Just World Belief and Ethics of Morality: When Do We Derogate the Victim?

Abstract

The current study aimed to explore the influences of moral emotions, moral ethics and perceptions of the perpetrator on the phenomenon of victim derogation. Based on the assumptions of Lerner’s Just World Belief theory (JWB; Lerner 2002) and Shweder’s “Big Three” ethics theory (Shweder et al. 1997), levels of victim derogation and avoidance in response to vignettes were analyzed as a function of moral content (ethic) and emotions, as well as good or bad outcome and perceptions of the perpetrator. Study 1 examined the influence of moral contents and outcome on moral emotions, finding that disgust is salient in violation of the divinity ethic whereas anger is salient in the autonomy ethic, and that anger is more dependent on outcome than disgust. Study 2 analyzed the influence of moral content, outcome, and perceptions of the perpetrator on victim perception. Results showed that the victim in the divinity context is perceived as more morally positive regardless of the outcome, but is avoided more. Also, negative perception of the perpetrator contributes more to positive perception of the victim in the divinity ethic than in the autonomy ethic. Perception of the victim in the autonomy ethic is affected more by outcome, and, in line with the JWB hypothesis, is derogated more when the outcome is negative. The fundamental motivation of justice was shown to be related to the link between act and outcome, but to vary by moral content. Derogation of the victim as a defense of JWB appears to be a typical reaction to injustice in the autonomy ethic, while avoidance of the victim may characterize violations of the divinity ethic.