  l i k e most o t h e r a t t r i b u t i o n s , they  are i n f e r r e d from observable performed a c t s . performed a c t s  If  I f inferences  form the content of v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n ,  one  from  12  wonders why the observer would bother t o i n f e r p e r s o n a l i t y d e f e c t s when he c o u l d more e f f e c t i v e l y reduce h i s i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y by r e l a t i n g the v i c t i m ' s behavior d i r e c t l y t o the suffering.  What the performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y subhypo-  t h e s i s seems t o imply i s t h a t the n e g a t i v e  characteristics  a t t r i b u t e d t o the v i c t i m when d e v a l u a t i o n occurs are i n f e r r e d from observable behaviors which c o n s t i t u t e n e i t h e r necessary nor s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n s f o r subsequent s u f f e r i n g .  For  example, they may be b e h a v i o r s i n the realms o f body language o r speaking s t y l e .  These w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as " p e r s o n a l i t y  revealing behaviors". F.  Summary The performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis  speci-  f i e s t h a t v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n w i l l o n l y occur when observers cannot  f i n d the v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s s u f f e r i n g on the  b a s i s o f any performed  act.  The d e v a l u a t i o n c o n s i s t s o f  a t t r i b u t i n g n e g a t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t o the v i c t i m . J u s t World Hypothesis  attempts  to provide a motivational •  explanation f o r v i c t i m devaluation. two needs t o the observer.  The  In so doing i t a t t r i b u t e s  F i r s t , the i n c i d e n t o f v i c t i m i z a -  t i o n evokes i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y and the need t o reduce  it.  The  i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y can be reduced by c o n s t r u i n g the world, and the v i c t i m i z a t i o n , as j u s t .  T h e r e f o r e , observers are hypo-  t h e s i z e d t o have a second need, the need t o b e l i e v e i n a j u s t world.  In order t o meet t h a t need observers devalue v i c t i m s  thereby denying the occurrence o f i n j u s t i c e .  Since t h i s  13  p r e s e r v e s the b e l i e f i n the j u s t world, i t a l s o maintains avenue f o r i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y r e d u c t i o n .  an  Other p o s s i b l e avenues  are not d e a l t w i t h by the h y p o t h e s i s . Any two  attempt  requirements.  v i c t i m who  to t e s t the J u s t World Hypothesis must meet F i r s t , i t must present observers w i t h a  performed  no a c t t o b r i n g about h i s f a t e .  When  c o n t r a s t e d w i t h a l e s s innocent v i c t i m t h i s would c o n s t i t u t e a manipulation of inequity anxiety. observer's J u s t World B e l i e f .  Second, i t must measure the  J u s t World B e l i e f should p r e d i c t  v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n under c o n d i t i o n s of i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y a r o u s a l .  14  CHAPTER TWO:  TESTING THE JUST WORLD HYPOTHESIS  T h i s chapter i s a c r i t i c a l review o f the major on the J u s t World Hypothesis to date.  studies  The c r i t i c i s m s proposed  p r o v i d e the r a t i o n a l e f o r the d e s i g n o f the p r e s e n t experiment. None o f the e a r l i e r experiments i n the J u s t World a c t u a l l y measured J u s t World B e l i e f .  literature  The i n i t i a l attempt to  measure J u s t World B e l i e f was made by Rubin and P e p l a u (1973) . T h i s study y i e l d e d e q u i v o c a l r e s u l t s .  The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h  attempted t o circumvent some o f the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l problems t h a t might have hampered Rubin and Peplau. The performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis never adequately d e f i n e s i t s key concept, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .  Moreover,  the f i n d i n g s which supposedly support the subhypothesis are open to numerous a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . the blaming h y p o t h e s i s , i s examined. d i s c u s s i o n o f dependent  One  alternative,  T h i s i s f o l l o w e d by a  and independent v a r i a b l e s intended  to assess the i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y o f the p r e s e n t experiment. F i n a l l y , the formal hypotheses o f t h i s experiment are p r e sented . A.  Research E x t r a p o l a t i n g From S i t u a t i o n a l l y Aroused I n e q u i t y A n x i e t y t o J u s t World  Belief  Most of the evidence s u p p o r t i n g the J u s t World Hypot h e s i s comes from s t u d i e s i n which the v i c t i m ' s e q u i t y  ratio  was manipulated by changing the s e v e r i t y o f h i s outcomes i n a situation.  Note t h a t t h i s approach does not permit any  15  c o n c l u s i v e i n f e r e n c e s about J u s t World B e l i e f as a mediating mechanism between i n e q u i t y and v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n .  In the  t y p i c a l paradigm the punishment takes the form o f f e i g n e d e l e c t r i c shock d e l i v e r e d t o a videotaped v i c t i m who i s presented  female  as a p a r t i c i p a n t i n a p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e  v e r b a l l e a r n i n g experiment being broadcast T.V.  I f the observers  videotape,  confederate-  over c l o s e d c i r c u i t  b e l i e v e t h a t they are o n l y watching a  o r i f they b e l i e v e t h a t the v i c t i m i s o n l y a c t i n g  as i f she were being shocked  (which i s , i n f a c t , the c a s e ) ,  then they devalue her l e s s , i f a t a l l (Lerner, 1971b). e x p l a i n s t h i s by n o t i n g t h a t f e i g n e d shocks are l e s s than r e a l shocks and t h e r e f o r e present observer's  for  "unjust"  l e s s o f a t h r e a t t o the  need t o b e l i e v e t h a t the world  there i s l i t t l e  i s just.  Since  t h r e a t t o t h i s b e l i e f , there i s l i t t l e  v i c t i m devaluation.  Lerner  need  In the same experiment the amount o f  v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o the expected d u r a t i o n o f the v i c t i m ' s s u f f e r i n g .  Lerner noted t h a t  longer  d u r a t i o n s o f s u f f e r i n g are more unjust than s h o r t e r d u r a t i o n s , g i v e n equal i n p u t s by the v i c t i m .  This greater  produced a g r e a t e r t h r e a t t o the observer's  injustice  J u s t World B e l i e f  and t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e d more adamant v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n i n o r d e r t o r e s t o r e the p e r c e p t i o n o f j u s t i c e .  In another e x p e r i -  ment (Lerner and Simmons, 1966) v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n was i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d t o the amount o f monetary compensation she r e c e i v e d . Since more compensation seemed t o the experimenters t o be l e s s u n j u s t and s i n c e i t produced fewer a t t r i b u t i o n s o f v i c t i m deservingness  from o b s e r v e r s ,  the i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n f e r r e d t h a t  16  i t had presented Belief.  Again,  a l e s s e r t h r e a t t o the observer's  J u s t World  n e i t h e r these experiments nor any o t h e r e a r l y  " J u s t World" study was designed o f J u s t World B e l i e f i t s e l f .  t o t e s t the a c t u a l e f f i c a c y  I t s importance was based on  nothing but c o n j e c t u r e . A l l o f the above experiments had two t h i n g s i n common; (a) the m a n i p u l a t i o n  o f outcomes t o c r e a t e i n e q u i t y , and, (b)  the use o f J u s t World B e l i e f as an explanatory  concept.  With regard t o the former commonality i t may be seen t h a t i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f the r e s u l t s , the concept o f i n j u s t i c e was used i n s t e a d o f " i n e q u i t y " . obscured the f a c t t h a t , i n a l l those of producing  i n e q u i t y was used.  T h i s might have  s t u d i e s , only one method  I n e q u i t a b l e i n j u s t i c e , however,  can be c r e a t e d i n three ways. First,  i n p u t s can be h e l d constant w h i l e outcomes are  made more o r l e s s n e g a t i v e .  T h i s i s what was done i n a l l o f  the above s t u d i e s . Second, outcomes can be h e l d constant while of the i n p u t s vary.  the value  T h i s was attempted i n a number o f l a t e r  s t u d i e s p e r t i n e n t to the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis.  They are c r i t i c a l l y  discussed  later.  T h i r d , both i n p u t s and outcomes can be h e l d while only the connection  between them i s v a r i e d .  can be made more or l e s s c o n t i n g e n t  upon i n p u t s .  constant Outcomes The p r e s e n t  study employed t h i s method i n c o n t r a s t i n g a c o n d i t i o n where s u f f e r i n g was c o n t i n g e n t  upon performance w i t h a c o n d i t i o n  where i t was n o t a t a l l r e l a t e d t o the same performance.  17  Inputs and outcomes were i d e n t i c a l i n both c o n d i t i o n s . In the h i g h i n e q u i t y c o n d i t i o n , however, the s u f f e r i n g  (electric  shocks) o c c u r r e d randomly no matter what a c t s the v i c t i m performed.  T h i s captures the essence o f i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y  because i t i s not simply t h a t i n p u t s and outcomes are d i s p r o p o r t i o n a l l y matched, i t i s t h a t they are not matched a t all. Most o f the e a r l y experiments  d e a l i n g d i r e c t l y with the  J u s t World Hypothesis had a second t h i n g i n common.  Although  the experimental manipulations were designed t o c r e a t e a s t a t e of s i t u a t i o n a l l y induced i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y , the r e s u l t s were i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms o f a d i s p o s i t i o n a l m o t i v a t i o n a l concept. The t r a i t concept o f J u s t World B e l i e f was s u b s t i t u t e d f o r the s t a t e concept o f i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y . was no attempt  Furthermore,  there  i n any o f these s t u d i e s t o measure the observer's  need to b e l i e v e i n a j u s t world.  These s t u d i e s were a l l  p u b l i s h e d a t l e a s t three years before the p u b l i c a t i o n o f the f i r s t s c a l e t o assess J u s t World B e l i e f  (Rubin and Peplau,  1973) . As mentioned above, the s t r a t e g y o f i n d u c i n g s t a t e i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y does not p r o v i d e the evidence needed t o conclude anything about a need t o b e l i e v e t h a t the world i s j u s t . There a r e simply too many o t h e r ways t h a t observers c o u l d d e a l w i t h t h e i r s i t u a t i o n a l l y aroused i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y than t o devalue v i c t i m s .  T h e r e f o r e , L e r n e r s hypothesis about v i c t i m 1  d e v a l u a t i o n being a r e s u l t o f attempts  t o p r o t e c t the j u s t  18  world b e l i e f have about the same e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l f o r c e as the a t t r i b u t i o n s which observers make about v i c t i m s .  Observers  see a v i c t i m s u f f e r and subsequently s t a t e t h a t he deserved t o suffer.  P s y c h o l o g i s t s see an observer construe the i n c i d e n t  as j u s t and subsequently s t a t e t h a t he had a need t o see i t as j u s t .  One r e l i a b l e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t these s t u d i e s t o j u s t i f y ,  however, i s t h a t more i n e q u i t a b l e s u f f e r i n g produces victim devaluation.  more  The i n t e r m e d i a r y process remains  unknown.  The e f f e c t s o f o t h e r methods o f i n d u c i n g s t a t e i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y remain unknown. B.  Research Measuring The  J u s t World B e l i e f  s p e c u l a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s which L e r n e r p l a c e d on  h i s r e s u l t s would c a r r y more weight  i f J u s t World B e l i e v e r s  devalued v i c t i m s more than Unjust World B e l i e v e r s .  This i s  the c r u c i a l p i e c e o f evidence needed t o adequately t e s t the J u s t World Hypothesis.  Apart from the p r e s e n t  only one other study has attempted evidence.  T h i s attempt  experiment,  t o p r o v i d e t h i s type o f  (Rubin and Peplau, 1973), however,  met with a number o f d i f f i c u l t i e s which the p r e s e n t study t r i e s t o overcome. Rubin and Peplau's J u s t World B e l i e f S c a l e has 16 items and a C o e f f i c i e n t Alpha o f .79.  I t s v a l i d i t y was t e s t e d  w i t h i n the context o f a n a t u r a l l y o c c u r i n g type o f v i c t i m i z a tion.  Subjects were p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the 1971 U.S. n a t i o n a l  draft lottery.  The r e s u l t s , however, l e n t o n l y e q u i v o c a l  v a l i d a t i o n t o the s c a l e .  Only f o u r o f the seven dependent  19  measures produced v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n among h i g h J u s t World Believers.  Those who  were unlucky  i n the l o t t e r y  r e c e i v e d sympathy because the c u r r e n t c u l t u r a l among c o l l e g e students were opposed to the war Rubin and Peplau commented, " T h i s may  probably  sentiments in Viet  have i n c r e a s e d the  p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s u b j e c t s would r e j e c t the l o t t e r y r a t h e r than i t s v i c t i m s " (p. 87).  Nam.  itself  A l s o , by a b s o l u t e  standards  of l o t t e r y p r o b a b i l i t i e s , the sample of l u c k y "observers" small.  was  F i f t y - e i g h t percent o f the s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d numbers  t h a t were i n the f i r s t t h i r d of the p r i o r i t y l i s t  f o r being  drafted.  distribution  Because o f t h i s skewedness, the o v e r a l l  o f l o t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the chance e x p e c t a t i o n 2  of equal numbers i n each t h i r d "X_ t h i s may  = 13.50, p <  .01  have l e d to a h i g h number o f observers who  .  Since  anticipated  a f a t e s i m i l a r t o t h e i r l e s s f o r t u n a t e c o u n t e r p a r t s , the sympathy e f f e c t may Boutilier  have been compounded.  (1974) have shown t h a t the  S o r r e n t i n o and  a n t i c i p a t i o n of a f a t e  s i m i l a r to the v i c t i m ' s leads observers to e v a l u a t e the very p o s i t i v e l y .  victim  R e s u l t s more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h J u s t World  p r e d i c t i o n s might be o b t a i n e d i f (a) the sample contained more u n v i c t i m i z e d observers and  (b) the nature of the v i c t i m -  i z a t i o n were l e s s g e n e r a l l y viewed with contempt. study was  present  an attempt t o t e s t the p r e d i c t i o n s f o r t h i s s c a l e  i n a s i t u a t i o n which met There are two Peplau's  The  these d e s i d e r a t a .  a d d i t i o n a l p o s s i b l e reasons  f o r Rubin  f a i l u r e to c o n f i r m the J u s t World Hypothesis.  the hypothesis might be wrong.  and  First,  Second, t h e i r J u s t World B e l i e f  20  S c a l e might l a c k adequate v a l i d i t y to i d e n t i f y t r u e J u s t World B e l i e v e r s .  The p r e s e n t  J u s t World B e l i e f . scores was  Collins  combining the  two  scores.  (1974) f a c t o r analysed  the Locus of C o n t r o l  found t h a t the second f a c t o r seemed to measure J u s t  World B e l i e f . factor.  measures of  Moreover, a t h i r d s e t of J u s t World B e l i e f  generated by mathematically  o r i g i n a l s e t s of  S c a l e and  study employed two  The  There were e i g h t items which loaded on a n a l y s i s was  performed on L i k e r t agreement r a t i n g s  g i v e n to the 46 a l t e r n a t i v e s from R o t t e r ' s s c a l e format.  this  (1966) f o r c e d choice  These items have never before been used to p r e -  d i c t v i c t i m devaluation. Rather than choosing B e l i e f , i t was i n such a way  between two  measures of J u s t World  p o s s i b l e to combine the scores on both s c a l e s as to i s o l a t e and q u a n t i f y the commonality of  response v a r i a n c e between them.  To do t h i s p r i n c i p l e component  scores were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each s u b j e c t based on a weighted l i n e a r combination of t h e i r scores on the two scales.  J u s t World B e l i e f  Since the f i r s t p r i n c i p l e component r e p r e s e n t s  most i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t dimension u n d e r l y i n g the  the  input  v a r i a b l e s , the component scores generated i n t h i s a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d a J u s t World B e l i e f score which i n c o r p o r a t e d  the  commonality between the s c a l e s by C o l l i n s and by Rubin Peplau.  T h i s new  and  measure o f J u s t World B e l i e f w i l l be r e f e r r e d  to as the COMJWB score. In the present  study the p r e d i c t i o n s made by the J u s t  World Hypothesis were t e s t e d i n such a way  as to a v o i d  the  21  c r i t i c i s m s of previous a n x i e t y was  s t u d i e s mentioned above.  Inequity  s i t u a t i o n a l l y aroused by the method of making  outcomes non-contingent upon performance i n p u t s . B e l i e f was  measured.  Subjects  were d i v i d e d i n t o J u s t World  B e l i e v e r s vs. Unjust World B e l i e v e r s a c c o r d i n g on two  scales.  scores the  1  Thus, the r e l a t i v e p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y o f both  measures c o u l d be compared.  With t h i s design  between J u s t World B e l i e f and  c o u l d be t e s t e d . anxiety  to t h e i r  These were Rubin and P e p l a u s s c a l e and  COMJWB measure.  the connection  J u s t World  I t was  i t was  hoped t h a t  victim  devaluation  p r e d i c t e d t h a t , i n the high  inequity  c o n d i t i o n , J u s t World B e l i e v e r s would devalue  v i c t i m more than Unjust World B e l i e v e r s .  Presumably  the the  l a t t e r group would f i n d other ways to deal w i t h t h e i r i n e q u i t y anxiety.  T h i s was  the major h y p o t h e s i s o f the study.  It  was,  i n e f f e c t , the J u s t World Hypothesis. C.  Evidence Bearing  on the Performance Before P e r s o n a l i t y  Hypothesis One  important q u a l i f i c a t i o n of the J u s t World Hypothesis,  however, i s the performance before  p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis.  I t g i v e s the whole n o t i o n t h a t c o u n t e r - i n t u i t i v e t w i s t . t h i s subhypothesis, the J u s t World Hypothesis might be to apply  to g u i l t y v i c t i m s o n l y .  One  Without assumed  c o u l d s t a t e , f o r example,  t h a t people devalue g u i l t y v i c t i m s because they need to  see  the world as j u s t .  Such a common s e n s i c a l statement, however,  leaves one  f e e l i n g t h a t nothing  On  with the  the other hand, when i t i s claimed  new  has  been  discovered.  t h a t people devalue  22  innocent v i c t i m s because they want to see the world as c o n s i d e r a b l y more i n t e r e s t i s aroused.  T h i s makes the l a c k  of e m p i r i c a l support f o r the performance subhypothesis a l l the more c r i t i c a l . not i n c l u d e any independent subhypothesis. i t attempted  just,  before p e r s o n a l i t y  The p r e s e n t study d i d  v a r i a b l e s aimed a t t e s t i n g  this  Rather, i n the form o f dependent v a r i a b l e s ,  to ask the q u e s t i o n s whose answers might e l i m i n -  ate some o f the u n c e r t a i n t i e s surrounding the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s which d i d attempt  to t e s t the  subhypothesis.  Even i f the subhypothesis were accepted, i t s meaning would be ambiguous a t p r e s e n t .  The  f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n examines the  evidence f o r the subhypothesis and e x p l o r e s the many p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f i t s meaning. Lerner and Matthews; Lerner and Simmons p o i n t out t h a t they d i d not t e s t t h e i r "performance hypothesis d i r e c t l y . performance ment.  was  There was  before p e r s o n a l i t y "  no c o n d i t i o n where the v i c t i m ' s  i n t e n d e d to be seen as d e s e r v i n g o f p u n i s h -  In a l a t e r a r t i c l e , however, L e r n e r  (1970) w r i t e s as  i f the i s s u e had been s e t t l e d by the r e s u l t s o f the experiment  (Lerner and Matthew, 1967)  i n the  subsequent  series.  When the person becomes aware of a v i c t i m who i s c l e a r l y innocent o f any a c t which might have brought about the s u f f e r i n g , he i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a c o n f l i c t . He can decide he l i v e s i n a c r u e l , u n j u s t world where innocent people can s u f f e r or t h a t the o n l y people who s u f f e r i n t h i s world are those who deserve such a fate. The evidence supported the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t most people w i l l persuade themselves t h a t "innocent" v i c t i m s are s u f f i c i e n t l y u n d e s i r a b l e p e o p l e — t h a t t h e i r s u f f e r i n g may be an a p p r o p r i a t e f a t e . Even the a p p a r e n t l y a l t r u i s t i c a l l y motivated v i c t i m tends to be seen as p o s s e s s i n g u n d e s i r a b l e a t t r i b u t e s . (Lerner, 1970, p. 227).  23  This  statement presumably  f r o m t h e L e r n e r and Matthews who r a t e d  t h e v i c t i m as  devalued her l e s s sible.  that the  (1967)  is  of  is  A more s e r i o u s  extremely  Lerner slips ment  (shock)  to  see  results  t a k e n as  hypothesis  fore  of  the  female  she was  rated  subjects is  in  that  responsibility  students  as  draw  reinforce-  control condition. responsible  devalued the  for  first.  the performance  was n o t d e v a l u e d .  (subject picks  subject's  belief  first  for  victim  a v i c t i m who h a d p i c k e d  before act  Supposedly  condition)  posed  i n a j u s t w o r l d and was  constitute personality  conclusive  support  hypothesis  responsibility  ratings,  because the  the performance fact  that  imply that  i n any o r d i n a r y s e n s e o f  does  made  o f who p i c k e d  they h e l d the the word.  not  before  subjects  d i f f e r i n g on t h e b a s i s  does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y  responsible  for  however,  a  there-  devalued. The L e r n e r and Matthews e x p e r i m e n t ,  first  confirmatory  i n the n e g a t i v e  support  t o h e r own s u f f e r i n g  to  respon-  b e c a u s e t h e v i c t i m who p e r f o r m e d an  "innocent" victim  threat  less  however,  the o b t a i n e d  S u b j e c t s who p i c k e d f i r s t  were  suffering  female  criticism,  who w o u l d be  more t h a n t h o s e who were r a t i n g  the  of  c o n d i t i o n and who w o u l d be i n t h e  h e r own f a t e .  leading  her  subjects  ambiguous.  When t h e v i c t i m p i c k e d f i r s t ,  personality  for  support  wherein  apparently  use  and Matthews h a d p a i r s  of paper  These  experiment  this  e x a c t p s y c h o l o g i c a l meaning o f  ratings  strongest  t h a n s u b j e c t s who r a t e d h e r as  l i m i t e d by t h e e x c l u s i v e  experiment.  its  more r e s p o n s i b l e  The g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y  result  receives  subject  The demand  24  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s c a l e s themselves  may  have been enough  to l e a d s u b j e c t s i n t o a t t r i b u t i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o someone on the b a s i s of an a c t which would not o r d i n a r i l y e l i c i t attribution.  A person who  such  an  s u f f e r s as a r e s u l t of b l i n d l y  drawing a s l i p o f paper from a drum cannot be construed as being r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s f a t e i n the sense o f having known the outcome of her a c t and having intended to produce t h a t outcome.  N e v e r t h e l e s s , Lerner and Matthews seem t o be i m p l y i n g  t h a t a v i c t i m becomes l e s s innocent  ( i . e . more d e s e r v i n g o f  s u f f e r i n g ) even i f he n e i t h e r f o r e s e e s nor i n t e n d s the  con-  sequences o f the a c t which i s the p r e c i p i t a t i n g cause o f the suffering.  T h i s seems a very odd c r i t e r i o n f o r observers to  use i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between innocence In one  and  deservingness.  sense, then, the L e r n e r and Matthews r e s u l t s - - r a t h e r  than support the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y  subhypothesis—  a c t u a l l y weaken i t by over-extending the range o f b e h a v i o r a l r e f e r e n t s subsumed by the term The  subhypothesis  "performance".  i s c a s t even f u r t h e r i n t o doubt by  the r e s u l t s o f an experiment  by C h a i k i n and Darley  (1973).  They found t h a t , a t l e a s t i n c e r t a i n circumstances, v i c t i m s who  are derogated are a l s o seen as more r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r  suffering. Agar  To complicate the p i c t u r e f u r t h e r , Lerner  (1972) found t h a t v a r y i n g l e v e l s of v i c t i m  had no e f f e c t on v i c t i m e v a l u a t i o n s .  responsibility  T h e r e f o r e , there are  c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s t o suggest t h a t high v i c t i m f o r the s u f f e r i n g  and  responsibility  (a) means l e s s v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n (Lerner  and Matthews, 1967),  (b) means more v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n ( C h a i k i n  25  and  Darley, 1973), o r (c) has no e f f e c t on v i c t i m  (Lerner  and Agar, 1972).  Alternative  Alternative  evaluations  (c) i s the n u l l  hypothesis.  (b) can be expanded i n t o what w i l l be c a l l e d the  "blaming" h y p o t h e s i s . The  Blaming Hypothesis :  performance before p e r s o n a l i t y  Standing i n o p p o s i t i o n  subhypothesis i s the common sense  view t h a t observers e i t h e r blame o r sympathize with Webster's T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l  (1964) d e f i n e s  "to blame" as meaning, "1: t o express d i s a p p r o v a l f a u l t w i t h : Reproach. make answerable t o .  t o the  victims. the verb  of;  find  2a: t o a t t r i b u t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o : b: t o a s c r i b e d  f o r by p l a c i n g c u l p a b i l i t y . "  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r : account  The very f a c t t h a t the a c t s o f  a s c r i b i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and d i s a p p r o v i n g  are both u n i f i e d under  a s i n g l e l i n g u i s t i c l a b e l suggests t h a t the users o f the language have some reason t o c o n c e p t u a l i z e activities. the b a s i s  them as h i g h l y  Perhaps t h i s i s because many a c t s can be used as  f o r both p e r s o n a l i t y  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n s .  E s p e c i a l l y when we are concerned with n e g a t i v e attributions  ( i . e . devaluation),  usually also reveals The bility  personality  a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y laden a c t  something o f the a c t o r ' s  personality.  p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p h y p o t h e s i z e d between  a t t r i b u t i o n s and d e v a l u a t i o n  i n two ways. and  correlated  can a c t u a l l y be  When the t a r g e t person i s both h e l d  devalued, he i s being blamed.  responsidescribed  responsible  When t h e t a r g e t i s both  exonerated o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and e v a l u a t e d p o s i t i v e l y , he i s r e c e i v i n g sympathy.  Sympathy and blame stand a t o p p o s i t e ends  of the same continuum.  26  While the blaming h y p o t h e s i s maintains the d i s t i n c t i o n between r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n s and it The  does not make any  personality  d i s t i n c t i o n among types o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .  a s c r i p t i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n blaming may  performed a c t s , p e r s o n a l i t y t i o n of those two  be based  on  r e v e a l i n g b e h a v i o r s , some combina-  or some o t h e r c r i t e r i a .  t h e s i s , then, does not attempt to use define  evaluations  The  blaming hypo-  v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to  a p r i o r i e i t h e r v i c t i m innocence or v i c t i m g u i l t .  therefore  It  p r e d i c t s somewhat l e s s than the performance before  personality conditions  subhypothesis because i t does not  s p e c i f y which  w i l l e l i c i t v i c t i m blaming vs. v i c t i m sympathizing.  Under the blaming h y p o t h e s i s , t h i s p r e d i c t i o n about the  direc-  t i o n o f o b s e r v e r s ' responses i s l e f t as an e m p i r i c a l  question.  D.  Personality  Assessment S t r a t e g i e s Subhypothesis and In the  research  f o r the Performance Before  A l t e r n a t i v e Hypotheses reported  here, an attempt was  t e s t p r e d i c t i o n s made by the performance b e f o r e hypothesis.  This n e c e s s i t a t e d  f i n d i n g s o b t a i n e d i n p r e v i o u s experiments using  The  personality  o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the concept of  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s u f f e r i n g i n s e v e r a l ways.  a number of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and  made to  From trends  t h i s paradigm  operationalizations  were made.  r a t i o n a l e f o r each meaning ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ' w i l l be  as the item i s d i s c u s s e d . The  The  R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Items:  items are The  and  given  l i s t e d i n Table I.  first  item  (VRl -  victim's  u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) asked the observer to r a t e e x t e n t to which he thought the v i c t i m was  responsible  for  the  her  Table I  Type of Item Responsibility Global  Victim (V) Items  Item Code No.  VR1  Item L a b e l  P o s i t i o n on Questionnaire (Appendix B) Form: A B  Experimenter (E) Items  Item Code No.  P o s i t i o n on Questionnaire (Appendix B) Form: A B  Item Label  v i c t i m ' s (V's) undifferentiated responsibility  5  1  ERl  experimenter's (E's) undifferentiated responsibility  6  2  act  8  4  Performance: Unspecified  VR2  V's u n s p e c i f i e d act r e s p o n s i b i l ity  7  3  ER2  E's u n s p e c i f i e d responsibility  Specific  VR3  V's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r memorization rate  9  5  ER3  E's for  responsibility list difficulty  10  6  11  7  ER4  E's  alternatives  12  8  Personality  VR4  V s  VR5  V's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for continued participation  13  9  ER5  E's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r V's continued participation  14  10  V's d i s p o s i t i o n a l (personality) responsibility  17  13  ER6  E's d i s p o s i t i o n a l (personality) responsibility  18  14  VR6  1  alternatives  Addendum Situational  VS7  c o n t r o l of V by situation  15  11  ES7  c o n t r o l o f E by situation  16  12  Blame  VB8  V's  19  15  EB8  E's  20  16  Evaluations Raw Score  VE9  V's raw score persona l i t y evaluation  1  22  EE9  E's raw score persona l i t y evaluation  2  23  VE10  V's d i f f e r e n c e score p e r s o n a l i t y evaluation  EE10  E's d i f f e r e n c e score personality evaluation  calculated  Difference  blameworthiness  calculated  blameworthiness  28  suffering.  T h i s item was  analogous  to the ones which  the c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s i n other s t u d i e s .  produced  By l o o k i n g a t  c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h i s item and o t h e r s , i t was  p o s s i b l e to  get an i d e a what observers are t h i n k i n g about when they make t h i s u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d type o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n .  On  the o t h e r hand, o b s e r v e r s ' r e a c t i o n s might not be any more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d than t h i s item.  I f t h a t were the case then  this  item would be commensurably g l o b a l . The second item was  a l s o f a i r l y g l o b a l i n nature.  " v i c t i m ' s u n s p e c i f i e d a c t " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y item  (VR2)  The  d e a l t with  performance-based deservingness on the most g e n e r a l l e v e l .  It  asked observers to what extent they thought  the v i c t i m d i d some-  t h i n g to b r i n g the s u f f e r i n g upon h e r s e l f .  I t d i d not ask what  she d i d or why,  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r her  fate.  i f she d i d nothing, she was  I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t most s u b j e c t s are not  sufficiently  i n t r o s p e c t i v e or r e f l e c t i v e to be a b l e to answer those more s p e c i f i c questions.  I f t h a t were the case, t h i s item would  s t i l l have p r o v i d e d a rough t e s t of the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis. observers who  I f t h a t subhypothesis were c o r r e c t ,  say t h a t the v i c t i m d i d perform an a c t which  caused her s u f f e r i n g would a l s o r e f r a i n from d e v a l u i n g her. Items VR3,  VR4,  and VR5  w i t h d i s c o v e r i n g what i t was,  on Table I were a l l concerned i f anything, t h a t the v i c t i m  a c t u a l l y d i d to deserve her f a t e , Items VR3  and VR5  represented  two s p e c i f i c a c t s which many s u b j e c t s have mentioned i n p r e v i o u s research. two,  he was  I f the observer focused on some a c t other than asked to d e s c r i b e i t i n h i s own  words i n item  these VR4  29  (victim's a l t e r n a t i v e s ) .  I f , however, the observer thought  the v i c t i m deserved to s u f f e r because she performed p o o r l y the  l e a r n i n g task,  he would i n d i c a t e t h i s on  item VR3.  "In t h i s  experiment the amount o f s u f f e r i n g  ( i . e . number o f  shocks) the v i c t i m had  d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to how  it  took her  to bear was  on  electric  to l e a r n a s e r i a l l i s t of nonsense s y l l a b l e s .  long If  i t were found t h a t t h i s i s the type of performance t h a t most subjects then we  r e f e r to when they c l a i m t h a t the v i c t i m i s would have l i t t l e  problem i n d e s i g n i n g  manipulations of  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r independent v a r i a b l e s i n f u t u r e U n f o r t u n a t e l y , there i s already  of the v i c t i m ' s  cognitively  t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s to such a narrow range  behavior.  T h i s i s where item VR5  continued p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n experiment) becomes Some observers may  relevant.  The  act of r e f u s i n g  t a c i t l y consenting to p a r t i c i p a t e f u r t h e r i n the  the or  experiment  be the c r u c i a l "performance" i n f l u e n c i n g observer'  reactions.  T h i s may  t i v e reactions  be  the e x p l a n a t i o n  c o n d i t i o n wherein the  Simmons experiment, there was  confederate-victim  i n g w i t h the experimenter. shocked and  "protested  She  207)."  The  was  a "martyr"  overheard convers-  expressed a f e a r of being  t h a t she would not  experiment i n which she would be p.  f o r the extremely nega-  to martyr v i c t i m s .  In the Lerner and  1966,  (victim's  choose to make t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s on  b a s i s of l a r g e r u n i t s of a n a l y s i s .  may  research.  evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t  observers are n e i t h e r q u i t e so c o - o p e r a t i v e nor simple as to c o n f i n e  responsible  shocked  take p a r t i n an (Lerner  experimenter then p o i n t e d  and  out  Simmons,  that  (a)  the  30  observers would not r e c e i v e a l a b c r e d i t u n l e s s she to p a r t i c i p a t e  consented  (b) her r e f u s a l would cause the observers a  g r e a t d e a l of t r o u b l e and inconvenience and, perhaps most importantly  (c) the d e c i s i o n t o p a r t i c i p a t e or not was,  course, up to her.  Although  t h i s s c e n a r i o was  g i v e the impression t h a t the v i c t i m was  of  c a l c u l a t e d to  motivated by p u r e l y  a l t r u i s t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i t probably a l s o had the unfortunate s i d e e f f e c t o f drawing the o b s e r v e r s ' a t t e n t i o n to the avenues of p o s s i b l e escape open to the v i c t i m .  When her  alternatives  were made s a l i e n t , the observers might have decided the e n t i r e deservingness i s s u e on the v i c t i m ' s c h o i c e o r "performance" a t that c r i t i c a l point.  I f t h i s i s what the observers d i d , then  the r e s u l t a n t d e v a l u a t i o n o f the martyr  c o n t r a d i c t s the  formance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y " subhypothesis.  "per-  In f a c t , i t would  support the common sense n o t i o n t h a t observers devalue v i c t i m s only when the v i c t i m ' s performance makes him d e s e r v i n g of suffering.  The  i n c l u s i o n o f performance r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  items  aimed a t the i s s u e of the v i c t i m ' s c o n t i n u e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment  made i t p o s s i b l e t o f u r t h e r e x p l o r e t h i s  a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the  'martyr'  results.  Proceeding from s i m i l a r c r i t i c i m s of Lerner and  Simmons'  o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of an "innocent" v i c t i m , Godfrey and Lowe (1973) c o n t r a s t e d i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivated martyrs w i t h  extrin-  s i c a l l y motivated martyrs.  the  experiment  Martyrs who  proceeded  with  because of a p r o f e s s e d b e l i e f i n the importance  worth o f the r e s e a r c h were r a t e d more f a v o r a b l y than who  a p p a r e n t l y had t o be convinced to c o n t i n u e .  and  martyrs  Godfrey  and  31  Lowe a p p l i e d an a t t r i b u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s to these r e s u l t s c l a i m i n g t h a t although both martyrs s u f f e r e d i n n o c e n t l y , o n l y e x t r i n s i c a l l y motivated martyr was  devalued because he a c t u a l l y  d i d something i n d i c a t i n g a p e r s o n a l i t y weakness (e.g. he a "sucker"; e a s i l y persuaded). i n d i c a t e to what extent mously i n c o n t i n u i n g  the  was  Item V R 5 allowed o b s e r v e r s to  they thought the v i c t i m acted  autono-  to p a r t i c i p a t e .  T h i s i l l u s t r a t e s a more general  p o i n t which i s the  basis  f o r the view t h a t a v i c t i m i s derogated only when he i s h e l d responsible.  Many a c t s performed by the v i c t i m can be  as the b a s i s f o r both r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and p e r s o n a l i t y tions.  used  attribu-  T h i s c o u l d e x p l a i n the dynamics of the blaming  and  sympathizing r e a c t i o n s because the acts mentioned i n items VR3,  V R 4 and V R 5 would not only i n f o r m the observer t h a t  v i c t i m brought her s u f f e r i n g upon h e r s e l f but i n d i c a t e t h a t she was  spineless  (e.g. f a i l u r e  p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the experiment).  i s g l o b a l unfavorable r e a c t i o n to the person. negative The  halo  to  Thus, blaming It i s like a  effect.  phenomenological r e a c t i o n s o f observers may  more g l o b a l than was  i n i t i a l l y apparent i n the e a r l y  f o c u s i n g only on p e r s o n a l extent  they would a l s o  u n i n t e l l i g e n t (e.g. slow r a t e o f l e a r n -  i n g nonsense s y l l a b l e s ) and discontinue  the  evaluations  o f the v i c t i m .  be studies The  to which the more g l o b a l response o f "blaming"  c h a r a c t e r i z e s observers'  r e a c t i o n s to s u f f e r i n g v i c t i m s i s  l a r g e l y unknown because none of the previous  research  has  32  attempted t o d i r e c t l y assess the o b s e r v e r s blame per se. just  that.  personality  s i d e o f the performance b e f o r e  subhypothesis, items VR6, VE9 and VE10 measured  aspects o f the same r e a c t i o n .  d i d not t h i n k VR3,  attributions of  Item VB8 ( v i c t i m blame) was designed t o do  On the p e r s o n a l i t y  two  1  I f , f o r example, an o b s e r v e r  t h a t any o f the performed acts  VR4 o r VR5 made the v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b l e ,  s p e c i f i e d i n items he c o u l d  still  c l a i m t h a t she brought her f a t e upon h e r s e l f by t u r n i n g t o item VR6  (victim's p e r s o n a l i t y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) .  asked t o what extent the v i c t i m ' s  item  behavior was a r e s u l t o f  her p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d i s p o s i t i o n s . are presumably made on the b a s i s o f i n f e r e n c e s revealing behaviors.  This  For instance,  Such r a t i n g s from p e r s o n a l i t y  the observer might  attri-  bute u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o the v i c t i m on the b a s i s o f some s e t o f e x p r e s s i v e gestures which have no l i n g u i s tic  l a b e l but which n e v e r t h e l e s s betray an a t t i t u d e which  invites victimization.  In such a case the observer might  express t h i s p e r c e p t i o n  as a form o f deservingness a r i s i n g  from p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the v i c t i m . holding  the v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b l e  on t h i s item the observer i s  e s s e n t i a l l y d e v a l u i n g the v i c t i m .  D e v a l u a t i o n i s what per-  s o n a l i t y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y means w i t h i n hypothesis.  Therefore, i n  Nonetheless, d e v a l u a t i o n  the c o n t e x t o f the subc o u l d occur independently  of the a s c r i p t i o n o f any type o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , whether i t be performance o r p e r s o n a l i t y based. were i n c l u d e d  t o tap p e r s o n a l i t y  Therefore separate a t t r i b u t i o n s per s e .  scales Either  33  VE9  or VE10  (or both) were used by Lerner and h i s c o l l e a g u e s  as i n d e c i e s o f d e v a l u a t i o n i n almost every p r e v i o u s  study.  The J u s t World Hypothesis has undergone some m o d i f i c a t i o n i n the l i g h t of e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s . be c a l l e d "addenda".  These m o d i f i c a t i o n s w i l l  V i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n has been  absent among some o b s e r v e r s .  These o b s e r v e r s , however, have  u s u a l l y found other t a r g e t s f o r t h e i r negative Observers  who  unexpectedly  reaction.  devalue or condemn e i t h e r the v i c t i m i z e r or the  victimizing situation  (or both) do not devalue the v i c t i m .  On  the b a s i s o f spontaneous comments from s u b j e c t s i n an e x p e r i ment (Lerner and Simmons, 1966)  u s i n g the same paradigm as  t h a t used i n t h i s study, Lerner suggested,  "Apparently i f the  s u b j e c t s were w i l l i n g to condemn the s i t u a t i o n they had need to devalue the v i c t i m " does not s p e c i f y why  (Lerner, 1970,  anyone who  p. 211).  no  Lerner  needed to b e l i e v e t h a t the  world i s j u s t would be w i l l i n g to condemn the  situation.  Presumably he would say t h a t such an observer would b e l i e v e t h a t the world i s a c t u a l l y u n j u s t .  I f , however, a l l observers  sampled condemned the s i t u a t i o n the J u s t World i t s e l f would come i n t o q u e s t i o n . was  Hypothesis  In the present study i t  p o s s i b l e t o examine the exact degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p  between J u s t World B e l i e f and condemnation o f the Item VS7  situation.  a f f o r d e d observers the o p p o r t u n i t y to condemn the  situation. L i k e w i s e , i n a p r e v i o u s unpublished study, s u b j e c t s  who  devalued the v i c t i m i z e r tended not t o devalue the v i c t i m . Items ERl t o ER6  represent t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e .  In t h i s paradigm  34  the v i c t i m i z e r i s the videotaped experimenter who the  shocks t o the v i c t i m .  responsible  administers  I f observers h o l d the experimenter  f o r the v i c t i m ' s  suffering i t i s s t i l l  h e l p f u l to  know e x a c t l y what the b a s i s i s f o r t h a t a t t r i b u t i o n .  The same  r a t i o n a l e f o r item i n c l u s i o n apply t o a t t r i b u t i o n s o f respons i b i l i t y t o the experimenter as apply t o the v i c t i m .  Therefore  the experimenter items E R l t o ER6 correspond t o the v i c t i m items i n boxes VR1 t o VR6.  P e r s o n a l i t y and blame a t t r i b u t i o n s  f o r the experimenter were a l s o measured. Hypothesized I n t e r - I t e m R e l a t i o n s h i p s ;  The f o l l o w i n g  i s an attempt t o r e l a t e the p r e d i c t i o n s o f both the performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis and the blaming hypothesis t o the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s o f the v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s experiment. The  predictions consist of clusters of correlations r e f l e c t i n g  patterns  of a t t r i b u t i o n s .  They a r e p r e s e n t e d s y m b o l i c a l l y as  follows: Let: c = "co-occurs w i t h " VRpers = VR6 = v i c t i m ' s d i s p o s i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y VRperf = VR2 t o VR5 = v i c t i m ' s performance r e s p o n s i b i l i t y VS = VS7 = c o n t r o l o f v i c t i m by s i t u a t i o n VE = VE9, VE10 =. v i c t i m ' s p e r s o n a l i t y  evaluations  ER = E R l t o ER6 = v i c t i m i z e r ' s (experimenter's) r e s p o n s i b i l i Performance Before P e r s o n a l i t y high 1.  Predictions:  VRperf performance: (not low VE) c (high VRperf) c (low VRpers) c (low VS) c  (low ER)  35  low VRperf 2.  personality:* (low VE) c (low VRperf) c (high VRpers)  c (low VS)  c (low ER) 3.  addenda: (not low VE) c (low VRperf) c (low VRpers) VS) and/or  c  [(high  (high ER)]  Blaming/Sympathizing P r e d i c t i o n s : high VRperf 4.  blaming:* (low VE) c (high VRperf) c (high VRpers)  c (low VS)  c (low ER) low VRperf 5.  sympathizing: (high VE) c (low VRperf) c (low VRpers) c and/or  *victim  [(high VS)  (high ER)]  devaluation  N o t i c e t h a t the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y  subhypothe-  s i s r e q u i r e s three l i n e s w h i l e the blaming h y p o t h e s i s r e q u i r e s only two.  T h i s i s because the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y  subhypothesis i s i n d e t e r m i n a t e i n the case o f low v i c t i m p e r formance r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .  Another way o f e x p r e s s i n g t h i s i s by  p o i n t i n g out t h a t under the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y  sub-  hypothesis t h e r e are two d i s t i n c t p a t t e r n s o f c o r r e l a t i o n s (performance and addenda) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h no d e v a l u a t i o n . The performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis seeks to p r e d i c t e i t h e r d e v a l u a t i o n or no d e v a l u a t i o n .  The blaming  36  hypothesis  p r e d i c t s e i t h e r d e v a l u a t i o n or p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n  (liking).  T h i s d i f f e r e n c e , however, i s not a c t u a l l y as  as i t might seem.  important  In p r a c t i c e , d e v a l u a t i o n i s always d e f i n e d  r e l a t i v e to more p o s i t i v e v i c t i m e v a l u a t i o n s i n o t h e r e x p e r i mental c o n d i t i o n s .  The  s c a l e s t h a t Lerner and h i s c o l l e a g u e s  have used t o measure d e v a l u a t i o n and range from 15 tive) .  (extremely  (VE9)  negative)  have a midpoint to 135  of  (extremely  75 posi-  In no r e p o r t e d study has a v i c t i m ever r e c e i v e d a mean  e v a l u a t i o n o f l e s s than  75, the midpoint.  Thus the  labelling  of a p a r t i c u l a r mean score as e i t h e r p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n or non-devaluation  i s determined as much by the i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s  t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n as i t i s by the value of the score i n r e l a t i o n to scores i n other experimental  conditions.  absolute value of the score seems to be r e l a t i v e l y i n l a b e l l i n g the  The  unimportant  score.  The performance before p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis  attempts  to order the a l t e r n a t i v e a t t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n s i n terms of the observer's p r e f e r e n c e .  The observer w i l l p r e f e r to see  v i c t i m ' s performance r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as h i g h  (line 1).  the His  second c h o i c e i s to a s c r i b e the p a t t e r n s o f e i t h e r p e r s o n a l i t y responsibility  ( l i n e 2) or the addenda ( l i n e 3).  The  sub-  h y p o t h e s i s , however, does not s t a t e an order to p r e f e r e n c e between p e r s o n a l i t y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and the addenda. The blaming h y p o t h e s i s , on the other hand, does not a s s e r t t h a t the observer has a p r e f e r e n c e .  The  observer blames or  sympathizes as a f u n c t i o n of the i n f o r m a t i o n he r e c e i v e s about the i n c i d e n t and the people  involved.  He  i s not motivated  to  37  r e - i n t e r p r e t or d i s t o r t the i n f o r m a t i o n as i s the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y o b s e r v e r .  I t i s the m o t i v a t i o n a l b a s i s of  the performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis  ( i . e . need f o r  i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y r e d u c t i o n ) which h y p o t h e t i c a l l y  predisposes  observers to have p r e f e r e n c e s among E.  Internal V a l i d i t y : Two  p a t t e r n s of a t t r i b u t i o n s .  C o n t r o l F a c t o r s and M a n i p u l a t i o n Checks  items were i n c l u d e d on the post-experimental q u e s t i o n -  n a i r e to check the e f f i c a c y of the procedures. the main m a n i p u l a t i o n of shock contingency. observers t o r a t e how  f a i r l y they thought  t r e a t e d i n the experiment. i z a t i o n of inequity.  T h i s was  The  One  d e a l t with  item  asked  the v i c t i m had been  a syllogistic operational-  I f i n e q u i t y i s p e r c e i v e d as u n j u s t and i f  i n j u s t i c e i s p e r c e i v e d as u n f a i r then observers i n the  non-  contingency shock c o n d i t i o n should have r a t e d the v i c t i m ' s treatment as more u n f a i r than observers i n the more e q u i t a b l e contingent shock c o n d i t i o n . Another item d e a l t w i t h the observers p e r c e p t i o n of the amount of s u f f e r i n g the v i c t i m experienced. the same number of shocks  Since she r e c e i v e d  i n each c o n d i t i o n , the s e v e r i t y of  her s u f f e r i n g should have been r a t e d the same a c r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . I f t h i s were the case, i t would j u s t i f y c o n c l u d i n g t h a t the p e r c e i v e d i n e q u i t y d e r i v e d from the  contingency/non-contingency  m a n i p u l a t i o n and not form some d i s t o r t i o n o f the s e v e r i t y of the v i c t i m ' s outcome. Two  c o n t r o l f a c t o r s were i n c l u d e d as independent  ables i n the d e s i g n .  One  vari-  d e a l t with p r e t e s t s e n s i t i z a t i o n  and  38  the other d e a l t with order e f f e c t s on the questionnaire.  post-experimental  To assess the extent of any p r e t e s t s e n s i t i z a -  t i o n t h a t might have o c c u r r e d , a Solomon f o u r group d e s i g n used  ( c f . Campbell and S t a n l e y , 1963,  p. 24).  The  was  pretesting  o c c u r r e d 3 to 4 weeks before the experimental s e s s i o n and  con-  s i s t e d o f s e v e r a l p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s and a t t i t u d e measures i n c l u d i n g the two J u s t World S c a l e s .  In both shock  c o n d i t i o n s there were some s u b j e c t s who o t h e r s who  had  had been p r e t e s t e d and  not.  Since the p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was lengthy, a f a c t o r was effects.  rather  i n c l u d e d t o t e s t f o r p o s s i b l e order  The dependent v a r i a b l e s f a l l i n t o two main c a t e g o r i e s ;  the p e r s o n a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y Two  contingency  orders o f p r e s e n t a t i o n were used.  On one  attributions.  form of the  q u e s t i o n n a i r e the p e r s o n a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s were presented first  (form A) and on the o t h e r  (form B) the  a t t r i b u t i o n s were presented f i r s t . including this control factor.  responsibility  There are two  reasons f o r  F i r s t of a l l , none of these  v a r i a b l e s have ever been examined f o r t h e i r s e n s i t i v i t y time.  across  I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o know whether the v i c t i m  v a l u a t i o n phenomenon i s merely  de-  a t r a n s i t o r y e f f e c t which l a s t s  only a few minutes f o l l o w i n g the w i t n e s s i n g of an i n c i d e n t of v i c t i m i z a t i o n , or whether d e r o g a t i o n can be observed on  these  s c a l e s f o r an i n d e f i n i t e p e r i o d a f t e r the t e r m i n a t i o n o f the shocks.  I f e i t h e r type o f dependent v a r i a b l e produces o n l y  t r a n s i t o r y e f f e c t s , then the r e s u l t s of any p a r t i c u l a r e x p e r i ment may  r e s t on the t i m i n g of the r a t i n g s .  Secondly,  answering one type of item f i r s t might c r e a t e an a t t r i b u t i o n a l set  f o r the second type o f item.  T h i s a t t r i b u t i o n a l s e t might  be d i f f e r e n t from t h a t which would be c r e a t e d i f the o r d e r were r e v e r s e d .  Yandell  an a t t r i b u t i o n study. the  (1973) found j u s t such an e f f e c t i n Thus, t h e r e i s reason to b e l i e v e  i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from t h i s f a c t o r may  that  prove v a l u a b l e  f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the r e s u l t s . F.  Summary and Formal  Hypotheses  L e r n e r never measured J u s t World B e l i e f i n h i s s u b j e c t s and was  t h e r e f o r e l o g i c a l l y unable, s t r i c t l y speaking, to  e i t h e r c o n f i r m or d i s c o n f i r m h i s h y p o t h e s i s .  Rubin and Peplau'  ambiguous r e s u l t s might have been caused by sampling e r r o r which a l o t t e d a h i g h p r o b a b i l i t y of v i c t i m i z a t i o n to many observers.  The ambiguity might a l s o have been caused by  historical-political  f a c t o r s i n s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f the  v i c t i m i z a t i o n or by i n a c c u r a t e measurement o f J u s t World The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h used items from two sources to assess s u b j e c t s ' J u s t World B e l i e f . J u s t World B e l i e f was  c o n s t r u c t e d which met  high i n t e r n a l consistency.  Belief  independent A measure of  a c r i t e r i o n of  Furthermore, the s i m u l a t e d i n c i d e n t  of v i c t i m i z a t i o n used i n t h i s study was more removed from historical-political  issues.  I t a l s o minimized o b s e r v e r s '  a n t i c i p a t i o n o f a f a t e s i m i l a r t o the v i c t i m ' s . The l i t e r a t u r e on the performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y hypothesis was  shown to be i n c o n c l u s i v e .  Several possible  meanings o f the term " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " were o u t l i n e d .  The  and  40  dependent v a r i a b l e s designed t o assess these v a r i o u s nuances were d e s c r i b e d .  Two addenda, and one a l t e r n a t i v e , t o the  performance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis were presented. The addenda are i n c l u d e d i n the second h y p o t h e s i s below. a l t e r n a t i v e was the blame-sympathy h y p o t h e s i s . of  The  Predictions  t h i s hypothesis and the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y  h y p o t h e s i s were compared. The formal hypotheses World Hypothesis  o f the p r e s e n t study are t h e J u s t  and d e r i v a t i o n s o f the performance before  p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis.  In the context o f the o p e r a t i o n -  a l i z a t i o n s used i n t h i s experiment 1)  they can be s t a t e d as f o l l o w s :  In the h i g h i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y c o n d i t i o n , J u s t World B e l i e v e r s  w i l l devalue the v i c t i m more than Unjust World B e l i e v e r s . s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n the non-contingent who  More  shock c o n d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s  scored h i g h on COMJWB w i l l r a t e the v i c t i m ' s p e r s o n a l i t y  more n e g a t i v e l y than low s c o r e r s on COMJWB. 2) of  Subjects who p e r c e i v e the v i c t i m as r e s p o n s i b l e on account some s p e c i f i e d a c t w i l l not devalue her w h i l e those who do  not a t t r i b u t e t o her any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r her own f a t e by her performed  a c t s w i l l e i t h e r devalue h e r o r w i l l p l a c e the  responsibility menter o r both.  f o r her s u f f e r i n g on the s i t u a t i o n , the e x p e r i -  41  CHAPTER THREE: METHOD  A.  Subjects One  hundred f i f t y - o n e v o l u n t e e r s were r e c r u i t e d from  introductory  psychology s u b j e c t  B r i t i s h Columbia. tested  As  p o o l at the U n i v e r s i t y  of  Shown on Table I I , there were 30  s u b j e c t s i n the  two  control conditions.  The  unpre-  other  s u b j e c t s were requested by telephone to p a r t i c i p a t e i n s e s s i o n s each l a s t i n g one  The  random assignment of  s u b j e c t s to treatment c o n d i t i o n s  was  r e s t r i c t e d o n l y by  the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of s u b j e c t s at  p a r t i c i p a t i o n times.  F i f t y - e i g h t (48%)  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the p r e t e s t mental treatment.  of the  121  subjects  at the time of the  at a p a r t i c u l a r time, 37  tested) f a i l e d to appear. tested  did p a r t i c i p a t e .  (31% of the  Sixty-three The  (52%)  not be  to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the  second s e s s i o n  experi-  second  t o t a l number p r e of the  remaining 21 of the  dropouts e i t h e r c o u l d  who  second  telephone c o n t a c t , s a i d they would p a r t i c i p a t e i n the session  time-  scheduled  d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the  Of those who,  121  two  hour.  t a b l e c o n f l i c t s and  the  58  121  pre-  pretested  c o n t a c t e d a second time or  refused  f o r a v a r i e t y of p e r s o n a l  reasons. 2 A Hotellmgs T  performed on the p r e t e s t  dropouts vs experimental p a r t i c i p a n t s differences  between the two 2  t e s t s administered outs d i d not on two  (T  differ-  scores of  f a i l e d to r e v e a l  groups on any  = 16.16; df = 118;  of the p =  personality  .28).  The  s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the p a r t i c i p a n t s  s c a l e s which have p r e v i o u s l y  any  been shown to be  dropeven  predictive  42  Table I I Account o f S u b j e c t P a r t i c i p a t i o n  Male  Female  No Shows  21  16  37  Misc.  13  8  21  34  24  58  CS  18  13  31  NCS  17  15  32  35  28  63  69  52  CS  12  5  17  NCS  5  8  13  Total Pretested  17  13  30  Total  86  65  PRETESTED Dropouts:  Experimental Participants:  Total Pretested  58  63 121  121  30  30  UNPRETESTED Controls:  Contacted  151  of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . and Peplau's  These were Rubin  (1973) J u s t World B e l i e f S c a l e and A d a i r ' s  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research Survey.  (1970)  Zuckerman  (1975) found J u s t  World B e l i e v e r s more w i l l i n g to v o l u n t e e r  for psychological  experiments and A d a i r and Fenton  (1971) found the "good s u b j e c t "  syndrome among people with more f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e s towards psychological B.  research.  Materials Pretest Questionnaires:  experimental  Three to four weeks before  s e s s i o n s u b j e c t s assembled i n groups of 12 to  They were requested  28.  to complete the items from the J u s t World  f a c t o r o f the Locus o f C o n t r o l S c a l e and Peplau's J u s t World B e l i e f S c a l e . a l i t y t e s t s were a l s o administered (see Appendix A f o r a l i s t naire) .  the  ( C o l l i n s , 1974)  and  A number of other  Rubin person-  f o r e x p l o r a t o r y purposes  of the t e s t s and a sample  question-  Subjects marked t h e i r answers to a l l items on  optical  sense computer c a r d s . Videotape:  There were two  videotape  corresponding  videotape  was  v e r s i o n s of b l a c k and  to the two  white  treatment c o n d i t i o n s .  to l e a r n a s e r i a l l i s t  Each  of nonsense s y l l a b l e s .  Depending on the c o n d i t i o n , she r e c e i v e d shocks e i t h e r a t random intervals  throughout the l e a r n i n g task or upon wrong  Both c o n d i t i o n s c o n t a i n e d videotape  was  TV broadcast.  presented  an equal number of shocks.  to s u b j e c t s as a l i v e ,  Therefore,  responses. The  closed-circuit  the v i c t i m wore the same c l o t h e s i n  both v e r s i o n s of the tape and to a l l experimental  sessions  since  44  she s a t among the o b s e r v e r - s u b j e c t s j u s t p r i o r t o the s t a r t of the  "broadcast". Post-Experimental Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ;  questionnaire  The  post-experimental  (see Appendix B) i n c l u d e d L e r n e r ' s  (1971b) v i c t i m  e v a l u a t i o n items along w i t h a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n f o r e v a l u a t i o n s of  the v i c t i m i z e r .  A f t e r Lerner, d i f f e r e n c e scores were o b t a i n e d  by s u b t r a c t i n g r a t i n g s o f e i t h e r the average the average of  psychology  experimenter  from the raw score r a t i n g s  e i t h e r the v i c t i m or the experimenter,  r a t i n g s of the average be c a l l e d "average  c o l l e g e student or  respectively.  student and the average  experimenter  forms of the p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  They v a r i e d o n l y with r e s p e c t t o the order i n which the In form A, the f i r s t  e v a l u a t i o n s and average  The  target ratings.  The  towards the v i c t i m i z e r . f i r s t two  second  responsibility  item d e a l t w i t h  attributions  attributions  In the s t y l e o f e a r l i e r s t u d i e s , the  items attempted  b u t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .  to assess the observer's g l o b a l T h i s was  f o l l o w e d by two  by v i r t u e o f u n s p e c i f i e d a c t s .  The  attri-  items  measuring the observer's p e r c e p t i o n of both t a r g e t s ' sibility  score  These were f o l l o w e d by  f i r s t item of each p a i r d e a l t w i t h  towards the v i c t i m .  items  s i x items c o n s i s t e d of raw  nine p a i r s of items r e l a t e d t o the a t t r i b u t i o n of and blame.  will  target" ratings.  There were two  appeared.  The  respon-  t h i r d p a i r of  items  d e a l t w i t h the q u e s t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y through  memorization  r a t e i n the l e a r n i n g t a s k .  perceptions  of  The  f o u r t h p a i r probed  a l t e r n a t i v e s open t o both the v i c t i m and the v i c t i m i z e r .  T h i s allowed those observers who  focused on the i s s u e of the  45  victim's  continued  themselves. performed by  the  next  Perceptions  act  nineth  four  participation  of  victim  participating  and t e n t h  items  of  in  the  causality  (dispositional  behavior.  Attributions  vs. of  checks  locus  experiment  responsibility the  of  items  blame p e r  se  for  the  assessed  pair).  The  attributions the  of  targets'  followed.  and two e x p l o r a t o r y  identify  were  (fifth  observers'  situational)  to  through  experiment  responsibility  tapped the  two m a n i p u l a t i o n  in  There  pilot  were  items  at  attributions  of  the  end. In  form B of  responsibility, items the  all  One h a l f  to  these  not  in  appeared of  the  same t a b l e  the  different  they were  purpose  After sheet  In order  that  different this  the  victim  to  at  and  was  to  purpose  of  least  the  subject  they  3 to  neighbors'  also  order  all  sharing  notice  questionthe  simply  same  told  effects.  received  experiment.  4  were  curiosity,  contained  for  Subjects  some w o u l d  They were  control each  with  assigned did  in.  Since  their  their  forms  form  were  was  forms.  satisfy  two  received  experimenter  each other  orders.  debriefing,  the  the  subject  two  them from p e r u s i n g  of  exploratory  Subjects  the  the  assumed t h a t  told  verbal  explaining  condition  to  forms.  of  session  random and,  close  naires,  the  at  and s a t was  and the  f o r m B.  were  it  in  received  each  there  preventing  but  in  that  thereby  questions  checks  The e v a l u a t i o n s  subjects  half  told  the  second.  item-order  groups  the  that  first.  two c o n d i t i o n s  however,  tested  questionnaire,  manipulation  remaining  know w h a t  were,  the  appeared  victimizer  A and t h e  this  a  dittoed  46  C.  Procedure Subjects were t e s t e d i n groups o f 12 t o 19.  Some c o n t r o l  s u b j e c t s were t e s t e d i n the same s e s s i o n w i t h p r e t e s t e d s u b j e c t s and v i c e v e r s a .  There were seven t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s , three f o r  the c o n t i n g e n t shock c o n t i n g e n t shock  (CS) c o n d i t i o n and f o u r f o r the non-  (NCS) c o n d i t i o n .  The confederate was always  b l i n d t o the c o n d i t i o n being run up u n t i l the procedure o f the l e a r n i n g task was e x p l a i n e d t o s u b j e c t s .  The confederate  the room w i t h the other s u b j e c t s and s a t with them.  entered  When a l l  s u b j e c t s had a r r i v e d , the experimenter i n t r o d u c e d h i m s e l f and gave the f o l l o w i n g r a t i o n a l e ( c f . Godfrey and Lowe, 1973) the  for  procedure: T h i s i s an experiment i n v o l v i n g the p e r c e p t i o n o f persons i n s t r e s s . The i n f o r m a t i o n we hope t o o b t a i n c o u l d be used t o a s s i s t those who have t o deal with people undergoing s t r e s s , such as a c c i d e n t , o r d i s a s t e r o r crime v i c t i m s . I t i s a l s o important f o r these people t o be a b l e t o q u i c k l y assess what i s happening i n s t r e s s f u l emergency s i t u a t i o n s . Later, i t i s o f t e n a l s o necessary f o r j u r o r s i n a c o u r t t r i a l t o be able t o assess what happened. There w i l l be a q u e s t i o n n a i r e a t the end o f the experiment to tap your p e r c e p t i o n s . We are a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n the d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t e x i s t between i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r r e a c t i o n s t o persons i n s t r e s s . We hypothesize t h a t some o f these d i f f e r e n c e s may be r e l a t e d t o the p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions on which I t e s t e d you a few weeks ago. In a few minutes you w i l l be watching a person i n a stressful situation. He w i l l be assigned the task o f t r y i n g to l e a r n a l i s t o f nonsense s y l l a b l e s . Nonsense s y l l a b l e s share, many a t t r i b u t i o n s i n common with words but are much l e s s l i k e l y t o h o l d d i f f e r ent connotations o r emotional impacts from person to person. At t h i s p o i n t the i n s t r u c t i o n s v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o what  c o n d i t i o n was being r u n .  47  ^Contingent Shock") The l e a r n e r w i l l r e c e i v e an e l e c t r i c shock whenever he makes a wrong response. [Non-Contingent Shock] The l e a r n e r w i l l r e c e i v e e l e c t r i c shocks a t random i n t e r v a l s throughout the l e a r n i n g s e s s i o n . (Both C o n d i t i o n s ] He w i l l perform the l e a r n ing task i n the room where the shock apparatus i s l o c a t e d . While we're watching t h i s experiment we're not going t o be r i g h t i n the room w i t h the l e a r n e r because the room i s r a t h e r s m a l l and our presence might d i s t r a c t him and impair h i s p e r formance. I n s t e a d , we are going to be watching them over a c l o s e d c i r c u i t T.V. system. The person you w i l l see a d m i n i s t e r i n g the l e a r n i n g task and the shocks i s N e i l K y l e , the main e x p e r i menter. Now I ' l l draw the student number to see who the l e a r n e r w i l l be. The experimenter drew a s l i p o f paper from a bowl and read a student number a l o u d .  When he asked whose i t was,  confederate r a i s e d her hand.  The experimenter t o l d the con-  f e d e r a t e how  the  t o f i n d the t e s t i n g room and she l e f t the room.  Approximately 20 to 30 seconds l a t e r the experimenter turned on the videotape while e x p l a i n i n g to s u b j e c t s t h a t he about to t u r n on the c l o s e d c i r c u i t T.V.  was  camera.  The videotape d e p i c t e d a male experimenter (the v i c t i m izer) s i t t i n g  at a t a b l e i n f r o n t o f some i m p r e s s i v e l o o k i n g  e l e c t r o n i c equipment.  A f t e r a few seconds the v i c t i m (a  confederate) entered and i n t r o d u c e d h e r s e l f t o the experimenter as the s u b j e c t who  was  randomly  s e l e c t e d t o be the l e a r n e r .  The experimenter e x p l a i n e d t o the v i c t i m t h a t her task was memorize a l i s t o f 12 nonsense  s y l l a b l e s i n t h e i r proper o r d e r .  The l i s t o f s y l l a b l e s was w r i t t e n on a deck o f f i l e s y l l a b l e to a c a r d .  to  c a r d s , one  The experimenter s a i d t h a t he would  show her the cards one a t a time.  She was  aloud and t r y to memorize t h e i r o r d e r .  first  to read the s y l l a b l e s  Then the t e s t i n g  trials  48  would b e g i n .  There were t o be as many t r i a l s as i t took f o r  her to l e a r n the l i s t In  i n the proper order without an e r r o r .  both c o n d i t i o n s there were s e v e r a l t r i a l s and the l e a r n e r  made the same e r r o r s i n the same o r d e r . task performance  In o t h e r words, her  was the same i n both c o n d i t i o n s .  As he a t t a c h e d e l e c t r o d e s t o the v i c t i m ' s w r i s t , the experimenter e x p l a i n e d the shock c o n t i n g e n c i e s depending on the  c o n d i t i o n being p o r t r a y e d .  He assured her t h a t no perman-  ent  t i s s u e damage would r e s u l t from the shocks.  l e a r n e r had had a chance t o read the l i s t  A f t e r the  through once, the  seven t e s t i n g t r i a l s .began. In the c o n t i n g e n t shock the  condition  l e a r n e r appeared t o r e c e i v e an e l e c t r i c shock every time  she made an e r r o r .  In the non-contingent shock  condition  shocks were d e l i v e r e d a t random i n t e r v a l s throughout the t e s t ing  trials.  The v i c t i m i z e r was c l e a r l y shown d e p r e s s i n g a  key on a box each time he a d m i n i s t e r e d a shock.  During the  l e a r n i n g t a s k , the v i c t i m a c t e d as i f she were being shocked each time the v i c t i m i z e r depressed the key.  The key s i m u l -  taneously i l l u m i n a t e d a c l e a r l y v i s i b l e lamp and sounded a buzzer.  On the seventh t r i a l the l e a r n e r gave the l i s t o f  s y l l a b l e s i n the c o r r e c t order and.the experimenter then informed her t h a t the t a s k was over.  The tape ended immedi-  a t e l y a f t e r he detached the e l e c t r o d e s from her w r i s t . the  When  videotape was f i n i s h e d the experimenter gave the f o l l o w i n g  i n s t r u c t i o n s t o the o b s e r v e r s who had j u s t watched i t : Now I'd l i k e you t o f i l l out t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Don't spend too much time pondering each item. J u s t g i v e your f i r s t impressions but be c a r e f u l not t o omit any q u e s t i o n s . There are two forms  49  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Both forms ask a l l the same q u e s t i o n s but the pages have simply been arranged i n d i f f e r e n t o r d e r s . T h i s i s so t h a t we can c o n t r o l f o r any e f f e c t s t h a t might r e s u l t from answering the q u e s t i o n s i n a d i f f e r ent o r d e r . So don't worry i f you see t h a t your neighbor i s working on a d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n . That q u e s t i o n w i l l appear l a t e r on i n your q u e s t i o n n a i r e . P l e a s e f i l l out the q u e s t i o n n a i r e on your own without c o n s u l t i n g anyone e l s e . I f there are any q u e s t i o n s j u s t r a i s e your hand and I ' l l t r y t o answer them. Post-experimental q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d and when they had been completed and c o l l e c t e d , i n g began.  the v e r b a l  debrief-  An attempt was made t o assess the e x t e n t o f the  s u b j e c t s ' s u s p i c i o u s n e s s about the v e r i d i c a l i t y o f the shocks and the c l o s e d c i r c u i t T.V. b r o a d c a s t .  A f t e r they had been  asked not t o r e v e a l the nature o f the experiment t o t h e i r peers u n t i l i t was completed, s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d a w r i t t e n summary o f the purpose o f the experiment a l o n g w i t h the experimenter's thanks f o r t h e i r  participation.  50  CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS  The  r e s u l t s o f the MANOVA performed t o t e s t the J u s t  World Hypothesis are p r e s e n t e d before t h e c o r r e l a t i o n a l f i n d i n g s which are p e r t i n e n t hypothesis. and  N e i t h e r h y p o t h e s i s was confirmed but t h e o r e t i c a l l y  statistically  found.  t o the performance before p e r s o n a l i t y sub-  s i g n i f i c a n t differences  and c o r r e l a t i o n s were  The l a s t r e s u l t s presented are concerned with the i n - .  t e r n a l v a l i d i t y o f the experiment. A.  F a i l u r e t o Confirm the J u s t World Hypothesis E s s e n t i a l l y , the J u s t World Hypothesis was phrased as an  i n t e r a c t i o n between i n e q u i t y and J u s t World B e l i e f . t h e s i s was t e s t e d w i t h i n multivariate  t h e framework o f a 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l  analysis o f variance  (MANOVA) on 33 dependent  v a r i a b l e s and l i n e a r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s t h e r e o f . f a c t o r had two l e v e l s .  c l a s s i f i e d as Unjust World B e l i e v e r s  and  The COMJWB  Subjects were c a t e g o r i z e d  groups on the b a s i s o f a median s p l i t .  World B e l i e v e r s .  The hypo-  i n t o two  There were 32 observers  and 31 c l a s s i f i e d as J u s t  The i n t e r a c t i o n between shock contingency  COMJWB was not s i g n i f i c a n t ( m u l t i v a r i a t e F = 0.5 36;  13/47; n s ) .  df =  N e i t h e r was there any main e f f e c t f o r COMJWB  ( m u l t i v a r i a t e F = 1.023; d f = 13/47; n s ) .  There was, however,  a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r shock contingency F = 7.55; d f = 20/40; p < . 0 0 0 1 ) .  (multivariate  Before d i s c u s s i n g  this l e t  us make sure t h a t t h e J u s t World Hypothesis was thoroughly and adequately t e s t e d .  A c l o s e r examination o f the J u s t World  51  B e l i e f measures and t h e i r d i v i s i o n i n t o f a c t o r l e v e l s i s i n order.  First of a l l ,  t h e d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s on COMJWB  are r e p o r t e d . Rubin and P e p l a u s s c a l e s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e s with 1  the C o l l i n s s c a l e (r = .451;  d f = 118;  value f o r the f i r s t p r i n c i p l e component and,  p < .001).  The e i g e n -  ( i . e . COMJWB) was 1.45  o f course, s i n c e t h e r e were only two i n p u t v a r i a b l e s , t h e  values i n the e i g e n v e c t o r are i d e n t i c a l f o r each s c a l e (.852). The e i g e n v e c t o r values a r e i d e n t i c a l w i t h the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between COMJWB and the two i n p u t measures (r = .852; df = 61; p < .001). Since the eigenvalue  i s c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r than 1.00  and the c o r r e l a t i o n s are a l l very s i g n i f i c a n t  (p<.001) the  p r i n c i p l e component a n a l y s i s seems t o have succeeded i n produci n g a h i g h l y i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t measure o f J u s t World B e l i e f . Nevertheless c a u t i o n a r y measure.  f u r t h e r analyses were performed as a p r e The scores from Rubin and Peplau's J u s t  World B e l i e f Scale were used t o c o n s t r u c t t h e second MANOVA factor.  In terms o f s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s , the r e s u l t s on the  two main e f f e c t s and the i n t e r a c t i o n were a l l t h e same as those o b t a i n e d u s i n g COMJWB. In o r d e r t o examine the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t o n l y extreme scores on these measures would r e a c t a c c o r d i n g t o p r e d i c t i o n s , the sample was d i v i d e d i n t o three groups by means o f a t e r t i l e split. 2x3  T h i s y i e l d e d a t h r e e - l e v e l J u s t World f a c t o r and a MANOVA.  and marginal  Table I I I shows the r e s u l t a n t c e l l sums f o r the median and t e r t i l e  frequencies  s p l i t s performed  Table I I I Frequencies Produced by Median and T e r t i l e  Splits  on Two Measures o f J u s t World B e l i e f F a c t o r  CS  NCS  Total  Just  16  15  31  Unjust  15  17  32  Just  12  9  21  Neutral  9  11  20  Unjust  10  12  22  Just  17  19  36  Unjust  14  13  27  Just  8  8  16  Neutral  16  15  31  Unjust  7  9  16  COMJWB Median:*  Tertile  Rubin & Pelau's Scale Median  Tertile  *This was the major a n a l y s i s i n the experiment.  It  was used t o c a l c u l a t e the M7ANOVA r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d .  53  on both COMJWB and Rubin and P e p l a u s s c a l e .  They are a l l  1  i n t e r s e c t e d w i t h shock contingency c o n d i t i o n s . tertile  s p l i t s d i d not  Again, the  change the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s o f the  r e s u l t s found u s i n g a median s p l i t on COMJWB. conclusion  The unavoidable  i s t h a t J u s t World B e l i e f had no p r e d i c t i v e  value  whatsoever. B.  Main E f f e c t f o r Shock Contingency Having d e a l t w i t h the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t  MANOVA r e s u l t s l e t  us now c o n s i d e r what s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were found. multivariate  Under t h e  main e f f e c t f o r shock contingency there were t e n  dependent v a r i a b l e s w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t u n i v a r i a t e  F rations.  T h e i r means, F r a t i o s and s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s a r e summarized i n Table IV. Attributions of undifferentiated  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the  v i c t i m and f o r the v i c t i m i z e r were i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d conditions.  The v i c t i m was r a t e d as more r e s p o n s i b l e  CS  than i n the NCS c o n d i t i o n  condition  i z e r was seen as more r e s p o n s i b l e (p<-0002). was  (p < .001).  i n the  The v i c t i m -  i n the NCS c o n d i t i o n  Moreover, i n the CS c o n d i t i o n ,  more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  a t t r i b u t e d t o the v i c t i m than t o the v i c t i m i z e r  In the NCS c o n d i t i o n  across  they a r e r e v e r s e d .  This  (p < .0001) .  i s most c l e a r l y  i l l u s t r a t e d by the t h i r d v a r i a b l e on Table IV ("V-E Resp"). I t was c o n s t r u c t e d by s u b t r a c t i n g ated r e s p o n s i b i l i t y score from the The  personality  the v i c t i m i z e r ' s u n d i f f e r e n t i victim's.  e v a l u a t i o n s f o r the v i c t i m and the v i c t i m -  i z e r were a l s o i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d across c o n d i t i o n s .  The v i c t i m  Table IV MANOVA Summary o f Shock Main E f f e c t M u l t i v a r i a t e F = 7.5514, p Item  .0001, df = 20/40 Univariate F (df = 1/59)  (Code No.)*  P  X CS  X  Means Key NCS  1 V u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d R (VRl)  48.84  .0001  4. 032  7. 750  R = lower number  2 E u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d R (ER1)  17.17  .0002  6. 161  3. 312  R = lower number  3 V-E Resp (#l-#2)  47.83  .0001  -4. 270  8. 780  VR = n e g a t i v e "-'  6.65  .0125  92. 290  129. 300  6.09  .0165  0. 650  -6. 469  15.00  .0003  4. 548  7. 000  blame = lower  9.01  .0004  6. 194  4. 062  blame = lower  15.97  .0003  -3. 270  5. 680  VB = n e g a t i v e  105.25  .0001  2. 290  7. 344  R = lower number  .0047  3. 258  4. 844  f a i r = lower  4 Raw score V e v a l u a t i o n 5 Difference  (VE9)  score E e v a l .  (EE10)  6 V i c t i m blame (VB8) 7 Experimenter blame (EB8) 8 V-E Blame (#6-#7) 9 V unspecified  a c t R (VR2)  10 F a i r n e s s o f experiment  8.650  *See Table I f o r key t o item code numbers. V = victim  R = responsibility  E = experimenter  »+» VE = h i g h e r d e r o g a t i o n = "-"  55  was r a t e d more p o s i t i v e l y i n the NCS c o n d i t i o n than i n the CS condition  (p<.0125).  The v i c t i m i z e r was p e r c e i v e d  more p o s i -  t i v e l y i n the CS c o n d i t i o n than i n the NCS c o n d i t i o n In s h o r t , the g r e a t e r  (p<.0165).  i n e q u i t y o f the NCS c o n d i t i o n made the  v i c t i m seem n i c e r and the v i c t i m i z e r seem n a s t i e r . The r e s u l t s on the u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a t t r i b u t i o n s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and the p e r s o n a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s  can be used to  determine the occurrence o f any blaming response.  Since, i n  the NCS c o n d i t i o n , f o r example, the v i c t i m i z e r was both devalued and  held responsible,  blaming d i d occur.  As would be expected  then, the a t t r i b u t i o n s o f blame p e r se a l s o d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y across perceived  The v i c t i m was  as more blameworthy i n the CS c o n d i t i o n than i n the  NCS c o n d i t i o n izer  shock contingency c o n d i t i o n s .  (p<.000 3).  (p<.0004).  The r e v e r s e  was true  f o r the v i c t i m -  The e i g h t h v a r i a b l e on Table IV ("V-E  Blame")  compares the r e l a t i v e blame a t t r i b u t e d t o v i c t i m v s . v i c t i m i z e r across  conditions.  constructed  by s u b t r a c t i n g v i c t i m i z e r blame scores  blame s c o r e s .  L i k e the V-E Resp v a r i a b l e , i t was from v i c t i m  In the CS c o n d i t i o n the v i c t i m was p e r c e i v e d  s l i g h t l y more blameworthy than the v i c t i m i z e r .  In the NCS  c o n d i t i o n , however, the v i c t i m i z e r was r a t e d as a great more blameworthy than the v i c t i m greater  (p<.0003).  as  deal  Therefore the  i n e q u i t y o f the NCS c o n d i t i o n r e s u l t e d i n blame f o r  the v i c t i m i z e r and sympathy f o r the v i c t i m . The r a t i n g s o f the e x t e n t t o which the v i c t i m " d i d somet h i n g " t o b r i n g about her own s u f f e r i n g , p o r t r a y e d as more r e s p o n s i b l e  i n the CS c o n d i t i o n  the v i c t i m  (p < .0001).  In a  56  s t r i c t l y behavioral things and  sense, the v i c t i m d i d e x a c t l y the same  i n both c o n d i t i o n s .  She was s e l e c t e d to r e c e i v e  complied i n the same way both times.  responses over the same number o f t r i a l s Yet  She made the same i n both  conditions.  the o b s e r v e r s ' r a t i n g s produced a huge u n i v a r i a t e F  (105.25) i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s did  shocks  o f how much she  t o b r i n g the s u f f e r i n g on h e r s e l f were d r a s t i c a l l y  ent from one c o n d i t i o n t o the o t h e r .  differ-  In the CS c o n d i t i o n she  was seen as performing some u n s p e c i f i e d a c t which caused her suffering.  In the NCS c o n d i t i o n she was seen as l a r g e l y h e l p -  l e s s , an innocent pawn.  S u r p r i s i n g l y , however, the v i c t i m ' s  " u n s p e c i f i e d a c t " item was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with her  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a r i s i n g from e i t h e r her memorization r a t e  or her continued p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment.  What i s  more, the data from the open ended item on what a l t e r n a t i v e s she had a v a i l a b l e do not shed any l i g h t on e x a c t l y what the observers i n the CS c o n d i t i o n thought she had done t o b r i n g the m i s f o r t u n e upon h e r s e l f . (i.e. victim)  When asked i f the " l e a r n e r "  c o u l d have done anything o t h e r than what she  a c t u a l l y d i d , 36% o f the CS observers s a i d "NO" w h i l e 64% s a i d "YES". "YES".  In the NCS c o n d i t i o n 53% s a i d "NO"  A c h i square showed these frequencies  and 47% s a i d  t o be w i t h i n  2 the range o f chance v a r i a t i o n ('X  = 1.82; df = 1; NS).  Furthermore, p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s o f these " a l t e r n a t i v e s " items with a l l o t h e r performed a c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y items revealed  no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s .  e x a c t l y what the v i c t i m was p e r c e i v e d  Thus, i t remains  unknown  t o have done i n the CS  c o n d i t i o n t o b r i n g the s u f f e r i n g upon h e r s e l f .  57  As f o r the l a s t v a r i a b l e on Table I ' l l , ' the treatment o f the v i c t i m i n the CS c o n d i t i o n was fair  than the treatment she r e c e i v e d i n the NCS  (p <.0047).  condition  T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t the g r e a t e r i n e q u i t y of the  non-contingent shock was of  r a t e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more  i n t e r p r e t e d as l e s s f a i r  treatment  the v i c t i m . Summarizing the r e s u l t s r e l a t i n g t o the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s ,  no support was  found f o r the J u s t World Hypothesis but a  blaming r e a c t i o n was  observed.  Where the v i c t i m should have  been devalued the most, she r e c e i v e d sympathy and the v i c t i m i z e r was C.  blamed.  F a i l u r e to Confirm the Performance  Before P e r s o n a l t y  Subhypothesis The performance  b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis  the second h y p o t h e s i s i n t h i s experiment. support whatsoever. reaction.  was  I t r e c e i v e d no  T h e . a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s was  the blaming  The evidence supported a m o d i f i e d v e r s i o n o f t h i s  alternative. All  the evidence b e a r i n g on the performance  p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis was  correlational.  The  being c o r r e l a t e d were p e r s o n a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s and attributions.  before elements responsibility  The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n s f e l l  rough c a t e g o r i e s .  These were d i s p o s i t i o n a l  responsibility,  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a r i s i n g from s p e c i f i c a c t s and g l o b a l sibility  attributions.  i n t o three  respon-  58  Dispositional VR6.  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was  I t r e p r e s e n t s the p e r s o n a l i t y  formance b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y " . observers who  The  A c c o r d i n g to the  item  hypothesis,  devalued the v i c t i m should have a t t r i b u t e d  c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h raw  non-significant The  the  p a r t of the phrase "per-  high degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to her not.  assessed by  (r =  on  t h i s item.  a  They d i d  score v i c t i m e v a l u a t i o n s  .0534; df = 61;  was  ns).  performance p a r t of the phrase "performance before  personality"  covers a t t r i b u t i o n s based on  s p e c i f i c acts  by  which the v i c t i m might have brought her  s u f f e r i n g upon h e r s e l f .  These a t t r i b u t i o n s were measured by  items VR3,  VR5.  the  VR4  They r e f e r e to r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a r i s i n g from memorization  r a t e , c o n t i n u e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment and e l s e the  s u b j e c t can  personality  specify himself.  subhypothesis p r e d i c t s  degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on  any  I t was  not.  victim s 1  "performance" p a r t  of the  subhypothesis.  I t was  correlated  Table V shows, however, i t was (p <.05)  victim evaluations.  the  not  the cor-  direction  significantly  i n the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n w i t h raw The  the  devaluation.  i s a l s o subsumed by  r e l a t e d with v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n i n the p r e d i c t e d As  the  personality  item a s s e s s i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t e d on (VR2)  low  be  A t t r i b u t i o n s : of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on  of an U n s p e c i f i e d a c t  either.  of a  A l l of  of s p e c i f i c a c t s were u n r e l a t e d to v i c t i m The  basis  performance before  that:attributions  c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h both measures of the were n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t .  The  whatever  or a l l of these would  accompanied by v i c t i m d e r o g a t i o n .  basis  and  more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  score  attributed,  59  the more v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n .  T h i s i s the blaming response.  To summarize a l l the comparisons r e l e v a n t to the formance before p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis, two noted.  F i r s t , a b s o l u t e l y no  support was  h y p o t h e s i s although some support was h y p o t h e s i s of blaming. the  Second, one  f a i l u r e of v i c t i m evaluations  per-  t h i n g s must be  found f o r the  sub-  found f o r the a l t e r n a t i v e possible explanation  for  were not r e l a t e d to respon-  s i b i l i t y r a t i n g s i n the p r e d i c t e d manner i s t h a t , s i n c e l i t t l e v i c t i m devaluation  occurred,  so  the r e s u l t s are based  on d i f f e r e n t p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes from those covered the subhypothesis. i z e r who  was  observers'  In other words, s i n c e i t was  held responsible  preferences  the v i c t i m -  there were no data r e l a t i n g  to  f o r types of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u -  t i o n when i t i s the v i c t i m who D.  by  they h o l d  responsible.  V i c t i m i z e r Blame and V i c t i m Sympathy There are two  before  apparent loopholes  p e r s o n a l i t y hypothesis.  i n the performance  They s t a t e t h a t when the  v i c t i m has been n e i t h e r h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e nor devalued, observers a t t r i b u t e the i n j u s t i c e to e i t h e r the s i t u a t i o n or the v i c t i m izer.  As mentioned i n Chapter I I , the J u s t World Hypothesis  i s incapable  of e i t h e r p r e d i c t i n g or e x p l a i n i n g such r e a c t i o n s .  Nonetheless, s i n c e the v i c t i m was nor devalued, the two  neither held  addenda items must be examined.  c o r r e l a t i o n s between v i c t i m e v a l u a t i o n s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s The  and  (VS7)  responsible The  a t t r i b u t i o n s of were n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t .  second addendum, however, produced s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s .  60  Attributions victimizer  of g r e a t e r u n s p e c i f i e d (ERl)  were c o r r e l a t e d  victim evaluations  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to  with more p o s i t i v e raw  (r = .2566; df = 61;  p<.05).  t r u e f o r g r e a t e r a t t r i b u t i o n s of blame to the (r = -. 3037; df = 61; The reaction  the  which are  relevant  to the  blaming hypo-  variables  included  responsibil-  i n the  blaming  T h i s a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e s i s does, however, m a i n t a i n  d i s t i n c t i o n between r e s p o n s i b i l i t y v a r i a b l e s  evaluations. variables  was  blaming  d i s t i n c t i o n among types of  Table V shows a l l the  cluster.  same  victimizer  s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i n s o f a r as the  t h e s i s does not make any ity.  The  score  p<.02).  s e t of v a r i a b l e s are  the  As  indicated  i n Table V,  the  and  personality  responsibility  form a t i g h t c l u s t e r w h i l e the p e r s o n a l i t y  t i o n s tend to be more  evalua-  peripheral.  Because no necessary d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between p e r formance- and entiated  p e r s o n a l i t y - b a s e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , the  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n s and  the  blame form a c e n t r a l p a r t of t h i s c l u s t e r . are  act.  t h a t made the The  targets  as  only personality  evaluation  score v i c t i m e v a l u a t i o n s .  central an are  of  agree on what i t  i n the The  measure which  unspecified  correlates  responsibility cluster i s raw  score v i c t i m  t i o n s were more p o s i t i v e when the v i c t i m was r e s p o n s i b l e owing to an  of  responsible.  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with variables raw  Just  These r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n s  a g l o b a l nature i n s o f a r as observers d i d not was  attributions  a t t r i b u t i o n s of v i c t i m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y based on  unspecified  undiffer-  act  evalua-  seen as  (p<.05).  less  Conversely,  Table V C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x f o r Blame C l u s t e r of V a r i a b l e s  VR1  V undifferentiated R  ER1  E undifferentiated R  VB8  V i c t i m blame  EB8  Experimenter  VR2  V unspecified  VE9  Raw score VE  EE 9  -.433  d  .671  d  4  3  2  1  Item (Code No.)*  -.257  a  -.379°  .579  d  .783  -.493  d  -.349°  .516  d  .236  -.257  Raw score EE  -1.56  VE10  D i f f e r e n c e score VE  EE10  D i f f e r e n c e score EE  blame  6  5  -.317  b  .145  -.304  b  .133  -.170  .201  .004  -.0 35  -.073  .239  -.023  -.020  .046  .-34  -.237  .220  -.053  .039  - .210  -.141  act R  *See Table I f o r key to  d  a  item code numbers.  .292  a  df = 61 a) p  .05  R = responsibility  b) p  .02  V = victim  c) p  .01  d) p  .001  E =  experimenter  CTl  62  the g r e a t e r and  the v i c t i m i z e r ' s u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  the g r e a t e r  h i s blameworthiness, the more p o s i t i v e the  victim i s rated  (p <.05  and  p<  .02,  respectively).  This  to a minor m o d i f i c a t i o n of the blaming h y p o t h e s i s . a c t u a l l y the most r e s p o n s i b l e devalued.  out of the three  i s l i k e l y to  be  At l e a s t t h i s was  target  the case f o r  two  v a r i a b l e s which c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with  a measure of p e r s o n a l i t y Internal V a l i d i t y : The  I t i s not  Rather, i f t a r g e t A i s h e l d more r e s p o n s i b l e ,  B i s r a t e d more p o s i t i v e l y .  E.  t a r g e t who  leads  evaluation. M a r g i n a l Order E f f e c t  f o l l o w i n g are two  analyses which are germaine to  the i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y of the experiment.  Since they are  on c o n t r o l f a c t o r s , they do not t e s t the p r e d i c t i o n s o f  based any  hypotheses. Taking advantage o f the Solomon f o u r group design Campbell and  Stanley,  1963,  p. 24)  to determine the extent of any experiment.  an a n a l y s i s was  performed  p r e t e s t s e n s i t i z a t i o n i n the  A 2 x 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l MANOVA was  performed  a l l dependent v a r i a b l e s u s i n g shock contingency and vs. no p r e t e s t i n g as independent v a r i a b l e s . dent v a r i a b l e was  order,  form A Vs.  experimental q u e s t i o n n a i r e . e f f e c t of p r e t e s t i n g  (cf.  The  The  form B of the  on  pretesting  third  indepen-  post-  o v e r a l l F r a t i o f o r the main  (F<1.0; df = 13/73) was  not s i g n i f i c a n t .  L i k e w i s e , the i n t e r a c t i o n of shock contingency w i t h p r e t e s t i n g (F<1.0; df = 13/73) was  not  statistically significant.  Thus,  63  the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e was was  no p r e t e s t  sensitization,  not r e j e c t e d . There was  a m a r g i n a l main e f f e c t  (F = 1.619; df = 13/73;  p<.10) f o r the o r d e r o f items on the p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l questionnaire.  T h i s was  a r e s u l t o f the s i g n i f i c a n t  ate F s on f o u r dependent v a r i a b l e s .  They a l l had 1 and  1  degrees o f freedom.  85  They were; the amount of blame f o r the  v i c t i m i z a t i o n a t t r i b u t e d t o the v i c t i m the v i c t i m i z e r  univari-  (F = 9.92;  (F = 4.63;  p<.05) and  p < . 0 1 ) , the v i c t i m i z e r s degree o f  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the d i f f i c u l t y of the l e a r n i n g task (F = 9.69;  p  .01), and V-E Blame (F = 11.85; p < . 0 0 1 ) .  On form A the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y items f o l l o w e d the persona l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s o f the t a r g e t persons. was  reversed.  In form B the order  On a l l the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y items lower scores  i n d i c a t e g r e a t e r a t t r i b u t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and the s c a l e s were the L i k e r t type r a n g i n g from 1 to 9.  More blame was  buted t o the v i c t i m on form B (x = 5.35) (x = 6.42)  w h i l e the r e v e r s e was  A, x = 3.69;  form B, x = 5.60).  highlights this effect.  than on form A  t r u e f o r the v i c t i m i z e r The comparative  (x = 2.77).  however, they were both e q u a l l y blameworthy  seen  On form B,  (x = -0.221),  The form B means f o r both v i c t i m and  blame f a l l between the 5th and 6th s c a l e p o i n t s . o f the s c a l e i s f i v e .  (form  blame v a r i a b l e  On form A the v i c t i m i z e r was  as more blameworthy than the v i c t i m  unblameworthy.  attri-  The  or  victimizer midpoint  V e r b a l l y t h i s would t r a n s l a t e i n t o a  statement t o the e f f e c t t h a t the t a r g e t person was blameworthy and blameless, o r , t h a t he was  equally  n e i t h e r completely  64  to  blame nor completely blameless.  The r a t i n g s of the v i c t i m -  i z e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the d i f f i c u l t y of the l e a r n i n g task also f e l l  near the midpoint on form B (x = 5.43).  From the  observer's p o i n t of view, the number of shocks d e l i v e r e d  may  be seen as a f u n c t i o n o f the number of t r i a l s needed to l e a r n the l i s t .  T h i s i n t u r n may  be r e l a t e d , i n some o b s e r v e r ' s  minds, to the l e v e l o f task d i f f i c u l t y p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d by victimizer.  Thus, observers who  h o l d the v i c t i m i z e r  the  repon-  s i b l e f o r the s u f f e r i n g can use t h i s item as a means of e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of the v i c t i m i z e r ' s  indirect  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the number o f shocks d e l i v e r e d . e x a c t l y what form A observers d i d as a whole  This i s  (x = 3.8 3).  The marginal o r d e r e f f e c t can be summarized as a for  tendency  o b s e r v e r s t o see the v i c t i m i z e r as more blameworthy when  they had a l r e a d y made r a t i n g s o f h i s and the v i c t i m ' s personalities.  Observers who  responsibility f i r s t  made the a t t r i b u t i o n s of blame and  (form B) tended to r a t e both t a r g e t s as  n e i t h e r completely blameworthy nor completely blameless.  It  should a l s o be noted t h a t order had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t  on  the e v a l u a t i o n s o f the t a r g e t s ' F.  personalities.  Summary The J u s t World Hypothesis was  not supported.  Neither  the COMJWB measure nor Rubin and Peplau's s c a l e produced predicted interaction. for  There was  a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t  shock contingency but no v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n o c c u r r e d .  performance  the  b e f o r e p e r s o n a l i t y subhypothesis r e c e i v e d no  The support  65  but the a l t e r n a t i v e blaming h y p o t h e s i s was s t r o n g l y In the NCS c o n d i t i o n received  sympathy.  supported.  the v i c t i m i z e r was blamed and the v i c t i m There was no p r e t e s t  m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t o r d e r e f f e c t was  s e n s i t i z a t i o n but a found.  CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION  A.  I n e q u i t y Anxiety  as an I n t e n s i t y Parameter and the  I n e f f i c a c y Of J u s t World B e l i e f The  aspect  o f the J u s t World Hypothesis d e a l i n g w i t h the  i n f l u e n c e o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n J u s t World B e l i e f r e c e i v e d no support whatsoever. anxiety  (NCS c o n d i t i o n )  Not even under high  d i d J u s t World B e l i e f p r e d i c t  of the v i c t i m , o r the v i c t i m i z e r . of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n .  inequity evaluations  Nor d i d i t p r e d i c t any type  Rubin and Peplau's  (1973)  study was the o n l y other one p u b l i s h e d which t e s t e d the e f f i c a c y of J u s t World B e l i e f . v i c t i m derogation three others  On f o u r dependent v a r i a b l e s they found  as a f u n c t i o n o f J u s t World B e l i e f but on  they found a "compassionate" tendency.  Although  J u s t World B e l i e f may p r e d i c t behavior i n some s i t u a t i o n s , i t seems as though those s i t u a t i o n s a r e h i g h l y s p e c i f i c and t h e i r d e f i n i n g parameters a r e mysterious. Lerner  a t t r i b u t e d t o o b s e r v e r s a need t o b e l i e v e t h a t the  world i s j u s t .  T h i s a t t r i b u t i o n was a p p a r e n t l y  b a s i s o f the observers' his fate.  made on the  tendency t o say t h a t the v i c t i m deserved  There may be many reasons why observers sometimes  c l a i m t h a t the v i c t i m deserved t o s u f f e r .  The need t o p r o t e c t  a b e l i e f i n a j u s t world does n o t appear t o be p r e p o t e n t among these reasons.  As f a r as i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y  more i n e q u i t a b l e c o n d i t i o n i n the present less victim  derogation.  i s concerned, the study  (NCS) l e d t o  67  T h i s r e s u l t need not l e a d t o a complete r e j e c t i o n of Lerner s 1  hypothesis.  Although  i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y might not  d i r e c t l y p r e d i c t i v e o f the d i r e c t i o n o r t a r g e t o f it  be  derogation,  i s , as Lerner i m p l i e d , a f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g the i n t e n s i t y o f  the observer's  response.  As was  p o i n t e d out i n Chapter 1,  response to i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y might be to admit t h a t the  one  world  i s u n j u s t and then to decide what to do about t h a t s t a t e of affairs.  T h i s , of course, i s based on the assumption t h a t  i n e q u i t y produces i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y . S t r i c t l y . s p e a k i n g , the evidence  f o r the e f f i c a c y of  i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y i s j u s t as tenuous as t h a t f o r J u s t World Belief.  T h e r e f o r e , the more parsimonious c o n c l u s i o n would be  t h a t the degree o f i n e q u i t y i n a s i t u a t i o n a f f e c t s the i n t e n s i t y of observers' responses. of m o t i v a t i o n .  We  T h i s , however, begs the q u e s t i o n  would s t i l l want to know how  produces v a r i o u s e f f e c t s .  The most obvious  inequity i t s e l f  candidate  r e p l a c i n g i n e q u i t y 'anxiety' would be some form of model.  But then we would want to know why  consistency.  T h i s q u e s t i o n has  people  for  balance seek c o g n i t i v e  l e d some (Kagan, 1972)  right  back to p o s t u l a t i n g motives which appear q u i t e s i m i l a r to Lerner's  inequity anxiety.  In s h o r t , the e l i m i n a t i o n of  i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y from the e x p l a n a t i o n does not advance our understanding  of the phenomenon any more or any  i n v o c a t i o n of the concept  did.  l e s s than  the  68  B.  Responsibility  Attributions  and P e r s o n a l i t y  Evaluations  F a i l u r e o f the Performance Before P e r s o n a l i t y No support was found f o r the performance before subhypothesis.  The r e l e v a n t  Predictions:  personality  performed a c t s were the v i c t i m ' s  continued p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e experiment and h e r memorization rate  i n the learning  the b a s i s  task.  Although these c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y be  f o r e i t h e r performance o r p e r s o n a l i t y  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , the r e s u l t s s t i l l If  disconfirm  observers had seen these a c t s as l e a d i n g  attributions of  the subhypothesis. d i r e c t l y t o the  s u f f e r i n g , there should have been a n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between attributed no  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n .  such c o r r e l a t i o n .  There was  I f , on the o t h e r hand, observers used  these a c t s t o make d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the v i c t i m t h e r e should have been a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between buted r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n . did not m a t e r i a l i z e  either.  these d i v e r g e n t tendencies i n the data. would expect the u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  t i o n s and the a t t r i b u t i o n s  underlying observers' ratings  If  responses obscured  I f t h a t were the case,  responsibility attribu-  f o r an u n s p e c i f i e d  u n c o r r e l a t e d with v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n .  known, they are both s t i l l  correlation  One cannot even invoke the argument  t h a t the nomothetic averaging o f s u b j e c t s '  one  This  attri-  a c t t o be  Although the r e a s o n i n g  on these two items remains un-  attributions of responsibility.  some observers were a t t r i b u t i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on the b a s i s  of performance and others were a t t r i b u t i n g i t on the b a s i s o f inferred personality,  everyone would agree t h a t  the v i c t i m was  69  r e s p o n s i b l e on these two items.  But a c c o r d i n g t o the sub-  h y p o t h e s i s the former observers would r a t e the v i c t i m ' s personality her.  p o s i t i v e l y w h i l e t h e l a t t e r observers would devalue  When these two opposing trends were averaged, they would  neutralize  each o t h e r .  T h e r e f o r e , the two g l o b a l  i t y items would not c o r r e l a t e of the v i c t i m .  responsibil-  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with e v a l u a t i o n s  But, i n f a c t , they do c o r r e l a t e .  They c o r r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y .  The l e s s the v i c t i m i s h e l d  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r her f a t e , t h e l e s s she i s devalued.  This  r e l a t i o n s h i p o n l y holds f o r g l o b a l a t t r i b u t i o n s o f r e s p o n s i b i l ity.  The data d i d l i t t l e  t o c l a r i f y what observers mean when  they simply r a t e a v i c t i m as not r e s p o n s i b l e f o r her s u f f e r i n g . One t h i n g they do mean i s t h a t she d i d not "do something" to bring  the s u f f e r i n g upon h e r s e l f .  A l l we know about the  "something" i s t h a t the v i c t i m i z e r i s the one who d i d i t . Unpredicted Blame and Sympathy: condition blamed. ing.  the v i c t i m r e c e i v e d  In the more  inequitable  sympathy and the v i c t i m i z e r was  S e v e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s can be suggested f o r t h i s f i n d -  The J u s t World approach would be t o say t h a t s i n c e the  v i c t i m i z e r was blamed, t h e r e was no need t o blame the v i c t i m . I f o b s e r v e r s can i d e n t i f y some a c t performed by t h e v i c t i m i z e r as the cause o f the i n j u s t i c e then they a t l e a s t have an o r d e r l y world i f not a j u s t world.  T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n abandons a l l hope  of s a v i n g the J u s t World Hypothesis and opts f o r a watered down, y e t t o be a r t i c u l a t e d , O r d e r l y World h y p o t h e s i s . tunately, c o u l d not,  there i s a l r e a d y evidence a g a i n s t i t .  Unfor-  Observers  i n f a c t , i d e n t i f y any a c t performed by the v i c t i m i z e r  70  as the cause o f the i n j u s t i c e .  They h e l d the v i c t i m i z e r  r e s p o n s i b l e only on the g l o b a l , n o n - s p e c i f i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y items. C.  Explanations The  f o r the Absence of V i c t i m  Devaluation  r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d here would seem q u i t e  straight  forward were i t not f o r the e x i s t e n c e of a l l the J u s t World literature.  I t i s the discrepancy  between these  results  and  the r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e which n e c e s s i t a t e s some comment.  I t seems t h a t the J u s t World Hypothesis cannot  account f o r the f i n d i n g s o f the present designed  to account f o r them.  study.  I t was  I t only purports  not  to e x p l a i n  v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n , not v i c t i m i z e r d e v a l u a t i o n or v i c t i m sympathy.  Nonetheless, i t a l s o p u r p o r t s to s p e c i f y the  t i o n s under which v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n o c c u r s . appear to have been met  condi-  These c o n d i t i o n s  i n the present experiment.  What f o l l o w s  i s an attempt to e x p l a i n the unexpected absence o f any v i c t i m devaluation. Adequacy Of the Deception: be r u l e d out immediately. to achieve  impaired  Subjects who  a c t i n g do not devalue her  possible explanation  the i n t e r n a l  validity  know t h a t the v i c t i m i s o n l y  (Lerner, 1971b).  However, i t i s  a l s o u n l i k e l y t h a t they would devalue the v i c t i m i z e r . i f observers i n g why average?  can  I t might be argued t h a t a f a i l u r e  adequate d e c e p t i o n  o f the experiment.  One  d i d not t h i n k t h a t the v i c t i m was  really  Moreover, suffer-  d i d they r a t e the s e v e r i t y of her p a i n as worse than A l s o , why  d i d they r a t e the NCS  c o n d i t i o n as more  71  unfair?  Was  there something l e s s c o n v i n c i n g about the decep-  t i o n i n the CS c o n d i t i o n ?  I f so, what was  it?  Since  these  q u e s t i o n s remain unanswered i t must be assumed t h a t the observers were adequately  deceived.  I n t e r a c t i o n Between V i c t i m i z e r E v a l u a t i o n s and Unfairness: procedure  Perceived  There are s e v e r a l t h i n g s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e  the  of t h i s study from those o f o t h e r s t u d i e s which d i d  f i n d v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n , and which t h i s experiment has i n common w i t h the two  others which d i d f i n d v i c t i m i z e r  ( L i n c o l n and L e v i n g e r , 1972;  C h a i k i n and D a r l e y , 1973).  l a t t e r a l l took measures o f the v i c t i m i z e r " s and p e r s o n a l i t y . v i c t i m i z e r through  blaming  These items may  The  responsibility  serve to focus blame on  demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  the  The very a c t o f  a s k i n g f o r e v a l u a t i o n s o f the v i c t i m i z e r might encourage observers to look beyond the videotaped experimenter's to the human b e i n g performing  that role.  A l s o , when o b s e r v e r s  are asked t o r a t e the extent of the v i c t i m i z e r ' s f o r the s u f f e r i n g there may simultaneously t r a n s m i t t e d .  Observers  might p e r c e i v e t h i s  was?"  i n some way  They might t h i n k , " I f the experimenter  beyond reprehension why  responsibility  be an i m p l i c i t message being  as an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the v i c t i m i z e r was sible.  role  would we be asked how  was  responreally  blameworthy he  I f t h i s were the case, the observer might be encouraged  to s e t a s i d e h i s u s u a l deference menter" .  towards the r o l e of " e x p e r i -  Once the a u t h o r i t y and v a l i d i t y o f the  experimenter's  victimizer-  r o l e has been questioned, he becomes a p o s s i b l e  t a r g e t f o r blame.  In the p r e s e n t study, however, the r e q u e s t  72  for  v i c t i m i z e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and p e r s o n a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s  was  not enough i n i t s e l f to evoke v i c t i m i z e r blame and v i c t i m sympathy. two  Likewise,  i t was  not enough by i t s e l f i n the  other  s t u d i e s which found v i c t i m i z e r blame and v i c t i m sympathy.  In those  two  s t u d i e s , as i n the one  i z e r was  only blamed i n the c o n d i t i o n where the v i c t i m ' s f a t e  was  p e r c e i v e d as more u n f a i r .  may  have t h e o r e t i c a l r a m i f i c a t i o n s .  D.  A r t i f a c t u a l Information The  r e p o r t e d here, the v i c t i m -  This f a i r l y  reliable  V a r i a b l e s as D i r e c t i o n Parameters  i n t e r a c t i o n o f u n f a i r n e s s with items a p p r a i s i n g  the v i c t i m i z e r c o u l d be construed  as an i n t e r a c t i o n between a  m o t i v a t i o n a l and an i n f o r m a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e .  The  unfairness  c r e a t e s the p r e r e q u i s i t e l e v e l o f i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y for  observation  any blaming o r d e v a l u a t i o n to occur.  The  necessary  request  for  a s c r i p t i o n s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r the v i c t i m i z e r determines the d i r e c t i o n of the response. m o t i v a t i o n comes from i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y and comes from experimental  the  demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  The  information In the  which found v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n , there are a number of  studies  arti-  f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n sources which d i r e c t the blame towards the victim. be r a t e d .  The most obvious i s absence o f any o t h e r t a r g e t to A l s o , Godfrey and Lowe (197 3)  t i o n about who  was  showed t h a t  informa-  most r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the s u f f e r i n g i s s u b t l y  p r o v i d e d to observers  i n the t y p i c a l paradigm.  The o s t e n s i b l y  spontaneous v e r b a l exchange between the experimenter and  the  victim-confederate  latter  immediately upon the s e l e c t i o n of the  73  f o r r e c e i v i n g shocks p r o v i d e s observers w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y revealing behavioral information. G e n e r a l l y , t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n p o r t r a y s the observer as t a k i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e about the s i t u a t i o n along w i t h p r e v i o u s i n f o r m a t i o n about s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s and t r y i n g to apply i t t o t h e problem w i t h which he i s presented. most experiments,  t h a t problem has been one o f making i n f e r -  ences about t h e person who i s s u f f e r i n g .  In the author's  experience, a t l e a s t one s u b j e c t - o b s e r v e r i n every spontaneously  In  experiment  o b j e c t s t h a t t h e task i s bound t o produce meaning-  l e s s r e s u l t s s i n c e he f e e l s he does not have enough information, about the t a r g e t t o make p e r s o n a l e v a l u a t i o n s . observers o b l i g e the experimenter  Nonetheless,  and t r y t o make t h e i r  i n f e r e n c e s as b e s t they can d e s p i t e t h e i r qualms about having to guess i n order t o respond.  They decide whether or not the  s u f f e r i n g was deserved by t a k i n g i n t o account what the experimenter  such t h i n g s as  says the s u f f e r i n g i s going to prove  and how t h e v i c t i m was s e l e c t e d .  Particularly close attention  i s p a i d t o any r o l e d i s c r e p a n t behavior on the p a r t o f t a r g e t s , s i n c e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n can p r o v i d e glimpses o f the p e r s o n a l i t y behind the r o l e .  F i n a l l y , o f course, s i n c e the r e a l e x p e r i -  menter (not t h e videotaped E) i s the o n l y one i n the room who r e a l l y knows what t h e experiment  i s about, i t i s important t o  pay a t t e n t i o n to what he does, says and asks about the s u f f e r i n g , t h e people, and the experiment  i n order t o get c l u e s about  how j u s t i f i e d the s u f f e r i n g might be.  74  E.  Attributional  Set:  Ah I n f o r m a t i o n a l P r e r e q u i s i t e f o r  Blame and Sympathy? I f the i n f o r m a t i o n - o r i e n t e d sketch o f the observer's mental processes were a c c u r a t e one would expect such information processing variables  as a t t r i b u t i o n a l  reactions to the incident  of victimization.  different attributional  set to influence Observers u s i n g  s e t s would e s s e n t i a l l y  be asking them-  s e l v e s d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n s about what i s t r a n s p i r i n g . t h i s would l e a d  them t o a t t e n d t o d i f f e r e n t  would make d i f f e r e n t a t t r i b u t i o n s .  Since  i n f o r m a t i o n , they  There i s evidence which  suggests t h a t t h i s does happen. The as the  marginal order e f f e c t r e p o r t e d here may be  a r e s u l t o f an a t t r i b u t i o n a l  s e t induced by t h e format o f  post-experimental questionnaire.  Observers who r e c e i v e d  form B made r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n s  first.  They  assumed t h a t t h e i r task was t o judge i m p a r t i a l l y innocence o f the t a r g e t persons. the  cover s t o r y  responsibility  interpreted  likely  the g u i l t and  The r e f e r e n c e t o j u r o r s i n  may have primed observers t o i n t e r p r e t the items i n t h i s way.  c a l l e d the " j u r o r "  attribution  set.  T h i s w i l l t h e r e f o r e be In order t o perform t h i s  task they would have had t o r e c a l l d e t a i l s o f t h e "crime" and the  rights  and o b l i g a t i o n s  o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s  t i v e r o l e s as s u b j e c t and experimenter.  i n their  respec-  Thus, they would have  asked themselves such q u e s t i o n s as, "Was the procedure f o r selecting her  the learner f a i r ? " ,  o f her r i g h t s ? " ,  and "Did  "Did  t h e experimenter i n f o r m  the purpose o f the experiment  75  justify  the s u f f e r i n g ? "  Having  focused on these q u e s t i o n s , i t  i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h a t the form B o b s e r v e r s a t t r i b u t e d e q u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to both v i c t i m and  victimizer.  When, however, they came t o the p e r s o n a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n a l s e t had t o change because the nature o f the task changed.  Instead o f being i n v o l v e d i n l i t i g a t i o n  they were i n v o l v e d i n the p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessment of p e r s o n a l ity.  The s w i t c h to p e r s o n a l i t y assessment may  have l e d form B  observers t o abandon t h e i r j u r o r s e t and assume what w i l l  be  r e f e r r e d to as the " p s y c h o l o g i s t " a t t r i b u t i o n s e t . When o p e r a t i n g under t h i s s e t they would be l i k e l y try  to  t o r e c a l l more o f the f e a t u r e s of the t a r g e t ' s behavior  which i n d i c a t e d something  about h i s a b i l i t i e s , h i s i n t e r -  p e r s o n a l s t y l e , h i s t r a i t s , and so f o r t h . observer would now  T h e r e f o r e , the  have t o ask h i m s e l f q u e s t i o n s l i k e ,  "Did  the l e a r n e r appear upset when her number was  drawn?", "Did  she h e s i t a t e t o go on with the experiment?",  "''Did the e x p e r i -  menter d e l i v e r the shocks with an a p o l o g e t i c demeanor or d i d he conduct tivity?",  the s e s s i o n w i t h a tone of c o l d , i m p a r t i a l o b j e c and,  "Was  l a c k o f e i t h e r a b i l i t y or m o t i v a t i o n a  f a c t o r i n the l e a r n e r ' s memorization at a normal l e v e l ? "  r a t e or d i d she  perform  Being s e t t o e x t r a p o l a t e from the informa-  t i o n p r o v i d e d by these p e r s o n a l i t y r e v e a l i n g b e h a v i o r s i t i s understandable  how  observers c o u l d make t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s to  the t a r g e t . The observers who  r e c e i v e d form A s t a r t e d out w i t h the  psychologist a t t r i b u t i o n a l set.  Naturally, their  target  76  e v a l u a t i o n s were no d i f f e r e n t from those g i v e n by form B observers.  U n l i k e form B o b s e r v e r s , however, the form A  group continued t o use the p s y c h o l o g i s t s e t while making the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t t r i b u t i o n s .  That i s , they may  have  i n t e r p r e t e d the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y items as d e a l i n g l e s s w i t h performance  than p e r s o n a l i t y .  the v i c t i m ' s memorization  For example, the q u e s t i o n about  r a t e c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as a  q u e s t i o n about her a b i l i t y o r her m o t i v a t i o n . Yandell  (1973) has found evidence i n d i c a t i n g  that  s u b j e c t s w i l l continue t o use the same a t t r i b u t i o n a l s e t across a s e r i e s of items u n l e s s the p e r c e i v e d i n t e n t of the item changes i n such a way  as t o r e q u i r e a new  set.  Form B  observers might have p e r c e i v e d such a change i n the i n t e n t of the items w h i l e form A observers might have seen no need to adopt a new  attributional set.  Hence, both groups o f  observers made s i m i l a r r a t i n g s on the p e r s o n a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s because  they were both u s i n g the p s y c h o l o g i s t s e t .  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y items, however, the form B group was l i k e l y to a s s i g n s e r i o u s g u i l t t o one t a r g e t and innocence to the other because impartial juror set.  On the less  virtual  they were u s i n g the more  T h i s suggests the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the  p s y c h o l o g i s t a t t r i b u t i o n s e t i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r both blami n g and sympathizing. speculative.  The  f o r e g o i n g i s , of course, a l l h i g h l y  77  F.  Suggestions f o r Future Research Using an  Information  Orientation Problems to be Considered: way  to conceptualize  I t seems, then, t h a t the  the phenomenon o f v i c t i m d e r o g a t i o n  an i n t e r a c t i o n of m o t i v a t i o n a l  and  informational  attempting to e x p l a i n the v i c t i m i z e r blame and  best  i s as  factors.  In  v i c t i m sympathy  found i n the high i n e q u i t y c o n d i t i o n s e v e r a l arguments have been presented emphasizing the importance of the  observer's  a c t i v e attempts to seek and p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n .  In t h e i r  search  for inforamtion,  the observers i n the t y p i c a l paradigm  seem to be very s e n s i t i v e t o i n c i d e n t a l items o f coming from numerous and  d i v e r s e sources  information  (e.g. minor v a r i a t i o n s  i n cover s t o r i e s , non-verbal r e a c t i o n s of v i c t i m s to s e l e c t e d , r e a c t i v i t y to dependent measures).  This  tremendous problems i n c o n t r o l l i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n obtained The  and  being  creates to  be  used by observers i n making t h e i r a t t r i b u t i o n s .  J u s t World h y p o t h e s i s i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l i n  providing guidelines for this enterprise.  What i s needed i s  a set of hypotheses t h a t r e l a t e items o f i n f o r m a t i o n to observers to the d i r e c t i o n s of t h e i r r e a c t i o n s .  available We  also  need hypotheses which d e a l w i t h an expanded range o f phenomena. The  r e a c t i o n s o f blaming and  a t t r i b u t i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y must  be made p r e d i c t a b l e along with p e r s o n a l i t y  evaluations.  Reactions to v i c t i m i z e r s as w e l l as v i c t i m s must a l s o explained.  be  F i n a l l y , an account must be given o f what f a c t o r s  produce p o s i t i v e , sympathetic r e a c t i o n s as w e l l as n e u t r a l negative  reactions.  and  78  A move toward i n t e g r a t i n g t h i s expanded range of phenomena i n t o an i n f o r m a t i o n a l approach has above.  The  a l r e a d y been made  concepts of p e r s o n a l i t y r e v e a l i n g behavior  and  a t t r i b u t i o n a l s e t , however, must be more c l e a r l y d e f i n e d they are l i k e l y to l e a d to any  unequivocal o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s .  Other p o s s i b l e l i n e s of approach may  be provided  through a  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n f o r m a t i o n sing, e s p e c i a l l y of threatening S e n s i t i z a t i o n ) and  dence  information,  attributional styles.  r e l a t e d to p e r c e p t u a l  s t y l e s such as f i e l d  (Witkin e t al^. , 1962).  the v i c t i m ' s behavior  (e.g.  These may  be c l o s e l y  dependence/indepen-  An observer who  can  abstract of  the  ( i . e . ground) might be l e s s l i k e l y  to equate the v i c t i m ' s experience of being  "punished" w i t h  the c o n t e x t u a l l y produced s t a t e of d e s e r v i n g Advantages of Greater  proces-  Repression-  ( i . e . f i g u r e ) from the context  s i t u a t i o n i n which i t occurs  before  Mundane Realism:  punishment. Probably  the  most promising d i r e c t i o n f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h would be i n the d i r e c t i o n o f more mundane r e a l i s m 1968,  p. 22).  physical pain.  The m a j o r i t y  ( c f . Aronson and  Carlsmith,  o f v i c t i m i z a t i o n does not  In the v e r b a l l e a r n i n g task paradigm  v i c t i m seems more l i k e a l a b o r a t o r y K i t t y Genovese. the study of observers'  involve the Although  r e a c t i o n s to v i c t i m s i n emergency  s i t u a t i o n s or c r i m i n a l a c t s where p y s i c a l p a i n i s i n v o l v e d i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n i t s own emphasis i f one  r i g h t , i t seems l i k e a misplaced  i s i n t e r e s t e d i n g e n e r a l i z i n g to r e a c t i o n s  the more common, everyday, n o n - c r i s i s v i c t i m .  to  79  The observer  of a non-crisis victim t y p i c a l l y  about, the v i c t i m i z a t i o n through the news media. the person watching the evening  learns  For example,  news on T.V. hears a r e p o r t  on the i n c r e a s i n g m u n i c i p a l w e l f a r e r o l l s and  spontaneously  c h a r a c t e r i z e s w e l f a r e r e c i p i e n t s as l a z y p a r a s i t e s .  I f the  focus o f r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t s were s h i f t e d to t h i s aspect o f the v i c t i m blaming phenomenon, many m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o u l d be overcome.  Simulated  problems  T.V. or newspaper r e p o r t s a l l o w  a much g r e a t e r c o n t r o l over c r u c i a l items o f i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o the o b s e r v e r .  The simulated p h y s i c a l a s s a u l t  devised by Lerner and Simmons does not p r o v i d e control.  for this  As the focus o f r e s e a r c h s h i f t s from m o t i v a t i o n a l  to i n f o r m a t i o n a l approaches, an a p p r o p r i a t e new paradigm may be c a l l e d f o r .  Although  Godfrey and Lowe (1973) have managed  t o manipulate some important  p i e c e s o f i n f o r a m t i o n u s i n g the  ' v e r b a l l e a r n i n g task' paradigm, there may be other paradigms which make t h e c o n t r o l o f i n p u t i n f o r m a t i o n e a s i e r , broader and more c e r t a i n . The  i n f o r m a t i o n - o r i e n t e d approach o f p r e s e n t i n g  observers  with simulated media r e p o r t s about everyday non-emergency v i c t i m s would r e q u i r e the i n v e s t i g a t o r t o make r e s e a r c h d e c i s i o n s on the b a s i s o f p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s and v a l u e s .  To  l a b e l anyone as an innocent v i c t i m the i n v e s t i g a t o r must implicitly  a s s e r t t h a t the person has experienced  I n j u s t i c e and j u s t i c e , however, are concepts d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s t o people Lerner  an i n j u s t i c e .  which c o u l d mean  of d i f f e r e n t ideological  persuasions.  (1974) has a l l u d e d t o the connection between v a r i o u s  80  i d e o l o g i e s or b e l i e f systems and  (e.g. Marxism, P r o t e s t a n t  d i f f e r e n t p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e  i n g to need, e q u i t y ) . p o l i t i c a l and  Ethic)  (e.g. d i s t r i b u t i o n a c c o r d -  W i l l i a m Ryan (1971) has  described  how  i d e o l o g i c a l b e l i e f s can i n f l u e n c e r e a c t i o n s  to  everyday n o n - c r i s i s v i c t i m s . Ryan sees v i c t i m blaming as a negative t a k i n g a " p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c " , i n s t e a d of a approach to s o c i a l problems.  According  l i b e r a l t h i n k i n g assumes t h a t the U.S. system i s , i n g e n e r a l ,  just.  by-product o f  "universalistic" to Ryan, popular  s o c i a l and  economic  This p o s i t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c  i n s o f a r as i t looks t o d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the v i c t i m s of system f o r e x p l a n a t i o n s  of the obvious i n e q u i t i e s .  that  Thus,  remedial s o c i a l programs are d i r e c t e d at changing the  personal  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the poor, f o r example, i n such a way  that  they w i l l be able to o b t a i n g r e a t e r e q u i t y w i t h i n t h a t system. The  u n i v e r s a l i s t i c approach would be to blame and  system.  change  Ryan's p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c vs. u n i v e r s a l i s t i c  the  distinction  seems to d e s c r i b e the dimension of comparison u n d e r l y i n g p s y c h o l o g i s t vs. j u r o r a t t r i b u t i o n a l s e t s .  the  T h i s suggests  the  i n t e r e s t i n g h y p o t h e s i s t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r i s t i c approach which Ryan scorns may  be a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r sympathizing w i t h  the  v i c t i m as w e l l as f o r blaming him.  In any  t h a t Ryan encountered p o l i t i c a l and  ideological variations in  the d e f i n i t i o n o f an "innocent"  victim.  case, i t i s c l e a r  These i s s u e s , how-  ever, a l s o a r i s e i n the d i s c u s s i o n of simulated Although the n o v e l t y and i n c i d e n t s of v i c t i m i z a t i o n may  a r t i f i c i a l i t y of i n i t i a l l y obscure  victims. laboratory the  81  i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s b i a s e s and p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s , these and b e l i e f s continue  t o p l a y a necessary  biases  p a r t i n the opera-  t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f such concepts as "innocence" and " i n j u s t i c e " . Even i n the v e r b a l l e a r n i n g task paradigm c e r t a i n value ments about the e t h i c s o f shocking  human r e s e a r c h  judge-  subjects  u n d e r l i e the d e f i n i t i o n o f the l e a r n e r as a v i c t i m . For example, one c o u l d h o l d t h a t shocking permissable  a subject i s e t h i c a l l y  when t h e s u b j e c t has given informed  consent.  S t a r t i n g from t h i s assumption, t h e l e a r n e r c o u l d not be c a l l e d a victim.  Moreover, the l e a r n e r c o u l d be c a l l e d " f o o l i s h " o r  "intelligent"  i f she consented t o p a r t i c i p a t e when she r e a l l y  d i d n o t want t o .  Thus, by t a k i n g a d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n on the  e t h i c s o f r e s e a r c h with human s u b j e c t s one c o u l d s e r i o u s l y a s s e r t t h a t Lerner  and Simmons f a i l e d t o adequately  a l i z e the concept o f an "innocent"  victim.  operation-  In any case, no  r e a l i n c r e a s e i n s c i e n t i f i c o b j e c t i v i t y o r p r e c i s i o n has been obtained  by a v o i d i n g making p o l i t i c a l  and i d e o l o g i c a l  judgements about the f o r c e s a c t i n g upon r e a l people federates) G.  value  (not con-  i n society.  Summary J u s t World B e l i e f scores d i d not p r e d i c t the sympathetic  r e a c t i o n t o the v i c t i m o r the blaming o f the v i c t i m i z e r .  Just  World B e l i e f may be r e l a t e d t o v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n but the J u s t World Hypothesis i s n e i t h e r d e t a i l e d nor e x p l i c i t enough t o p r e d i c t with much c e r t a i n t y when v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n w i l l  occur.  82  I n e q u i t y a n x i e t y nonetheless  does seem to c o n t r o l the  of the r e a c t i o n s to both v i c t i m s and The  intensity  victimizers.  unexpected absence of v i c t i m d e v a l u a t i o n may  be a  r e s u l t o f an i n t e r a c t i o n between i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by experimental  q u e s t i o n n a i r e items and the p e r c e i v e d  of the shock contingency  conditions.  The  post-  unfairness  f a c t t h a t an e x p e r i -  menter was  a s k i n g s u b j e c t s to comment on h i s own  research  e t h i c s may  have c r e a t e d demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e s p e c i a l l y i n  the c o n d i t i o n where the v i c t i m s u f f e r e d g r e a t e r i n e q u i t y . In any  case, whatever caused the unexpected v i c t i m  sympathy and v i c t i m i z e r blame, i t s e f f e c t was ated by the order i n which post-experimental items were presented. taken together  slightly  questionnaire  T h i s e f f e c t along with a l l the  seem most e a s i l y a s s i m i l a t e d by an  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e a c t i o n s to v i c t i m s .  attenu-  results  attributional  In order to study  the  a t t r i b u t i o n a l p r o c e s s , however, a g r e a t e r c o n t r o l of i n p u t i n f o r m a t i o n would be necessary.  There are many a l t e r n a t e  pathways or d i r e c t i o n s which the i n e q u i t y a n x i e t y might to m a n i f e s t  itself.  take  A move towards more mundane r e a l i s m i n  t h i s l i n e of r e s e a r c h might e l i m i n a t e some of the pathways which a r i s e p r i m a r i l y from a r t i f a c t u a l sources  of  information  imbedded i n the context of the psychology experiment  itself.  83  BIBLIOGRAPHY  A d a i r , J.G. Pre-experimental a t t i t u d e s towards psychology as a determinant o f s u b j e c t b e h a v i o r . Paper r e a d a t a symposium on " M e t h o d o l o g i c a l Problems i n Research with Human S u b j e c t s " a t the meeting o f the Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Winnipeg, Manitoba, May, 1970. A d a i r , J.G. and Fenton, D.P. S u b j e c t ' s a t t i t u d e s toward psychology as a determinant o f experimental r e s u l t s . Canadian J o u r n a l o f B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 1971, 3, 268-275. Aronson, E. and C a r l s m i t h , J.M. E x p e r i m e n t a t i o n i n s o c i a l psychology. In G. L i n d z e y and E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook Of S o c i a l Psychology, V o l . 2, 2nd e d i t i o n , Don M i l l s , Ont.: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Campbell, D.T. and S t a n l e y , J.C. E x p e r i m e n t a l and Q u a s i Experimental Designs f o r Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 196 3. C h a i k i n , A.L. and D a r l e y , J.M. V i c t i m o r p e r p e t r a t o r ? : Defensive a t t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and the need f o r o r d e r and j u s t i c e . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 25, 268-275. C o l l i n s , B.E. Four components o f t h e R o t t e r I n t e r n a l E x t e r n a l S c a l e : B e l i e f i n a d i f f i c u l t world, a j u s t world, a p r e d i c t a b l e world, and a p o l i t i c a l l y respons i v e world. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1974, 29, 381-391. Godfrey, B.W. and Lowe, C.A. D e v a l u a t i o n o f innocent v i c t i m s : An a t t r i b u t i o n a n a l y s i s w i t h i n t h e j u s t world paradigm. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 31, 944-951. Hardy, J.E. J u s t world theory, r e l i g i o u s n e s s and compassion. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Western O n t a r i o , 1972. Kagan, J . Motives and development. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1972, 2_2, 51-66. L e r n e r , M.J. The d e s i r e f o r j u s t i c e and r e a c t i o n s t o v i c t i m s . In L. Berkowitz and J . Macaulay (Eds.), A l t r u i s m and H e l p i n g Behavior. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1970.  84  Lerner, M.J. Observer's e v a l u a t i o n s of a v i c t i m : J u s t i c e , g u i l t and v e r i d i c a l p e r c e p t i o n . Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology, 1971, 2_0, 127-135. (b) Lerner, M.J. S o c i a l psychology of i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n . In T. Houston (Ed.), Foundations of I n t e r p e r s o n a l A t t r a c t i o n . New York: Academic P r e s s , 1974. Lerner, M.J., and Agar, E. The consequences of p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t y : A t t r a c t i o n and r e j e c t i o n , approach and avoidance. J o u r n a l Of Experimental Research i n Persona l i t y , 1972, 6, 69-75. Lerner, M.J., and Matthews, J . Reactions to s u f f e r i n g o f others under c o n d i t i o n s o f i n d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 167, 5_, 319-325. Lerner, M.J., and Simmons, C.W. Observer's r e a c t i o n s to the "innocent v i c t i m " : Compassion o r r e j e c t i o n ? J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1966, 4_, 203-210. L i n c o l n , A. and Levinger, G. Observer's e v a l u a t i o n s of the v i c t i m and a t t a c k e r i n an aggressive i n c i d e n t . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1972, 22, 202-210. Novak, D., and Lerner, M.J. R e j e c t i o n as a consequence of perceived s i m i l a r i t y . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 9, 147-152. R o t t e r , J.B. G e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r i n t e r n a l versus e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f reinforcement. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs , 1966, 80 (1 Whole No. 609). Rubin, Z. and Peplau, A. B e l i e f i n a j u s t world and r e a c t i o n s to another's l o t : A study of p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the n a t i o n a l draft lottery. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Issues, 1973, 29, 73-93. Ryan, W.  Blaming the V i c t i m .  New  York: Random House,  1971.  S o r r e n t i n o , R.M., and B o u t i l i e r , R.G. E v a l u a t i o n of a v i c t i m as a f u n c t i o n o f f a t e s i m i l a r i t y / d i s s i m i l a r i t y . Journal of Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1974, 10, 84-93. Y a n d e l l , T.B. A t t r i b u t i o n o f thoughts and a t t i t u d e s when behavior i s c o n s t r a i n e d . Master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f North C a r o l i n a , Chapel H i l l , 1973. Webster's New I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i c t i o n a r y of the E n g l i s h Language. (3rd ed., unabridged) S p r i n g f i e l d , Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1964.  W i t k i n , H.A., Dyk, R.B., F a t e r s o n , H.F., Goodenough, and Karp, S.A. Psychological D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . York: Wiley, 1962.  D.R. New  Zuckerman, M. B e l i e f i n a j u s t world and a l t r u i s t i c behavio J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1975, 31 972-976.  86  APPENDIX A:  Pretest  Name I.D.  T  Number  E  Questionnaire  S  T  BOOKLET INSTRUCTIONS  S e c t i o n No.  Telephone #  (Prof.)__  •. • •  Your responses to t h i s s e r i e s of t e s t s w i l l remain comp l e t e l y anonymous.  They w i l l be compared with the responses o f  your group i n a l a t e r experimental i t p o s s i b l e t o c o n t a c t you  session.  for voluntary p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n that  l a t e r s e s s i o n s , however, i t i s necessary name and  student  I.D.  In order to make  t h a t you w r i t e your  number a t the top of t h i s q u e s t i o n  booklet.  At no p o i n t w i l l your name be matched d i r e c t l y with your t e s t scores. no way  When t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i s completed there w i l l  be  of t r a c i n g your q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses back to e i t h e r  your name o r your I.D.  number.  T h i s s e r i e s o f t e s t s i s composed of four s c a l e s . f i r s t two  s c a l e s are of the True/False  provide 5 answer a l t e r n a t i v e s : decided,  c a r d f o r each s c a l e .  The  last  s t r o n g l y agree, agree,  disagree, strongly disagree.  p r o v i d e d f o r the answers.  format.  The two  un-  Four computer cards  There i s approximately  one  computer  There are 50 columns on each computer  c a r d but a l l o f the s c a l e s have s l i g h t l y more or l e s s than questions f i n d two  to them. numbers.  are  Nonetheless, beside each q u e s t i o n you The  "card number t e l l s you on which o f  f o u r cards you should p l a c e your answer f o r t h a t q u e s t i o n .  50 will the The  "column number" t e l l s you which column of t h a t c a r d i s r e s e r v e d  87  the answer to t h a t q u e s t i o n . q u e s t i o n 2-30  So,  f o r example, the answer to  goes i n the 30th column of the 2nd  card.  The Computer Answer Cards 1.  The marks must be made o n l y w i t h p e n c i l .  Make your marks  heavy and b l a c k but s t a y w i t h i n the b r a c k e t s . 2.  Marks should be erased completely: i n the event o f an error.  C r o s s i n g marks out w i l l o n l y l e a d to the q u e s t i o n  being scored improperly. should be avoided. IBM  Doodling on the answer cards  S t r a y marks may  be p i c k e d up by  the  c a r d reader and c o u l d p o s s i b l y l e a d to i n c o r r e c t  scores. 4.  Take the f o u r computer cards and w r i t e the 10 of your student. I.D.  number i n the 10 columns headed  " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Number". number twice, f i r s t  Be sure to i n d i c a t e your  I.D.  i n the boxes a t the top and then i n  the proper combination 5.  figures  of b r a c k e t s of each column.  In the s i n g l e column headed "Answer Card Number" number the cards from 1 to 4.  These are the " c a r d  numbers" t h a t form the f i r s t p a r t of the numbers f o r the q u e s t i o n s i n the Below you w i l l  f i n d d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r answering  the T r u e / F a l s e q u e s t i o n s . encounter  tests.  L a t e r on i n the t e s t b o o k l e t you  the d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r answering the Agree/  Disagree-type  questions.  will  88  True/F aIs e Questions Read each statement and decide whether i t i s t r u e as a p p l i e d t o you o r f a l s e as a p p l i e d t o you. ate  card column f o r t h a t q u e s t i o n .  F i n d the a p p r o p r i -  I f a statement i s TRUE o r  MOSTLY TRUE, i n your o p i n i o n , b l a c k e n between the f i r s t s e t o f b r a c k e t s i n the column.  I f a statement i s FALSE o r NOT USUALLY  TRUE, i n your o p i n i o n , blacken the second space i n the column. 1 = TRUE  2 = FALSE  Remember t o get the r i g h t q u e s t i o n s matched w i t h the same cards and columns. too  Do n o t s k i p any q u e s t i o n s and do not spend  much time pondering any one q u e s t i o n .  Work q u i c k l y  giving  your f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s . c •O I td o u u 1-1. 1-2.  SCALE 1 (Card #1)  1 = TRUE  2 = FALSE  B a s i c a l l y , the world i s a j u s t p l a c e . The p o l i t i c a l c a n d i d a t e who s t i c k s up f o r h i s p r i n c i p l e s r a r e l y gets e l e c t e d .  1-3.  I've found t h a t a person r a r e l y deserves the r e p u t a t i o n he has.  1-4.  People who f i n d money i n the s t r e e t have o f t e n done a good deed e a r l i e r t h a t day.  1-5.  I t i s a common occurrence f o r a g u i l t y person t o g e t o f f f r e e i n Canadian  courts.  1-6.  Movies  1-7.  Students almost always deserve the grades they r e c e i v e in  1-8. 1-9.  i n which good triumphs over e v i l are u n r e a l i s t i c .  school.  Crime doesn't pay. When parents punish t h e i r c h i l d r e n , i t i s almost for  good reasons.  always  89 -a aj  c § o  U  U  1-10.  1 = TRUE Although t h e r e may  2 = FALSE  be some e x c e p t i o n s , good people o f t e n  lead l i v e s of s u f f e r i n g . 1-11.  I t i s o f t e n i m p o s s i b l e f o r a person to r e c e i v e a f a i r t r i a l i n Canada.  1-12.  In almost any b u s i n e s s o r p r o f e s s i o n , people who  do  t h e i r job w e l l r i s e t o the top. 1-13.  Although e v i l men in  may  h o l d p o l i t i c a l power f o r a w h i l e ,  the g e n e r a l course o f h i s t o r y good wins out.  1-14.  By and l a r g e , people deserve what they get.  1-15.  Canadian parents tend t o overlook the t h i n g s most to be admired i n t h e i r  1-16.  children.  I t i s r a r e f o r an i n n o c e n t man  t o be wrongly  sent to  jail. 1-17.  I t makes me  1-18.  People make too much of the f e e l i n g s and of  s a i d to see a l o n e l y s t r a n g e r i n a group. sensitivity  animals.  1-19.  I o f t e n f i n d p u b l i c d i s p l a y s of a f f e c t i o n  1-20.  I am annoyed by unhappy people who  annoying.  are j u s t s o r r y f o r  themselves. 1-21.  I become nervous i f o t h e r s around me  seem t o become  nervous. 1-22.  I find i t s i l l y  f o r people t o c r y out o f happiness.  1-23.  I tend t o get emotionally i n v o l v e d w i t h a f r i e n d ' s problems.  1-24.  Sometimes the words o f a love song can move me d e e p l y .  1-25.  I tend t o l o s e c o n t r o l when I am b r i n g i n g bad news to people.  1-26.  The people around me have a g r e a t i n f l u e n c e on my moods.  1-27.  Most f o r e i g n e r s I have met  1-28.  I would r a t h e r be a s o c i a l worker than work i n a job training  seemed c o o l and  unemotional.  centre.  1-29.  I don't get upset j u s t because a f r i e n d i s a c t i n g upset.  1-30.  I l i k e t o watch people open p r e s e n t s .  1-31.  Lonely people are probably u n f r i e n d l y .  90  U rH fd O cj u 1-32.  1 = TRUE  2 = FALSE  Seeing people c r y upsets me.  1-33.  Some songs make me happy.  1-34.  I r e a l l y get i n v o l v e d w i t h the f e e l i n g s o f the c h a r a c t e r s in  a novel.  1-35.  I get very angry when I see someone being  ill-treated.  1-36.  I am a b l e t o remain calm even though those around me worry.  1-37.  When a f r i e n d s t a r t s t o t a l k about h i s problems I t r y to  s t e e r the c o n v e r s a t i o n t o something  else.  1-38.  Another's  l a u g h t e r i s not c a t c h i n g f o r me.  1-39.  Sometimes a t the movies I am amused by the amount o f c r y i n g and s n i f f i n g around  1-40.  I am able to make d e c i s i o n s without b e i n g i n f l u e n c e d by people's  1-41.  me.  feelings.  I cannot continue t o f e e l OK i f people around me a r e depressed.  1-42.  I t i s hard f o r me t o see how some t h i n g s upset people so much.  1-4 3.  I am very upset when I see an animal i n p a i n .  1-44.  Becoming i n v o l v e d i n books o r movies i s a l i t t l e  1-45.  I t upsets me t o see h e l p l e s s o l d people.  1-46.  I become more i r r i t a t e d than sympathetic when I see  silly.  someone's t e a r s . 1-4 7.  I become very i n v o l v e d when I watch a movie.  1-48.  I o f t e n f i n d t h a t I can remain c o o l i n s p i t e o f the excitement around  1-49.  me.  L i t t l e c h i l d r e n sometimes c r y f o r no apparent reason. SCALE 2 (Card #2)  1 = TRUE  2 = FALSE  2-1.  I am c e r t a i n l y l a c k i n g i n s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e .  2-2.  Even when I am with people I f e e l l o n e l y much o f the time.  2-3.  There i s very l i t t l e  l o v e and companionship  as compared t o o t h e r homes.  i n my f a m i l y  91  'u cH fd o  1 = TRUE  2 = FALSE  2-4.  A t times I t h i n k I am no good a t a l l .  2-5.  I am i n c l i n e d t o take t h i n g s hard.  2-6.  I have been d i s a p p o i n t e d i n l o v e .  2-7.  One or more members of my f a m i l y i s very nervous.  2-8.  I am a f r a i d o f f i n d i n g myself i n a c l o s e t o r s m a l l  2-9.  closed place. Sometimes some unimportant  thought w i l l run through  my  mind and bother me f o r days. 2-10.  When I am f e e l i n g very happy and a c t i v e , someone who i s blue o r low w i l l  spoil i t a l l .  2-11.  I sometimes f e e l t h a t I am about t o go t o p i e c e s .  2-12.  I am apt t o take disappointments so keenly t h a t I can't put them out o f my mind.  2-13.  I have nightmares  2-14.  I am e a s i l y  2-15.  I f e e l unable t o t e l l  2-16.  I b e l i e v e I am being p l o t t e d a g a i n s t .  2-17.  A t times I have been so e n t e r t a i n e d by the c l e v e r n e s s of  2-18.  embarrassed. anyone a l l about myself.  a crook t h a t I have hoped he would get by w i t h i t .  I t bothers me t o have someone watch me a t work even though  2-19.  every few n i g h t s .  I know I can do i t w e l l .  I u s u a l l y have t o stop and t h i n k b e f o r e I a c t even i n t r i f l i n g matters.  2-20.  Once i n a w h i l e I t h i n k o f t h i n g s too bad to t a l k  2-21.  I am a f r a i d when I look down from a h i g h p l a c e .  2-22.  I do not have a g r e a t f e a r o f snakes.  2-2 3.  L i f e i s a s t r a i n f o r me much o f the time.  2-24.  I am sure I get a raw d e a l from  2-25.  Much o f the time I f e e l as i f I have done  2-26.  wrong or e v i l . Once i n a w h i l e I f e e l hate toward members o f my whom I u s u a l l y  2-2 7.  about.  life.  love.  I have not l i v e d the r i g h t k i n d o f l i f e .  something family  92  n H rd o u u 2-28.  1 = TRUE I have o f t e n f e l t g u i l t y  2 = FALSE  because I have pretended t o  f e e l more s o r r y about something than I r e a l l y was. 2-2 9.  I do many t h i n g s which I r e g r e t afterwards t h i n g s more o r more o f t e n than others  2-30.  (I r e g r e t  seem-to).  I have o f t e n f e l t t h a t s t r a n g e r s were l o o k i n g a t me critically.  2-31.  No one seems t o understand me.  2-32.  People o f t e n d i s a p p o i n t  2-33.  I do not mind meeting  2-34.  I f e e l l i k e g i v i n g up q u i c k l y when t h i n g s go wrong.  2-35.  I t makes me nervous t o have t o w a i t .  2-36.  I f given the chance I c o u l d do some t h i n g s t h a t would  me. strangers.  be o f g r e a t b e n e f i t t o t h e world. 2-37.  I sometimes keep on a t a t h i n g u n t i l others patience  2-38.  lose  their  w i t h me.  Even when I am with people I f e e l l o n e l y much o f the time.  2-39.  Once a week o r o f t e n e r  I become very  excited.  2-40.  Bad words, o f t e n t e r r i b l e words, come i n t o my mind and I cannot get r i d o f them.  2-41.  Someone has i t i n f o r me.  2-42.  People say i n s u l t i n g  2-43.  I t makes me f e e l l i k e a f a i l u r e when I hear o f the  and v u l g a r t h i n g s about me.  success o f someone I know w e l l . 2-44.  A t times I have worn myself o u t by undertaking too much,  2-45.  Any person can always r i s e above the pressures moment and the f o r c e s o f h a b i t t o make a f r e e  o f the choice  about what he w i l l do. 2-46.  Human behavior can always be e x p l a i n e d present  circumstances and p r e v i o u s  i n terms o f the  environments t h a t  i n d i v i d u a l s experience. 2-4 7.  People's d e c i s i o n s are always completely determined by biological  2-4 8.  and environmental f a c t o r s .  A person i s always f r e e t o choose an a l t e r n a t e course o f a c t i o n a t any p o i n t i n h i s l i f e .  93  Leave the l a s t two columns, o f Card #2 blank ( i . e . and 2-50)  2-49  and go on t o Card #3 a f t e r r e a d i n g the f o l l o w i n g  instructions. For the next two s c a l e s  (3 &4)  s e l e c t the response which  best d e s c r i b e s your f e e l i n g s on each statement i n accordance with the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e :  1= s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , 2 = d i s a g r e e ,  3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = s t r o n g l y agree. I f , f o r example, you s t r o n g l y agree w i t h the statement, blacken i n the number 5 space i n the column c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o that question.  I f you s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e w i t h i t ,  blacken i n  the number 1 space i n the column c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h a t tion.  ques-  D i s r e g a r d the T and F format o f the p r e v i o u s s c a l e s .  Make your judgements  i n accordance w i t h your degree o f accep-  tance o r r e j e c t i o n o f the statement.  However, you s h o u l d t r y  to a v o i d the "undecided" response as much as p o s s i b l e , as it  i s your f e e l i n g s  ( e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative) towards  each  of the statements t h a t i s being sought. S c a l e 3 has 52 q u e s t i o n s i n i t .  Answer the l a s t  q u e s t i o n s i n the f i r s t two columns o f c a r d #4 51 and 52 go i n columns 4-1 and 4-2, c ro % ^  SCALE 3 (Cards #3 and #4)  u u 3-1.  two  ( i . e . questions  respectively), 1 •= s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 5 = s t r o n g l y agree  Most psychology experiments are w o r t h l e s s s i n c e even the most c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d experiments l e a d to inconclusive  3-2 .  results.  Through e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n p s y c h o l o g i s t s have made a r e a l c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the understanding o f  man.  94 s  1 = s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , 2 = d i s a g r e e , 3 = undecided,  ^ Q u u  1  3-3.  4 = agree, 5 = s t r o n g l y agree P s y c h o l o g i s t s would be b e t t e r a d v i s e d t o f o r g e t the l a b o r a t o r y , and go i n t o the f i e l d  where the " r e a l  people and problems" a r e . 3-4.  Many o f the q u e s t i o n s asked i n t e s t i n g are p e r s o n a l and are none o f t h e experimenter's b u s i n e s s .  3-5.  Given a f r e e c h o i c e , most students would be w i l l i n g to v o l u n t e e r f o r experiments.  3-6.  Many experimenters are smug and take a p r e t t y h i g h handed a t t i t u d e w i t h s u b j e c t s .  3-7.  Most experiments i n psychology are concerned with trivial  3-8.  behavior.  T e s t s and o t h e r experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n s are g e n e r a l l y not  3-9.  observations of a r t i f i c i a l  r e l i a b l e measures of p e r s o n a l i t y and b e h a v i o r .  Most experiments d e a l with such a s m a l l segment o f behavior t h a t they are meaningless i n the broad picture.  3-10.  People g e n e r a l l y express t h e i r r e a l f e e l i n g s on psychological  tests.  3-11.  Psychology experiments are fun but do not prove a n y t h i n g .  3-12.  Human behavior i s too complex t o c u t up and study p i e c e by p i e c e i n the l a b o r a t o r y .  3-13.  Most people would say t h a t t h e i r experience as a subj e c t i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiments was f a v o u r a b l e .  3-14.  When an i n d i v i d u a l signs up f o r an experiment, i t i n v o l v e s a commitment t o do what i s asked t o the b e s t of  his ability.  3-15.  Most students p a r t i c i p a t e w i l l i n g l y i n experiments.  3-16.  People r a r e l y express t h e i r " r e a l " s e l v e s i n psychology experiments.  3-17.  Experiments i n psychology have no value because o f the  i n h e r e n t d i v e r s i t y o f man and h i s environment.  3-18.  Many experimenters ask too much from t h e i r  3-19.  Experiments are n o t h i n g but "busy work" f o r p s y c h o l o gists .  subjects.  95 g a 'Q u u  1 = s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , 2 = d i s a g r e e , 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = s t r o n g l y  3-20.  Psychology experiments  3-21.  Some experimenters  agree are too time consuming.  j u s t seem t o be w a i t i n g f o r the  s u b j e c t s t o make f o o l s o f themselves. 3-22.  As a matter o f p e r s o n a l p r i d e , most i n d i v i d u a l s would try  3-23.  t o do t h e i r b e s t when a c t i n g as a s u b j e c t .  Experimentation i s o f no p r a c t i c a l value i n the unders t a n d i n g o f t h e fundamental  3-24.  The p s y c h o l o g i c a l j o u r n a l s are mostly f i l l e d with unimportant  3-25.  causes o f b e h a v i o r .  trivia.  I t doesn't matter too much what s u b j e c t s do; the e x p e r i menter u s u a l l y manipulates the data t o prove h i s h y p o t h e s i s anyway.  3-26.  P s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s a r e g e n e r a l l y r e l i a b l e measures o f personality.  3-27.  Laboratory s t u d i e s i n psychology a r e too a r t i f i c i a l t o produce v a l i d d a t a .  3-2 8.  Most students are "good" s u b j e c t s , t h a t i s , they perform w e l l i n t h e i r r o l e as experimental s u b j e c t s .  3-29.  Many s u b j e c t s i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiments the motions without r e a l l y  3-30.  go through  trying.  The experimental method can be used e f f e c t i v e l y i n the study o f human b e a h v i o r .  3-31.  Subjects i n most psychology experiments  are t r e a t e d  with respect. 3-32.  The experimental approach t o psychology has been both f r u i t f u l and h e l p f u l i n understanding human n a t u r e .  3-33.  Most experimenters a r e c o n s i d e r a t e and p o l i t e i n t h e i r treatment o f s u b j e c t s .  3-34.  P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n psychology experiments  i s not a g r e a t  i m p o s i t i o n on s t u d e n t s . 3-35.  P s y c h o l o g i s t s sometimes f o r g e t t h a t s u b j e c t s are s t i l l human b e i n g s .  3-36.  Through p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s and experiments p s y c h o l o g i s t s have a c q u i r e d t h e knowledge t o p r e d i c t behavior i n many real l i f e  situations.  96  g rd: t>  O U  3-37.  1 = s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , 2 = d i s a g r e e , 3 = undecided. 4 = agree, 5 = s t r o n g l y  agree  Most students f o l l o w the experimenter's  instructions  c a r e f u l l y so t h a t they w i l l be able t o perform as a good s u b j e c t . 3-38.  Laboratory s t u d i e s i n psychology have c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o the knowledge o f mankind.  3-39.  The complexity o f i n d i v i d u a l s make i t necessary t o study human b e h a v i o r under c o n t r o l l e d  3-40.  conditions.  From experiments, p s y c h o l o g i s t s can v a l i d l y  generalize  to the p o p u l a t i o n a t l a r g e . 3-41.  S u b j e c t s i n most psychology experiments  are t r e a t e d  as guinea p i g s . 3-4 2.  Many students do not cooperate and t h e r e f o r e make poor subj e c t s .  3-4 3.  Psychology has proven i t s worth as an e x p e r i m e n t a l science.  3-4 4.  Any minor d i s c o m f o r t t h a t s u b j e c t s may go through  such  as e l e c t r i c shock, embarrassment, e t c . , i s worth i t i n the long r u n . 3-45.  P s y c h o l o g i c a l data i s u s e l e s s because  i t s interpreta-  t i o n i s based on the m a n i p u l a t i o n o f s t a t i s t i c s . 3-46.  Many students f e e l a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o cooperate i n any way p o s s i b l e i n the p u r s u i t o f knowledge.  3-4 7.  Subjects f r e q u e n t l y f e e l manipulated by the experimenter,  3-4 8.  P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiments  i s a waste  o f t h e student's time. 3-49.  Students should not be asked t o g i v e up t h e i r time t o serve as s u b j e c t s .  3- 50.  C o l l e g e students tend t o share w i t h experimenters the hope t h a t the study i n which they are p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n some m a t e r i a l way c o n t r i b u t e t o s c i e n c e . (Card #4.)  4- 51.  S u b j e c t s i n psychology experiments to s c i e n c e . "  are " c o n t r i b u t o r s  will  97 c ^ o u u 4-52.  1 = s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , 2 = d i s a g r e e , 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = s t r o n g l y Experiments  agree  i n psychology almost always i n v o l v e  decep-  t i o n o r " t r i c k i n g " the s u b j e c t i n some way. SCALE 4  The q u e s t i o n s i n s c a l e 4 go i n columns 3 t o 49 o f c a r d #4.  4-3.  Who gets t o be the boss o f t e n depends on who was l u c k y enough t o be i n the r i g h t p l a c e  4-4.  first.  Most students don't r e a l i z e the e x t e n t t o which t h e i r grades are i n f l u e n c e d by a c c i d e n t a l  4-5.  There w i l l always be wars, no matter how hard people try  4-6.  happenings.  t o prevent them.  In the long run the bad t h i n g s t h a t happen t o us are balanced by the good ones.  4-7.  As f a r as world a f f a i r s are concerned, most of us are the v i c t i m s o f f o r c e s we can n e i t h e r understand, nor control.  4-8.  I t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r me t o b e l i e v e t h a t chance o r l u c k p l a y s an important r o l e i n my  4-9.  life.  The average c i t i z e n can have an i n f l u e n c e i n government decision.  4-10.  In the l o n g run people get the r e s p e c t they deserve i n t h i s world.  4-11.  People's m i s f o r t u n e s r e s u l t from the mistakes they make.  4-12.  What happens t o me i s my own doing.  4-13.  With enough e f f o r t we can wipe out p o l i t i c a l  4-14.  One o f the major reasons why we have wars i s because people don't take enough i n t e r e s t  4-15.  corruption.  in politicis.  Without the r i g h t breaks one cannot be an e f f e c t i v e leader,  4-16.  No matter how hard you t r y t o some people j u s t  don't  l i k e you. 4-17.  Capable people who f a i l advantage  of their  t o become l e a d e r s have not taken  opportunities.  98  ^ u  G  1 = s t r o n g d i s a g r e e , 2 = d i s a g r e e , 3 = undecided,  o u  4 = agree, 5 = s t r o n g l y  agree  4-18.  People are l o n e l y because they don't t r y t o be f r i e n d l y .  4-19.  Becoming a success i s a matter o f hard work, l u c k has little  4-20.  o r n o t h i n g t o do with i t .  Many o f the unhappy t h i n g s i n people's l i v e s are p a r t l y due to bad l u c k .  4-21.  Most people don't r e a l i z e the e x t e n t t o which t h e i r are  4-22.  c o n t r o l l e d by a c c i d e n t a l  lives  happenings.  In my case g e t t i n g what I want has l i t t l e  o r nothing t o  do w i t h l u c k . 4-2 3.  It i s difficult  f o r people t o have much c o n t r o l over  the t h i n g s p o l i t i c i a n s do i n o f f i c e . 4-24.  T h i s world i s run by the few people i n power, and there i s n o t much the l i t t l e  4-25.  Sometimes I f e e l t h a t I don't have enough c o n t r o l over the d i r e c t i o n my l i f e  4-26.  guy can do about i t . i s taking.  I have o f t e n found t h a t what i s going t o happen w i l l happen.  4-27.  By t a k i n g an a c t i v e p a r t i n p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l  affairs  the people can c o n t r o l world events. 4-28.  The i d e a t h a t t e a c h e r s a r e u n f a i r t o students i s nonsense.  4-29.  People who can't get o t h e r s t o l i k e them don't understand how t o get along w i t h o t h e r s .  4-30.  Most m i s f o r t u n e s a r e the r e s u l t o f l a c k o f a b i l i t y , ignorance, l a z i n e s s , o r a l l t h r e e .  4-31.  Many times exam q u e s t i o n s tend t o be so u n r e l a t e d to course work t h a t s t u d y i n g i s r e a l l y  4-32.  G e t t i n g people t o do the r i g h t t h i n g s depends upon ability;  4-33.  useless.  l u c k has l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o do with i t .  How many f r i e n d s you have depends upon how n i c e a person you a r e .  4-34.  In the long run the people are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r bad government on a n a t i o n a l as w e l l as on a l o c a l  4-35.  level.  T r u s t i n g t o f a t e has never turned out as w e l l f o r me as making a d e c i s i o n t o take a d e f i n i t e course of a c t i o n .  99  1 = s t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e , 2 =. d i s a g r e e , 3 =. undecided,  c  n §  ^ Q o o  1  4-36.  4 = agree, 5 = s t r o n g l y  agree  Sometimes I can't understand how t e a c h e r s a r r i v e a t the grades they g i v e .  4-37.  Many times we might as w e l l decide what t o do by flipping a coin.  4-38.  I t i s hard t o know whether or not a person r e a l l y  likes  you. 4-39.  I t i s not always wise t o p l a n too f a r ahead because many t h i n g s t u r n o u t t o be a matter o f good or bad f o r t u n e anyhow.  4-40.  There i s a d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n between how hard I study and the grades I g e t .  4-41.  Most o f the time I can't understand why p o l i t i c i a n s behave the way they do.  4-42.  G e t t i n g a good j o b depends mainly on being i n the r i g h t p l a c e a t the r i g h t  4-4 3 .  time.  Many times I f e e l t h a t I have l i t t l e  i n f l u e n c e over the  t h i n g s t h a t happen t o me. 4-44.  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , an i n d i v i d u a l ' s worth o f t e n passes unr e c o g n i z e d no matter how hard he t r i e s .  4-45.  There r e a l l y i s no such t h i n g as " l u c k " .  4-46.  When I make p l a n s , I am almost c e r t a i n t h a t I can make them work.  4-47.  In the case o f the w e l l prepared student there i s r a r e l y i f ever such a t h i n g as an u n f a i r t e s t .  4-4 8.  There's n o t much use i n t r y i n g too hard t o p l e a s e people, i f they l i k e you, they l i k e you.  Leave the l a s t columns o f c a r d # 4 blank ( i . e . 4 - 4 9 and 4 - 5 0 ) and t u r n i n (a) your b o o k l e t (b) your answer cards and (cj your pencil. Before l e a v i n g p i c k up the handout g i v i n g d e t a i l s o f the next experimental s e s s i o n . THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING!  100  APPENDIX B:  Posttest Questionnaire  (form A)  Sex:  M  F  Student Number: Section: Date: INSTRUCTIONS  On the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e you w i l l be asked t o make s e v e r a l r a t i n g s on nine p o i n t s c a l e s .  The f o l l o w i n g i s an  example o f the s c a l e : "How p l e a s a n t do you t h i n k the weather i s today?" extremely pleasant  T  _  i  ^  i  J  A  «  ^  o  z  o  i  /  n  o  Q  ?  extremely unpleasant  I f you thought t h a t today's weather was extremely p l e a s a n t you would c i r c l e extremely  un-  the 9_ and i f you thought t h a t i t was  p l e a s a n t you would c i r c l e the 1_.  today's weather was average you would c i r c l e  I f you thought t h a t 5_.  I f you thought  t h a t i t was somewhere between extreme and average, you would c i r c l e the a p p r o p r i a t e number i n between (2_, _3,_, o r  6^i]_,8)  .  Please answer the q u e s t i o n s c a r e f u l l y and do not s k i p any  questions.  101  1)  Rate the l e a r n e r on the f o l l o w i n g  scales,  intelligent  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  likable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  uncooperative 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  bossy  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  easygoing  immature  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  mature  imaginative  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  unimaginative  irresponsible 1  2  nervous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  patient  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  reasonable  1 2  7  8  9  unreasonable  rigid  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  flexible  courteous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  rude  selfish  1  2  3  warm  1  2  sincere  1  3  4  5  3  2  3  6  4  4  5  5  4 3  6  6  5  8  7  5 4  7  6 6  7  cooperative  responsible calm impatient  9 8  8  unlikable  9  8  7  unintelligent  9  unselfish 9  cold insincere  102  2)  Rate the t e l e v i s e d experimenter following  (the 'teacher') on the  scales.  intelligent  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  unintelligent  likable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  unlikable  uncooperative  1  bossy  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  immature  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  imaginative  1  2 3  irresponsible  1  2  nervous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  patient  1  2  3  4  5  6  reasonable  1  2  3  4  5  rigid  1  2  3  4  courteous  1  2  3  selfish  1  2  3  warm  1  2 3  4  5  6  sincere  1  2 3  4  5  6  2  3  4  8 9  cooperative  8  9  easygoing  8  9  mature  8 9  unimaginative  8 9  responsible  8  9  calm  7  8  9  impatient  6  7  8  9  unreasonable  5  6  7  8  9  flexible  4  5  6  7  8  9  rude  4  5  6  7  8  9  unselfish  7  8 9  cold  7  8 9  insincere  3  5 6  7  4  5  6  7  4  5  6 7  103  3)  On the f o l l o w i n g  s c a l e s , make r a t i n g s  r e f l e c t i n g your  impressions on the 'average u n i v e r s i t y  student'.  intelligent  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  unintelligent  likable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  unlikable  uncooperative 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  cooperative  bossy  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  easygoing  immature  1  imaginative  1  2  irresponsible  1  nervous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  mature  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  unimaginative  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  calm  patient  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  impatient  reasonable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  unreasonable  rigid  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  flexible  courteous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  rude  selfish  1  warm  1  sincere  1  2 3 2  3  2 3  4 4  5 6 5  4  7  6 5  7 6  8 7  8  responsible  9  9 8  unselfish cold  9  insincere  4)  On the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e s make r a t i n g s r e f l e c t i n g  your  impressions o f the 'average psychology e x p e r i m e n t e r . 1  intelligent  1  2  3  likable  1  2  uncooperative 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  cooperative  bossy  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  easygoing  immature  1  5  6  7  8  9  mature  imaginative  1  3  2  3  2  4 4  7 6  5  6  4 4  7  7  8  unintelligent 9  8 9  responsible  patient  1  reasonable  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  unreasonable  rigid  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  flexible  courteous  1  9  rude  selfish  1  9  unselfish  warm  1  2 3  4  5  6  7  8 9  sincere  1  2 3  4  5  6  7  8  2  4  3  2  5  4 3  4  6  5 5  8  unimaginative  1  3  7  unlikable  9  7  6  9  8  5 6 5  8  nervous  2  3  6  5  3  2  5  4  3  2  irresponsible 1  4  7  6  8  7  6  7  9  8 8  calm 9  impatient  cold 9  insincere  105  5)  To what e x t e n t was the l e a r n e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s being shocked? completely  6)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  To what e x t e n t was the experimenter  8  9  not a t a l l  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the  l e a r n e r being shocked? completely 7)  1  2  3  4  5  To what e x t e n t were the shocks  6  7  8  9  not a t a l l  a r e s u l t of something the  l e a r n e r did? completely 8)  9)  1  2  3  4  5  To what extent were the shocks experimenter  did?  completely  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  not a t a l l  a r e s u l t o f something the  6  7  8  9  not a t a l l  To what e x t e n t was the l e a r n e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s r a t e of l e a r n i n g being as i t was? completely  1  2  3  4  5  6  10) To what e x t e n t was the experimenter  7  8  9  not a t a l l  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the  l i s t being o f the same degree o f d i f f i c u l t y t o the l e a r n e r as i t was? completely  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  not a t a l l  11) Could the l e a r n e r have done anything other than what he actually  did?  No  Yes  I f "Yes", what c o u l d he have done  12) Could the experimenter he a c t u a l l y No  Yes  (Briefly)?  have done anything o t h e r than what  did? I f "Yes", what c o u l d he have done  (Briefly)?  106  13)  To what extent was the l e a r n e r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h i s own continued p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment? completely  14)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  To what e x t e n t was the experimenter  8  9  not a t a l l  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the  l e a r n e r ' s continued p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment? completely 15)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  not a t a l l  To what e x t e n t was t h e l e a r n e r ' s behavior a r e s u l t o f the s i t u a t i o n he found h i m s e l f i n ? completely  16)  2  3  4  5  6  7  To what extent was the experimenter's of  8  9  not a t a l l  behavior a r e s u l t  the s i t u a t i o n he found h i m s e l f i n ?  completely 17)  1  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  not a t a l l  To what extent was the l e a r n e r ' s behavior a r e s u l t o f h i s p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d i s p o s i t i o n s a t the time? completely  18)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  To what e x t e n t was the experimenter's of  8  9  not a t a l l  behavior a r e s u l t  h i s p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and d i s p o s i t i o n s a t the  time? completely 19)  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  not a t a l l  To what e x t e n t i s the l e a r n e r t o blame f o r h i s being shocked? completely  20)  1  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  To what extent i s the experimenter  8  9  not at a l l  t o blame f o r the l e a r n e r ' s  being shocked? completely 21)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  not a t a l l  How f a i r l y was the l e a r n e r t r e a t e d i n the present experiment? extremely fairly  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  extremely unfairly  107  22) How  f a i r l y are s u b j e c t s  t r e a t e d i n the average psychology  experiment? extremely fairly 23) How  severe was  extremely severe 24)  How  , 1 2  x  O  3  J  /  4  L  5  K  6  C  T  7  Q  the p a i n s u f f e r e d by the 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Q  9  extremely u  n  f  a  i  r  8  ( i n c l u d i n g t h i s one)?  Are you the o l d e s t c h i l d i n your  l  y  learner? 9  extremely mild  many psychology experiments have you p a r t i c i p a t e d  i n s i n c e September 25 )  -  family?  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093876/manifest

Comment

Related Items