People have a basic need to believe in a world that is just, that is, a place where benevolence is rewarded, and misdemeanors are punished. Experiences of unfair events (e.g., a war) bring doubts about the justness of the world leading to attempts to re-establish righteousness by objective or subjective means (defense strategies). Importantly, it has become fairly common to encounter events which are not limited to the current place, and which affect people whom one may not otherwise acknowledge because contemporary media helps to discover what is happening beyond immediate human perception. This separation between a person and a given scenario is described as psychological distance. In order to inspect how psychological distance influences beliefs in a just-world and its defense, an experimental study was conducted on 60 participants. After random assignment to proximal and distal psychological distance groups, the subjects were exposed to just-world altering news articles about war. Before and after the articles, the just-world belief was evaluated, and defensive reactions to the stimuli were assessed. The results demonstrate that people perceive psychologically proximal and distal stimuli as similarly offensive to just-world beliefs. In addition, people are prone to use more rational strategies to defend justice in psychologically close conditions, and more nonrational strategies when events are psychologically distant. This study provides insights into psychological distance effects on just-world perception and defense strategies, which may have an impact on forming a positive or negative view towards victims.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.