Abstract
Being a victim of a violent crime is a traumatic experience. Sexual victimization, in particular, may be powerful enough to change presumably stable worldviews like just world beliefs. Across two large samples, we examined the influence of sexual victimization on just world beliefs. Results of Study 1 (N = 727) indicated that victims of sexual aggression had significantly lower levels of just world beliefs compared to nonvictims. Other researchers have claimed that sexual aggression is a uniquely intense traumatic event. Therefore, in a second study, we examined (a) whether just world belief endorsement was associated with the frequency of victimization, and (b) whether sexual aggression was unique in its effect on just world belief endorsement compared to other crimes such as physical assault. Results of Study 2 (N = 2,011) indicated that multiple incidents of victimization did not meaningfully impact just world beliefs compared to a single instance and just world belief endorsement was not significantly different across victims of sexual aggression, robbery, physical assault, or arson. An exploratory analysis, however, indicated there was a significant difference in victims’ behavior such that victims of sexual aggression were the least likely to have reported the crime. We end with a discussion of how the present research can advance our understanding of just world belief ideology and discuss the practical implications for professionals working with and studying victims of violent crimes.
Introduction
Often made salient in media portrayals and news stories, violent crime is traumatic for victims and unsettling to observers. In fact, research has suggested that violent crimes like sexual aggression can be even more traumatic than serving in combat zones—often resulting in higher rates of PTSD and more extreme symptoms (Moor & Farchi, 2011). Victims have long expressed that the trauma ripples out beyond the incident itself into other areas of their lives and can influence them for years after the event (Chaudhury et al., 2017). Understanding psychological factors driving the continued trauma responses is an important step to helping victims of violent crime. One possible underlying mechanism influencing victim suffering after a crime is belief in a just world.
Just World Beliefs
People trend in the direction of believing that the world is a just and fair place (Lerner & Miller, 1978). People with strong just world beliefs assume that good things happen to good people and that bad things happen to bad people (Lerner & Simmons, 1966). In an initial demonstration of the just world belief phenomenon, participants were told about two workers supposedly doing their best at an anagram task, and were also explicitly told that effort was meaningless because the prize money would be awarded randomly. Despite the element of chance, participants believed that the worker awarded the prize had, in fact, put in more effort (Lerner, 1965). In other words, in order to maintain sense of how they perceived the world, participants convinced themselves that the winner exerted more effort compared to the loser because that is what is expected in a fair and predictable world.
Soon after the initial demonstration, the idea was extended to explain a variety of perceptions and beliefs. After observing a confederate appearing to receive painful shocks, participants were likely to devalue the confederate in their subsequent descriptions; the researchers suggested that this reaction to the confederate’s suffering was necessary to maintain the participants’ belief in a fair world (Lerner & Simmons, 1966). However, direct observation of the event is not necessary in order to influence people’s judgments—even reading about a victim of sexual aggression increases blame attributed to the victim when the person reading the vignette has strong just world beliefs (Adolfsson & Strömwall, 2017).
Indeed, the application of just world beliefs to explain naturalistic beliefs and judgments (such as victim-blaming) has grown exponentially (Furnham, 2003). In a review of 13 studies examining perceptions of victims, researchers found that just world beliefs predicted victim blaming for myriad of suffering: poverty, disability, accidents, and certain illnesses (Montada, 1998). Just world beliefs can lead to real-world consequences. For example, research investigating sexual aggression has associated strong belief in a just world with victim blaming that in turn leads to (a) internalized blame on the part of the victim (Ward, 1995), which in turn can increase mental health concerns such as PTSD, depression, and other trauma symptoms (see Campbell et al., 2009 for an overview); and (b) stigma from law enforcement that can discredit initial attempts to report victimization (Kelly et al., 2005) and negatively influence jurors (Foley & Pigott, 2000).
Clearly, the consequences of just world beliefs can be deleterious to victims. Research, however, has also demonstrated that just world beliefs can sometimes be beneficial. Not only does a belief in a just world stabilize people’s perceptions of naturalistic events (Lerner, 1998), but strong belief in a just world has been identified as a coping mechanism (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2000). In fact, just world beliefs have been associated with higher life satisfaction (Harding et al., 2020) and less depression (Wang et al., 2021). Furthermore, although just world beliefs have often been decried for the ways in which they harm victims, some research has demonstrated that strong just world beliefs can decrease victim rumination (Dalbert, 1998), thus offering a buffer to more serious mental health sequelae.
Yet, very little research has examined whether just world beliefs can be changed after a traumatic event. The idea that just world beliefs can be altered holds considerable implications for whether the belief system is beneficial, harmful, or of minimal influence. On one hand, a reduction in just world beliefs could lower life satisfaction, increase the likelihood of depression, and eliminate the buffer against serious mental health issues. On the other hand, an increase in the strength of just world beliefs may help victims cope with the traumatic event and buffer against serious mental health issues. Hence, as a starting point, examining whether just world beliefs can be altered may unveil important insights into victims’ subsequent well-being.
(In)Stability of Just World Beliefs
Almost all research on just world beliefs leads to a general conclusion that they are stable (Hafter & Rubel, 2015). In fact, one review of the literature described the phenomenon as follows:
Since the belief that the world is just serves such an important adaptive function for the individual, people are very reluctant to give up this belief, and they can be greatly troubled if they encounter evidence that suggests that the world is not really just or orderly after all. (Lerner & Miller, 1978, p. 1031)
Lerner (1998) again referred to this belief in a just world as a fundamental element in the mental construction of our “stable” world that is so organic to human nature as to be omnipresent in our daily lives. When developing scales to measure this phenomenon, researchers have labeled it as a belief system (Furnham, 1998) with a “subtle and deep structure” (Maes, 1998, p. 178).
One common—and validated—criticism of the initial wave of just world belief research is that the research focuses on the world as perceived by the majority (i.e., privileged, White, heterosexual men; Harding et al., 2020). For example, men tend to have stronger just world beliefs than women (Hunt, 1999) and White individuals tend to have stronger just world beliefs compared to other racial identities (Harding et al., 2020; Hunt, 1999). Other differences exist: Those who are more religious tend to have stronger just world beliefs (Harding et al., 2020; Kaplan, 2012); younger people tend to have weaker just world beliefs compared to older people (Harding et al., 2020); and people in higher social classes tend to have a stronger belief in a just world compared to people in lower social classes (Harding et al., 2020; Kraus & Keltner, 2013). Consistently, endorsement of just world beliefs is strongly associated with social and cultural backgrounds (Furnham, 2003). Hence, interpersonal differences in just world beliefs exist. But, can differences within an individual occur across time?
According to Lerner (1998), any attempt to influence individuals’ endorsement of just world beliefs would be incredibly difficult, if not practically impossible. Indeed, several investigations have shown that just world beliefs are unaffected by major life events, possibly as a result of a tendency to defend just world beliefs (Hafter & Rubel, 2015). For example, prisoners were found to have similar just world beliefs when compared to guards (Dalbert et al., 2001) and immigrants were found to have similar just world beliefs when compared to nonimmigrants (Dalbert & Yamauchi, 1994). Thus, research findings have comported to Lerner’s (1998) position that just world beliefs are stable (Dalbert, 2001).
There is some evidence, however, that over time just world beliefs can change. For example, increased exposure to media—which typically promotes just world ideology (Appel, 2008)—and longitudinal studies of cancer survivors working through psychological counseling (Park et al., 2008) show a strengthened just world belief endorsement. A recent study examining sexual victims also suggests that just world beliefs can be altered. Victims of sexual aggression had weaker just world beliefs as compared to nonvictims of sexual aggression. The degree of endorsement was also related to individuals’ victim-blaming tendencies—just world belief endorsement predicted victim-blaming by nonvictims of sexual aggression, but did not predict victims’ victim-blaming tendencies (Catlin et al., 2021). Consistent with the idea that sexual aggression is uniquely traumatic (Moor & Farchi, 2011), this finding suggests that some life experiences can be so meaningful as to alter deep-seated ideologies.
General Overview
Just world beliefs are thought to be a fixed, stable ideological system (Dalbert, 2001). Yet, there is evidence that this belief system can be malleable in some circumstances (Catlin et al., 2021). Therefore, we had two overarching aims across the current set of studies. First, we sought to replicate, using a robust mega-analysis sample, the deleterious effect of sexual victimization on individuals’ belief in a just world. Second, we attempted to advance the victimization and just world belief literatures and examine whether the deleterious effect of victimization was unique to sexual aggression or present in victims of other violent crimes.
Study 1
Based on the competing ideas that just world beliefs are immutable or, conversely, can be altered in some circumstances, Study 1 tested these possibilities using a robust sample. To this end, we compared just world beliefs of victims and nonvictims of sexual aggression using a mega-analysis approach. A mega-analysis approach uses the data from several, independent studies to answer a research question with robust power. The mega-analysis involved combining data on victimization and just world beliefs from participants across three studies conducted by the same research group all using the same questions to assess the critical data (i.e., victimization and just world belief responses), though each study had a unique manipulation and aim. Our hypothesis was straightforward: the sexual aggression trauma hypothesis predicted that across a large sample of participants, victims of sexual aggression would have significantly lower just world beliefs as compared to nonvictims of sexual aggression.
We also explored the potential for other germane factors to explain any observed relationship. For example, because one’s sex is meaningfully related to just world beliefs (Hunt, 1999), we examined whether any potential observed effects could be explained by sex. Furthermore, we investigated whether race (Harding et al., 2020; Hunt, 1999), ethnicity (Hunt, 1999), or age (Harding et al., 2020) could explain any variance in observed effects. By so doing, we were able to more rigorously isolate the effect of sexual victimization and its relationship with just world beliefs.
Method
Participants
Participants (N = 727) were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk serves as an online participant recruitment site commonly used to collect generalizable data for behavioral research. Participants recruited through MTurk behave similarly when compared to student and community samples with the proper screening techniques (Goodman et al., 2013). Across these three studies, data were collected between November 2018 and July 2019. Each participant voluntarily completed any one of three online surveys and was compensated for their time and effort (compensation varied among studies based on the expected time commitment of each study, but was never less than 0.50 USD and never more than 1.00 USD). Each study was designed to investigate separate experimental research questions related to sexual aggression. Every potential participant was made aware of each study’s aim in the initial advertisement and the consent form. To ensure the integrity of the data, participants who missed an attention check were excluded from the original datasets, and therefore were not included in the mega-analysis dataset. Prior to the current study, no results associated with any of the three datasets had been published.
Detailed Demographic and Method Information for Data Included in Study 1.
Design and Materials
Demographics
Participants provided their age, sex, ethnicity, and race. All demographic information for each study was collected right before debriefing.
Just World Beliefs
The just world belief scale (Rubin & Peplau, 1975) was designed to measure individual differences regarding people’s belief that the world is fair (e.g., “By and large, people deserve what they get.”). Foundational work on just world beliefs has demonstrated construct validity (Furnham & Proctor, 1992; see Furnham, 2003 for an overview). For example, in one of the original tests of belief in an unjust world, just world beliefs were (a) found to be a distinct construct from an unjust world belief using structural equation techniques, (b) was significantly associated with religiosity, well-being, and political ideology (i.e., related constructs often used in validity efforts), and (c) that the sample in this study produced similar results when compared to validation studies in other countries (Dalbert et al., 2001). Participants were asked to respond to 20 statements using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 6 (strong agreement) with necessary items reverse coded. Higher scores indicated stronger belief in a just world (α = .80).
Victimization
Participants were asked to indicate if they had ever been a victim of sexual aggression (e.g., “Have you ever been the victim of sexual aggression [including any attempted or completed acts of sexual harassment, assault, coercion, or stalking]?”). Participants were given three response options: yes, no, and prefer not to answer. Over one fourth (N = 185; 25.40%) reported having previously experienced sexual victimization. There were a total of 11 participants who preferred not to answer. Their data were not included in the analyses.
Procedure
All participants were recruited through an advertisement on MTurk. All interested participants were directed to one of the three surveys using Qualtrics where consent was obtained from participants at the start of the survey. All procedures and materials for each study were approved by the institutional review board at the second author’s university. (For a specific example of the general paradigm used in all studies, see Catlin et al., 2021.)
Results
Main Analyses
We conducted an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test to examine the main hypothesis: victims of sexual aggression would have lower just world beliefs than nonvictims. Participants’ just world beliefs served as the dependent variable and victimization served as the independent variable. Results supported the sexual aggression trauma hypothesis that victims of sexual aggression would have lower just world beliefs compared to nonvictims of sexual aggression. Participants who reported being a victim of sexual aggression (M = 3.40, SD = 0.67) endorsed weaker just world beliefs than participants who reported never being a victim of sexual aggression (M = 3.65, SD = 0.63), F(1, 709) = 20.97, p < .001, d = 0.39, 95% CI of d [0.22, 0.56].
Exploratory Explanations
In line with previous research (Harding et al., 2020; Hunt, 1999), we further tested whether individual differences (e.g., race, sex) could help explain differences in victims’ and nonvictims’ endorsement of just world beliefs.
Sex
Previous research has suggested that males tend to hold higher just world beliefs as compared to females (Hunt, 1999). To explore the potential for sex to influence participants’ just world beliefs, we conducted an independent samples t-test. Consistent with previous research (Hunt, 1999), there was a significant effect of sex such that male participants (M = 3.64, SD = 0.63) endorsed stronger just world beliefs as compared to females (M = 3.50, SD = 0.67), t(716) = –2.92, p = .004, d = 0.22, 95% CI of d [0.07, 0.37].
To determine if sex interacted with our primary factor of victimization, a 2 (victimization: yes vs. no) × 2 (sex: male vs. female) ANOVA was conducted with just world beliefs serving as the dependent variable. Results indicated that victimization and sex did not interact, F(1, 698) = 0.57, p = .453, ηp2 = .001. Thus, although sex influenced people’s endorsement of just world beliefs (replicating previous findings; Hunt, 1999; c.f., Harding et al., 2020), sex did not meaningfully interact with individuals’ victimization. These results suggest that being a victim of sexual aggression served as a unique factor that meaningfully altered people’s just world beliefs.
Race and ethnicity
Previous research has demonstrated racial and ethnic differences in just world beliefs (Harding et al., 2020; Hunt, 1999). To explore the potential for race (i.e., White vs. minority identities) to influence participants’ just world beliefs, we conducted an independent samples t-test with just world beliefs serving as the dependent variable. Results indicated there were no just world belief differences between White participants (M = 3.57, SD = 0.62) and minority participants (M = 3.63, SD = 0.73), t(724) = –1.12, p = .263, d = 0.10, 95% CI of d [–0.08, 0.28]. These trends held when examining differences across minorities (rather than a binary minority factor).
To explore the potential for ethnicity to influence participants’ just world beliefs, we conducted an independent samples t-test. Results indicated that there was no significant ethnic difference in just world beliefs between Latinx/Hispanic participants (M = 3.55, SD = 0.54) and non-Latinx/non-Hispanic participants (M = 3.58, SD = 0.66), t(723) = –0.37, p = .708, d = 0.05, 95% CI of d [–0.20, 0.29].
Age
Previous research has demonstrated that older adults tend to have higher belief in a just world than younger adults (Harding et al., 2020). To explore the potential for age to influence participants’ just world beliefs, we conducted a correlation between participants’ age and just world beliefs. Results indicated there was an association between age and participants’ belief in a just world, r = 0.09, p = .016, 95% CI of r [0.02, 0.16]—older age was positively related to stronger endorsement of just world beliefs.
To determine if age interacted with the variable of interest (i.e., victimization), we conducted a multiple regression with just world beliefs serving as the dependent variable. Victimization (dummy coded with no victimization coded as 0) and age were entered in the first step, and the interaction term was entered in the second step. Results indicated that the interaction term did not explain a significant amount of variance (<0.01%) over and above the main effects, ∇R2 < .001, ∇F(1, 723) = 0.06, p = .812. Here again, although age influenced people’s endorsement of just world beliefs (replicating previous findings; Harding et al., 2020), age did not meaningfully interact with individuals’ victimization. Thus, these results suggested that being a victim of sexual aggression served as a unique factor that meaningfully altered people’s just world beliefs.
Study 1 Discussion
The results of Study 1 demonstrate that victims of sexual aggression tend to have weaker just world beliefs than nonvictims of sexual aggression. This trend was not moderated by participants’ sex, age, race, or ethnicity. Because this study was not experimental, we are precluded from claiming that sexual aggression causes a weakening in just world beliefs. However, the alternative (directional) explanation would be to suggest that people with low just world beliefs are more likely to become victims of sexual aggression. Given the vast literature noting the stigma (Kelly et al., 2005) and trauma (Moor & Farchi, 2011) associated with incidents of sexual aggression, we are skeptical of the latter alternative. Furthermore, some researchers have suggested that just world beliefs are better conceptualized as belief in a just and belief in an unjust world, respectively. This subset of literature has suggested that people high in unjust world beliefs (i.e., bad things happen to good people; good people do not get what they deserve) is associated with higher perceived future risk (Lench & Chang, 2006). It remains an empirical question, however, whether someone low on both just and unjust world beliefs would be predisposed to victimization. The literature, combined with the robust trends found in this mega-analysis provides evidence that experiencing sexual aggression can undermine presumably stable worldviews.
Despite demonstrating that being a victim of sexual aggression can weaken just world beliefs, several relevant and critical questions remain. To address some of these questions, we carried out a large project collecting data from thousands (N = 2,011) of self-reported crime victims. The first question we examined was whether the number of sexual victimization incidents influenced victims’ just world belief endorsement. That is, does any change in just world belief endorsement fluctuate with additional experiences of victimization? A second question we examined was whether levels of just world belief endorsement among sexual aggression victims were unique to sexual aggression or whether other violent crimes such as robbery, physical assault, and arson were associated with similar levels of just world endorsement.
Study 2
Currently, there is a disagreement in the literature about whether sexual aggression is unique compared to other violent crimes. One idea is that victims of sexual aggression face unique behavioral problems that result in case attrition (e.g., not reporting or recanting initial allegations; Kelly et al., 2005) and that victims of sexual aggression experience more severe trauma compared to other crime victims (Moor & Farchi, 2011). Furthermore, research suggests that even when victims of sexual aggression overcome the obstacles to make an initial report, they are less likely to make subsequent legal reports with repeated victimization (Buzawa et al., 2007). It is unclear, however, if this trauma and reluctance to report repeated incidents is because of an increase of trauma symptoms with each incident or because of a threshold effect that is satisfied after a single incident of sexual aggression. Therefore, our frequency hypothesis offers two competing predictions. First, the additive frequency hypothesis predicted that there would be a relationship between frequency of victimization and just world belief endorsement such that the more a person had been the victim of sexually aggressive acts, the lower their belief in a just world would be. Second, the threshold frequency hypothesis predicted that there would be no further meaningful shift in just world belief endorsement with multiple instances of victimization.
Other research, however, suggests that sexual aggression cases are similar in many regards (e.g., case attrition) to arson, physical assault, and robbery (Galvin & Polk, 1983). Thus, the second question under investigation was whether victims of sexual aggression had lower just world beliefs than victims of other crimes. Based on the victim blaming and trauma literatures, the sexual aggression trauma prediction hypothesized that victims of sexual aggression would have lower levels of just world beliefs compared to victims of physical assault, robbery, and arson.
Critically, to extend the results to a quantifiable behavioral outcome in addition to ideological belief systems, an exploratory analysis tested whether victims of sexual aggression would be less likely to report the incident compared to victims of physical assault, arson, and robbery.
Method
Participants
Participants (N = 2,011) were recruited from MTurk. Each participant voluntarily completed one of the four online surveys, and was compensated 0.50 USD for their time and effort. The data were collected between January 2019 and October 2019. To ensure the integrity of the data, participants who missed any attention check (discussed below) were not compensated and therefore were not included in the final dataset or subsequent analyses. To be included, each participant had to have self-reported experiencing one of the four major crimes (i.e., arson, physical assault, sexual assault, or robbery) at least one time; nonvictims were informed in both the advertisement and consent form that they were not eligible for participation and would not be compensated. Participants, regardless of other life experiences, were only allowed to participate in one study (i.e., even if a person had been a victim of all four crimes in their lifetime, they were only allowed to provide answers for one of those experiences, though we did not dictate which experience they chose to disclose).
Participants (50.30% male; 31 did not provide a response of male or female) had an average age of 35.08 (SD = 10.36; 12 participants did not provide their age). The majority of participants were non-Latino, White (69.80%; three did not indicate their race), with the next highest races indicated as African-American (13.40%), and Asian (5.10%); 6.7% of the sample identified as ethnically Latinx/Hispanic. All participants self-identified as victims of either sexual aggression (n = 510), robbery (n = 498), physical assault (n = 498), or arson (n = 505). All participants were U.S. citizens over the age of 18.
Design and Materials
Demographics
Participants provided their age, sex, and racial identity. Unlike the studies included in the mega-analysis, this demographic survey did not separate ethnicity and racial identity. Instead, participants were given a list of options (i.e., White [non-Latino], African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, Mixed, and Other/Prefer not to answer) that included both ethnicity and racial identities in the same question.
Just World Beliefs
The same just world belief scale described in Study 1 was used for all four crime surveys in Study 2. The overall reliability for all four crimes was acceptable (α = .67), while the reliabilities for specific crimes varied: sexual aggression (α = .63), physical assault (α = .68), robbery (α = .70), and arson (α = .70). These reliabilities fit within the range of acceptable values for the just world belief scale (from 0.58 to 0.93; Furnham, 2003).
Attention checks
To ensure the integrity of the data, three attention checks were located throughout the survey. The first attention check was embedded within a demographic Likert-type scale survey, and simply asked participants to select point 4 on the Likert scale. The next attention check was to ensure that only victims of that specific crime (e.g., sexual aggression) were taking the survey. This question was the same victimization question described in Study 1, and was adjusted to match the specific crime under investigation. Finally, the last attention check was a stand-alone item that asked, “If you are reading this, please select C.” Any participant who missed one or more of these attention checks was not compensated and therefore was not included in the analyses below.
Procedure
Participants were recruited through an advertisement on MTurk. In the advertisement, potential participants were informed that they must have been a victim of [sexual aggression, physical assault, robbery, arson] and would be asked about their experiences with reporting and/or not reporting the incident. All interested participants were directed to Qualtrics. After obtaining consent from participants, demographic information was collected, including the completion of the just world belief scale. At this point in the survey, participants were asked about the frequency of victimization (e.g., “How many times have you been a victim of [sexual aggression, physical assault, robbery, arson]?”). Participants were debriefed after completion of the survey and provided with instructions to receive compensation. The procedure and materials were approved by the institutional review board at the second author’s university.
Results
Analyses Examining Demographic Factors
Sex
Previous research has suggested that males tend to hold higher just world beliefs as compared to females (Hunt, 1999). To explore the potential for sex to influence participants’ just world beliefs, we conducted an independent samples t-test. There was a significant effect of sex such that male participants (M = 3.57, SD = 0.47) reported higher belief in a just world as compared to females (M = 3.49, SD = 0.55), t(1976) = –3.86, p < .001, d = 0.17, 95% CI of d [0.08, 0.26]. Therefore, all results reported in the main analyses controlled for sex.
Race
Previous research has demonstrated significant racial and ethnic differences in just world beliefs (Harding et al., 2020; Hunt, 1999). To explore any potential relationship between race (i.e., White vs. minority identities) and participants’ just world beliefs, we conducted an independent samples t-test with just world beliefs serving as the outcome. Results indicated there were no just world belief differences between White participants (M = 3.53, SD = 0.53) and participants who identified as a member of a racial minority (M = 3.53, SD = 0.48), t(1994) = 0.11, p = .915, d = 0.01, 95% of d [–0.09, 0.10]. These trends were mirrored even when a more nuanced examination of racial differences (i.e., comparing just world beliefs across all races instead of the dichotomized variable) was explored. Therefore, race was not included in the main analyses below.
Age
Previous research has demonstrated that older adults tend to have higher belief in a just world than younger adults (Harding et al., 2020). To explore the potential for age to influence participants’ just world beliefs, we conducted a correlation between participants’ age and just world beliefs. Results indicated there was no association between age and participants’ belief in a just world, r = 0.02, p = .502, 95% CI of r [–0.03, 0.06]. Therefore, age was not included in the main analyses below.
Main Analyses
Frequency relationship
A simple regression was conducted to test if the number of sexual aggression incidents predicted just world beliefs. Participants’ just world beliefs served as the outcome variable. Sex was entered in the first step, with incident frequency entered in the second step, and finally the interaction term entered in the last step. Results did not support the additive frequency hypothesis that there would be a negative relationship between victimization frequency and just world beliefs. That is, just world belief endorsement did not vary in terms of instances of sexual victimization; thereby suggesting a threshold effect in that one instance may suffice to influence the just world beliefs of victims of sexual aggression.
In the first step, participant sex failed to predict participants’ just world beliefs, R2 = .003, F(1, 491) = 1.59, p = .208 (likely a consequence of only using a quarter of the sample, sexual victims only, compared to the initial t-test that included the entire sample across crimes). In the second step, frequency of victimization failed to predict any meaningful degree of variance, ∇R2 = .000, ∇F(1, 490) = 0.15, p = .703; together sex and frequency of sexual victimization failed to predict participants’ just world beliefs, R2 = .004, F(2, 490) = 0.87, p = .421. Finally, in the last step, the interaction of sex and frequency of sexual victimization failed to predict a significant amount of variance (0.4%) over and above sex and frequency of victimization, ∇R2 = .004, ∇F(1, 489) = 1.99, p = .159. Overall, the last step failed to significantly predict participants’ just world beliefs, R2 = .008, F(3, 498) = 1.24, p = .293.
When we explored this relationship further by expanding the analysis to include all four crimes, however, we found that the effect of sex was present. We conducted a second simple regression entering sex, frequency of victimization, and the interaction term separately. In the first step, sex independently explained a significant amount of variance (0.7%) in participants’ just world beliefs, R2 = .007, F(1, 1929) = 14.37, p < .001. In the second step, however, frequency of victimization again failed to explain variance over and above that of sex, ∇R2 = .000, ∇F(1, 1928) = 0.44, p = .506. Together, frequency and sex significantly explained 0.8% of the variance in just world beliefs, R2 = .008, F(2, 1928) = 1.93, p = .001. In the last step, the interaction term followed a similar pattern. Alone, the interaction term failed to significantly explain variance above and beyond the main effect, ∇R2 = .001, ∇F(1, 1927) = 1.99, p = .264. Together, however, the third step significantly predicted participants’ just world beliefs, R2 = .008, F(3, 1927) = 1.40, p = .001.
In sum, these results suggest that there is not a relationship between multiple victimization experiences and just world belief endorsement for sexual aggression or any of the other three crimes. Thus, these results suggest a potential threshold effect such that changes in just world beliefs do not occur with additional victimization experiences. For example, participants with a single reported incident of sexual aggression endorsed similar levels of just world beliefs (M = 3.59, SD = 0.45) when compared to victims of sexual aggression who reported more than one incident (M = 3.52, SD = 0.50). This pattern also holds when all one-time victims across the four crimes (M = 3.54, SD = 0.53) are compared to repeated crime victims across the four crimes (M = 3.52, SD = 0.50).
Crime comparison
We conducted a between-subjects Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) with four levels of the independent variable (Crime: sexual aggression vs. robbery vs. physical assault vs. arson) to examine potential differences in victims’ just world beliefs across the four crimes. Participants’ just world beliefs served as the dependent variable and sex served as the covariate. Results did not support the sexual aggression trauma hypothesis that victims of sexual aggression would have weaker just world beliefs compared to victims of other serious crimes. Results indicated that victims of sexual aggression (M = 3.55, SD = 0.48) did not have significantly different levels of just world beliefs as compared to victims of robbery (M = 3.57, SD = 0.52), physical assault (M = 3.50, SD = 0.52), or arson (M = 3.51, SD = 0.52), F(3, 1975) = 2.07, p = .102, ηp2 = .003. These results suggest that victims of serious crimes, in general, endorse nonsignificantly different levels of just world beliefs.
Exploratory Analysis
A binary logistic regression was conducted to extend our findings from belief systems to behavioral differences in reporting crime across sexual aggression and the other crimes. Participants’ decision to report the crime served as the binary outcome and was regressed on participants’ sex and the type of crime. Sex was entered as a control variable in the first step of the regression. In the second step, the crime comparisons were entered simultaneously. Specifically, three dummy variables were created such that sexual aggression always served as the comparison group against one of the three other crime types for the second step.
Outcomes of Reporting Behavior Regressed on Sex and Crime Type.
Note. All predictors (sex and the crime types) and the outcome variable (reporting behavior) are categorical variables. Sex was coded as 0 for female and 1 for male. The type of crime was dummy coded such that sexual assault always served as the reference group (i.e., was always 0) and was simultaneously compared to robbery, physical assault, and arson. Sex was entered in the first step and the three crime comparisons were simultaneously entered in the second step. Finally, the binary outcome of reporting behavior was coded as 0 for the crime not being reported and 1 for victim reported.
Study 2 Discussion
The results of Study 2 failed to indicate that just world beliefs are influenced by multiple experiences of victimization. Moreover, the observed effects demonstrated that there were not significant differences in just world endorsements across victims of the four crimes. In line with the threshold frequency hypothesis, the observed effects suggest that no meaningful change in just world belief endorsement occurred with repeated and subsequent acts of victimization. Furthermore, our findings suggest that, although sexual aggression is traumatizing, it is not necessarily stronger than other violent crimes (cf., Moor & Farchi, 2011) in terms of its relationship with just world beliefs. These findings do corroborate existing speculation that sexual aggression is not unique in terms of cognitive processing and beliefs (Galvin & Polk, 1983).
Behaviorally, however, the story appears more complicated. The observed effects suggest that victims of sexual aggression are significantly less likely to report the crime than victims of arson and robbery (cf., Galvin & Polk, 1983). One way to interpret these findings is that the trauma incurred by victims of sexual aggression may not be in the act itself, but by the consequential stigma, resulting in observable behavioral differences.
General Discussion
Just world beliefs may not be as stable as previously believed (Dalbert, 2001). When people experience something as traumatic as sexual aggression, their perception of a fair world is altered. The trauma of victimization may be so powerful that it could act as a threshold: After a single act of victimization, people discount the world as a fair place and do not change that opinion even with repeated victimization experiences. In fact, we compared nonvictims from Study 1 to sexual aggression victims in Study 2 and found that victims of sexual aggression endorsed significantly weaker just world beliefs (M = 3.55, SD = 0.48) compared to nonvictims (M = 3.65, SD = 0.63), t(1035) = 3.00, p = .003, d = 0.19, 95% of d [0.06, 0.31]. As demonstrated by the findings of Study 2, this effect is not unique to sexual aggression, but occurs when people are victims of other violent crimes as well. Furthermore, the exploratory analysis provides initial support for the idea that while the deleterious impact to one’s ideology does not differ across crime types, societal reception and stigma may influence behavioral outcomes like willingness to report the incident.
Theoretical and Applied Implications
The results of the current studies replicate previous research that has found that just world beliefs are impacted by extreme negative life experiences (Catlin et al., 2021) and suggest that just world beliefs are not immutable. The potency of the trauma is evident as PTSD is the leading subsequent documented disorder (Sayed et al., 2015). In fact, the mental health ramifications of sexual aggression are so extreme that victims of sexual aggression tend to suffer from PTSD symptoms at higher rates compared to people in other high stress situations (Moor & Farchi, 2011). Compounding the issue, a large majority of victims engage in self-blaming (Hassija & Gray, 2013), increasing the risk of experiencing these mental health symptoms (Campbell et al., 2009). It remains unclear how the shift in just world beliefs is related to trauma symptoms—does the loss of just world beliefs lead to depression or does anxiety and PTSD lead to the disillusion of a fair world? The results of the current study offer initial evidence that victims of other violent crimes may also exhibit similar shifts in ideology.
Mental health and other helping professionals who interact with victims of violent crimes should be aware of this potential shift. People may unconsciously weaken their endorsement of just world beliefs as a coping mechanism. To maintain their (the victim’s) belief in a just world is to accept that they are a bad person who was deserving of whatever crime happened. People, however, often desire to believe the best in themselves and convey impressions accordingly (Leary, 2019), creating cognitive dissonance. To reconcile the contradictory impression of themselves with the reality of their victimization, they may weaken their just world ideology to relieve the dissonance.
Unfortunately, the weakening of just world beliefs might sometimes be more harmful to victims than protective. Research has shown that there are positive benefits to having a strong belief in a just world: more effective coping abilities (Dzuka & Dalbert, 2000), improved physical health (Levine et al., 2015; Lucas et al., 2008), reduced perceptions of pain (McParland & Knussen, 2010), and increased feelings of social inclusion (Donat et al., 2012). With the weakening of their just world beliefs, victims may not have the same capability to cope, which could result in increased difficulty in treatment settings. In fact, research has shown that even when sexual victims attend therapy, their self-blaming tendencies tend to increase over the course of treatment (Meadows & Foa, 1998), unlike cancer patients (Park et al., 2008). The threat to just world beliefs can be deleterious to victims’ health as it can increase perceptions of injustice (Faccenda & Pantaléon, 2011) and increase beliefs about physical pain and disability (McParland & Knussen, 2016). Future research should continue looking at how the change(s) in just world ideology affect victims self-blaming tendency and mental health over time.
Beyond treatment ramifications, the current study addresses whether sexual aggression is a unique trauma to our perceptions of a fair world as compared to other violent crimes. There were no statistically significant differences between the strength of just world beliefs for the four crime types, lending support to research that has treated victims of any intentional act as conceptually similar (Santiago et al., 2013). Nonetheless, there was a clear difference in victims’ reporting behavior, lending support to researchers who call sexual aggression a unique interpersonal crime (Kelly et al., 2005; Krebs et al., 2007).
Practically, these findings extend the literature examining reporting discrepancies in cases of sexual aggression. As has been well documented, sexual aggression is occurring at nontrivial rates (Krebs et al., 2007). However, sexual aggression remains severely underreported. In fact, even on college campuses with specific offices designed to handle accusations of sexual aggression, we see a disparity between victims’ attempts to report and the official numbers released (Yung, 2015). The reporting issue is further highlighted by experimental studies that have demonstrated that victims of sexual aggression were less likely to report a hypothetical incident as compared to nonvictims (Catlin et al., 2021). The results of the current study, however, suggest that potential changes in just world ideologies may be divorced from victims’ unwillingness to report the crimes.
Limitations and Future Directions
The current study, for obvious ethical and practical reasons, did not use an experimental design. Therefore, one possible concern is the direction of causality (i.e., did becoming a victim decrease just world beliefs or was having weak just world beliefs a risk factor for becoming a victim). We feel, however, it is safe to assume that becoming a victim of a violent crime led to the decrease in just world beliefs, and not the other way around (Study 1). To our knowledge, there is no link between weak just world beliefs and risk-taking behavior. Furthermore, there was no link between just world beliefs and the frequency of victimization (Study 2) as would be expected if people with weak just world beliefs are more likely to be targeted. However, low income individuals—who are at higher risk of victimization (Byrne et al., 1999)—tend to have weaker just world beliefs (Harding et al., 2020; Hunt, 1999). Therefore, it remains an empirical question whether people low in just world beliefs would be more likely than their counterparts to be targeted for crime. Future research should also investigate changes in just world beliefs over time; including what factors could mitigate the detrimental impact of victimization on just world beliefs.
The results of the behavioral measure should be interpreted in context. First, the reporting measure was a single behavioral measure, which can be interpreted with more confidence once future research has replicated these results over several behavioral measures with more diverse samples. Given the tendency for victims to avoid reporting victimization to law enforcement and the potential delay between incident and report (Klemmer et al., 2021), other behavioral measures could be better suited to capturing victims’ decision-making closer in time to the drop in just world beliefs (e.g., confiding in a trusted, close person; seeking medical and/or mental health treatment; or reporting the incident to another official outlet).
Conclusion
The observed effects illustrate the traumatic influence that being a victim can have on individuals via potential changes in presumably deep-seated ideologies. Taken together, our results suggested that only one experience may be necessary for such changes, and that victims of several different violent crimes exhibit similar just world belief endorsements. Going forward, understanding how these changes occur over time (i.e., through the course of healing and/or criminal investigations) is vital to law enforcements’, helping professionals’, and others’ effort to help victims of violent crime. One thing is clear, given the likelihood of weakening victims’ just world beliefs after even one experience, there is an urgency to help all victims overcome these traumatic experiences.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
