Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-qmkzp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T09:32:04.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Third parties belief in a just world and secondary victimization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Farzaneh Pahlavan
Farzaneh Pahlavan*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Psychologie des Menaces sociales et environnementales, EA 4471, Institut de Psychologie, UniversitéParis Descartes, 92774 Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex, France. farzaneh.pahlavan@parisdescartes.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary focuses on how third parties impact the course of acts of revenge based on their world views, such as belief in a just world. Assuming this belief to be true, the following questions could be asked: (a) What are the consequences of a third party's worldview in terms of secondary victimization? (b) Are bystanders actually aware of these consequences? (c) If so, then why do they let it happens?

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 30 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bandura, A. (1999) Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3:193–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V. C., Karuza, J., Coates, D., Cohen, E. & Kidder, L. (1982) Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist 37:368–84.Google Scholar
Carlsmith, K. M., Wilson, T. D. & Gilbert, D. T. (2008) The paradoxical consequences of revenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95:1316–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Correia, I. & Claudia Dalbert, C. (2008) School bullying: Belief in a personal just world of bullies, victims, and defenders. European Psychologist 13(4):248–54. DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.248Google Scholar
Kuhl, J. & Koole, S. L. (2004) Workings of the will: A functional approach. In: Handbook of experimental existential psychology, ed. Greenberg, J., Koole, S. L. & Pyszczynski, T., pp. 411–30. Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, M. J. (1980) The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, M. J. (1987) Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement: The basic task of each social actor and fundamental problem for the social sciences. Social Justice Research 1:107–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, M. J. & Miller, D. T. (1978) Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin 85:1030–51.Google Scholar
Lerner, M. J., Miller, D. T. & Holmes, J. G. (1976) Deserving and the emergence of forms of justice. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 9, ed. Berkowitz, L. & Walster, E., pp. 133–62. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, N., Trope, Y. & Stephan, E. (2007) Psychological distance. In: Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, ed. Kruglanski, A. W. & Higgins, E. T., Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rucker, D. D., Polifroni, M., Tetlock, P. E. & Scott, A. L. (2004) On the assignment of punishment: The impact of general-societal threat and the moderating role of severity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30:673–84.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. M. & Winnard, E. J. (2007) Looking ahead through lenses of justice: The relevance of just-world beliefs to intentions and confidence in the future. British Journal of Social Psychology 46:649–66.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (2003) Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:320–24.Google Scholar