Monday, December 23, 2019

Hope Theory


C.R. Snyder and his colleagues are credited with the development of hope theory.  Goals are the key cognitive component of hope theory. Goals organize the mind’s processes leading to the achievement of a goal. Hope is a motivational state that arises from thoughts about pathways thinking and agency thinking in the pursuit of a goal.

Hope theory has two major components: Pathways Thinking, and Agentic Thinking. 















Pathways Thinking refers to a person’s thoughts about ways to reach a goal. True hope relies on a person’s ability to generate at least one realistic way to reach a goal. People with high levels of hope are skilled at finding more than one pathway to a goal.

Agency or Agentic Thinking is a strong belief in one’s capacity to reach a goal. The primary example of agency thinking is the statement, “I can do this.” This is especially true when some barrier arises.

Pathways thinking and agentic thinking interact to strengthen each other when a person’s mind is engaged in the process of sequencing action toward a goal.

Snyder and his colleagues developed measures of hope. See the Adult Hope Scale for more information including Snyder’s classic book on the Psychology of Hope.

Hope is a significant variable in the Psychology of Religion as well. For example, Christians focus on hope embodied in Jesus during Christmas and Easter.

Hope is also a significant contributor to positive outcomes in psychotherapy (Sutton, Kelly, Worthington, Griffin, & Dinwiddie, 2018).


C.R. Snyder (Charles Richard "Rick" Snyder) was a psychological scientist at the University of Kansas (1944-2006).

Links

Adult Hope Scale

The Paradox of Hope at Advent

References

Sutton, G. W., Jordan, K., & Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2014). Spirituality, hope, compassion, and forgiveness: Contributions of Pentecostal spirituality to godly love. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 33, 212-226


Reference for using scales in research:

Buy Creating Surveys on

GOOGLE BOOKS

 

AMAZON

 


  


Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 


Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Idiosyncrasy Credit

Idiosyncrasy Credit is a concept developed by Hollander (1958). Leaders earn idiosyncrasy credits from their followers based on perceptions of competence and group loyalty. These credits are an index of status. When a certain level of credits has been accumulated, leaders have some leeway to pursue group goals in ways that deviate from the group norms. This deviation from the norms ultimately requires that the leader deliver results.



Leaders lose status when they behave outside the accepted range of behavior. It is the boundaries of acceptable behavior that are proposed to vary with the amount of credits a leader has accumulated. A leader who operates on the boundaries of acceptable group behavior and consistently delivers desirable results, earns additional credits to operate within a wider range of deviation from group norms. Thus, the boundaries of what is acceptable are relaxed.

Leaders can earn idiosyncrasy credits by a long term adherence to group norms, demonstrating group oriented motivation, demonstrating competence, or being assigned to a high status role. Some leaders may "import" credits from external sources.

Idiosyncrasy credits is abbreviated as ISC and is referred to as ISC theory in some literature.

Leaders can also accumulate debts, which can lead to a loss of status and influence.

If your work includes surveys, please consider Creating Surveys available on AMAZON.















References

Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological
Review, 65, 117-127.

Provaznik, B., Hughes, L.W., & Avey, J.B. (2009). Pushing the margins: A dynamic model of idiosyncrasy credit in top management team. Journal of Business & Leadership: Research, Practice, and Teaching, 5, 2, 1-9. Link 

Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com
   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE
   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton
   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)



Friday, December 6, 2019

Bathsheba Syndrome Psychology and Leadership

The Bathsheba Syndrome is the term applied to a cluster of features representing an impaired ability to cope with success presumably, leading to ethical violations. The term was used in 1993 by Dean Ludwig and Clinton Longenecker (J Business Ethics).

The term draws on the biblical story of the good King David who used his power to have a sexual relationship with Bathsheba. After she became pregnant, David attempted to get her husband to have intercourse with his wife, but he refused. David then sent him off to war with orders to place him in the front line "so he will be struck down and die." (2 Samuel 11).

According to the authors, many managers are not prepared for success. And the ethical training at the time was not effective. In their analyses, poorly prepared managers had the following conditions, which led to ethical problems.

1. They became complacent and became distracted from their work.

2. They had access to privileged information, people or objects (and presumably were not prepared to handle this privilege).

3. They had increasing control over their organization's resources.

4. They began to believe that their personalbility was linked to control over outcomes.


For a longer commentary on Bathsheba Syndrome and leadership failure, see Donelson Forsyth, 2011.

On the one hand, by 2019 standards, the labeling of the concept is sexist and perpetuates the men-as-leaders expectation. Also, by putting the focus on the woman as in "Bathsheba," the focus is unfairly diverted from what could be called the "King David Syndrome." On the other hand, given the commonality of male leaders sexually harassing female supervisees as evident in the #metoo reports.

I suggest another term. The "Leadership Entitlement Syndrome." Leaders, regardless of gender, need ways to manage success in the best interests of their organization. And many need structures to manage their sexuality.

For a consideration of sexuality and morality in Christian cultures, see A House Divided












Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Wisdom and Psychology

Wisdom is an ancient virtue often recorded in maxims and proverbs.

Huffpost Life Click for article on worry


Psychologists generally agree that wisdom is learned from experience rather than the explicit knowledge obtained from lectures and books.

Psychologist Robert J. Sternberg developed a balance theory of wisdom. Following is his definition.

The balance theory defines wisdom as the use of one’s intelligence, creativity, commone sense, and knowledge and as mediated by positive ethical values toward the achievement of a common good through a balance among (a) intrapersonal, (b) interpersonal, and (c) extrapersonal interests, over the (a) short and (b) long terms to achieve a balance among (a) adaptation to existing environments, (b) shaping of existing environments, and (c) selection of new environments. (Sternberg, n.d.)

Haidt explains that wise people balance their own needs and the needs of others both in the present and in the future. He also comments on those without wisdom, 

"Ignorant people see everything in black and white--they rely heavily on the myth of pure evil--and they are strongly influenced by their own self-interest (Haidt, 2006, pp. 152-153)."





Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. Cambridge, MA: Basic books.

Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com
   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE
   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton
   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Tuesday, November 26, 2019

Relational Scaffolding Psychological Concepts



Jee and Anggoro (2019) explain relational scaffolding in the following quote.

"Relational scaffolding involves guiding a student through comparisons between observable phenomena and corresponding modeled events (e.g., comparisons between observations of sunrise, midday, and sunset, and models of a space-based perspective of the Earth-sun system)."

The key element in relational scaffolding appears to be the guided comparison component based on the two studies by Jee and Anggoro (2019).


For more information on the scaffolding method, see this Vanderbilt University link (no guarantees that outside links will be permanent).



Image result for relational scaffolding


Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com
   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE
   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton
   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)





Monday, November 11, 2019

Psychology of Respect


Respect is a bipolar relational concept describing a person’s social status and likeability within a social group.

Groups vary in size. Groups may be small such as family members, a classroom, or a department at work. And groups may be as large as a university, professional association, multinational corporation, or nation.

Respect is a bipolar concept. The nature of respect is evident in the anchor words we use to describe level of respect as high or low. Not surprisingly, level of respect varies based on the perception group members have of the words and deeds of another group member. Of course, different people have may different opinions regarding the level of respect that should be accorded to a group member.

Social status is linked to a group’s values. Groups have different qualities that they highly value such as loyalty, kindness, wealth, fitness, attractiveness, musical talent, writing ability, and so forth. People who have high levels of several values gain higher status, which is an aspect of respect. Sometimes the social status is evident in observable ways such as clothing, medals, places to sit at a meeting, and so forth. In some cultures, social status along with respectful treatment can be purchased such as buying a first-class plane ticket.

Likeability refers to personal qualities, which are highly valued within a group. People who appear cheerful, interested, respectful of others, sincere, and so forth get high respect. Physically attractive people often get high respect evident by people wanting to spend more time with them.

Different groups may hold competing values. For example, high levels of wealth are highly valued in many western cultures. However, a poor person who has given her life to helping the poor can also be regarded with a high level of respect.

Loss of respect. Loss of respect happens when there is evidence of a serious breach of a group’s values. Groups that value freedom from sexual harassment will quickly devalue the respect status of the person who harasses. When it comes to moral violations, one powerful driver of disrespect is the emotion of disgust. Disgust is often, but not exclusively, linked to socially unacceptable sexual behavior.

Respect for the office. In western cultures, people are expected to treat people holding certain positions with culturally defined ways of showing respect. When an officeholder has behaved disrespectfully, members are expected to show respect to the position even if they consider the officeholder as a person who does not deserve respect. This can happen with high level political leaders like presidents and prime ministers.

Respect and Virtues. In some groups, the possession of certain traditional virtues gain high levels of respect. In some groups, people feel conflicted about the virtues. For example, self-confident leaders may border on being arrogant and violate a value of humility.

For an application of respect to parenting and teaching, see Discipline with Respect. 
Buy on AMAZON





Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com
   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE
   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton
   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)



Tuesday, November 5, 2019

The Psychology of Capitalism

Portabello Road Market, London


Capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system dependent on a free marketplace where people buy and sell good and services. The system involves two main groups of people: owners and workers.

Capitalism is the dominant economic system in today’s world. For the most part, bartering systems have disappeared and feudal systems were upended. The beginning of modern Capitalism is often attributed to the English cloth industry in the 1500s (Britannica). Following the two world wars, the U.S. became the dominant world economy.

Features of Capitalism

Investopedia identifies five features of capitalism, four of which fit my understanding of the concept so, I’ll refer to four of their features.

1. There are generally two classes of people in capitalism systems, which are often represented by different political parties. The capitalist class are the owners of the corporations that produce and distribute goods. The working class sell their labour to the capitalist class for wages.

2. Capitalism is driven by greed (see the Psychology of Greed). The corporations (interestingly considered like persons in some laws), seek to acquire more and more resources. They buy other businesses, land, and the “best minds.” Many American corporations have budgets larger than some nations. For their part, workers, greedy for higher benefits, market their skills to the highest bidder, which can drive up wages for certain skill sets such as information technology, medicine, and management of a multinational corporation. Skill sets that many people easily acquire with little education result in cheap labour.

3. Capitalism thrives in free markets. That is, markets free from government regulations. In the 1800s, the minimally regulated American economy led to the rise of the class known as “Robber Barons” who acquired fabulous wealth, which sometimes included the houses their workers lived in. Since those days, government regulations gradually increased to protect the well-being of workers. Pure capitalism does not exist.

4. Free markets are a key to capitalism. If one major corporation acquires all the wealth in one important industrial sector then it has a monopoly and controls the pricing. Unregulated monopolies are greed gone wild. Competition is a key to successful capitalism.

Human Nature and Capitalism

Several aspects of human nature appear to fit well with capitalism. We seek to acquire resources important to survival, we form groups, we organise ourselves into hierarchies within our groups, and we have a sense of fair exchange.

1. Acquiring Survival Goods. The drive to acquire what we need to survive make sense. We obviously need food and seek shelter. We acquire territory for ourselves, our group, and our store of goods that we keep in reserve against bad times. A modern society is very much like an extension of a blend of hunter-gatherer and agrarian groups existing near each other and exchanging goods.

2. Forming Groups and Organising. Human groups grow by mating, raising children, and eventually multiplying into large groups of “us” and “them.” Within our groups we recognise leaders and followers. Skilled leaders help groups thrive and are recognised by group members as worthy of high status.

3. Territory, Storage, and Ownership. Those who first acquired a "working area" or territory passed it along to their descendants. Those without territory for various reasons work for owners in exchange for wages. 

4. Fairness. A sense of fairness results in penalties against both owners and workers who cheat when there is sufficient social pressure to insist on a culturally defined fair exchange. Of course, that does not always happen, but in many societies, revolutions have taken place to oust monarchs, royals, and dictators whose treatment of the working class was extremely exploitative.

Humans also have emotions and the capacity for perspective-taking important to empathy, and an inhibition against hurting family members. In combination, these serve as breaks on excessive greed that would destroy owners and workers. Empathy can lead to compassion for workers who lack goods because they are unable to work for wages. But compassion does not extend to those considered able but unwilling to work.

Of course, people are not perfectly rational thus, there are continual battles between owners and workers for a fair share of the wealth produced by the workers.

For related writings see chapters in Living Well on Generosity and Love.


Government and Capitalism

 Strictly speaking, government plays little to no role in a capitalist society. However, most examples of capitalist societies include some degree of government control over a nation's land and other resources. In western cultures where governments tax people to provide public education, roads, libraries, and some degree of help for those with limited resources, it is hard to think about life when workers were totally dependent on a wealthy person's charity. Consider the capitalist model for several common goods and services.

Education
In a capitalist society, education is a commodity available in the market place for those who wish to purchase it. If an enterprise owner needs skilled labor, the owner will need to teach the worker those skills, but the worker may be in debt to the owner for the cost of the education. There is no role for government in education. According to wikipedia, the Christian church in Europe mandated in 1179 that cathedrals provide free basic education to boys who could not afford the fee. Public education was provided by the Church of Scotland in 1561 and later supported by a tax in 1633.

Health Care
Owners need healthy workers. When healthy workers are plentiful, the owners need do nothing about safety and health care. When workers are too few then, owners may need to offer incentives to attract healthy workers. Healthcare may be one benefit offered to attract workers. There is no place for government in healthcare. Europeans were among the first nations to provide health care coverage for some of their citizens such as Germany in 1883 (Sickness Insurance Law) and Britain in 1911 (National Insurance Act). Gradually, Europeans and some other capitalist countries expanded coverage for all citizens.

Roads
Private companies build roads as needed. They may charge a fee for others to use their roads. There is no role for governments in building roads in a capitalist society.

Libraries
Books and reading material are available in the market place for those who can afford such things. Wealthy people may amass large holdings. There is no role for government in providing libraries for the general public in a capitalist society.

Parks and Beaches
Most of us enjoy parks and beaches, but in a capitalist society, land is in private hands and may be developed by owners wishing to charge fees for enjoying time in parks and by the seashore. In capitalist societies, there is often a mix of private and government owned parks and beaches. The first U.S. national park was Yellowstone created in 1872.

You can probably think of other examples where private ownership of resources, good, and services have changed in the last few hundred years toward an increasing role of government to provide services to the public who could not otherwise afford such luxuries. In theory, in a democracy, the people pass laws creating publicly owned lands and resources and demanding taxes to pay for good and services, which the majority of the people desire.


Related Posts


Psychology of Altruism

Psychology of Compassion


Monday, November 4, 2019

The Psychology of Greed





Is greed the driver of a booming stock market and explosive budget deficit? Can greed ever be a good thing?

Frequently, various measures of the performance of the world’s largest economy—the United States— make the news. I see blurbs telling me of stunning multiyear highs for the S&P stock index, incredibly low unemployment, and budget bursting deficits. And I wonder about greed.

Is greed the major reason why everyone seems to join the party and ignore the day when debt payments must be paid?

Meanwhile, wise individuals assess their level of greed balanced against their appetite for risk. And some consider the virtue of generosity and their social obligations.

What is Greed?

Greed is a desire to get more and more of things regardless of personal needs. Greed may be situational, but it may also be dispositional—a personality trait. Greed is usually linked to goals of getting more food, money, and material things. The Cambridge Dictionary lists related words like avarice, materialism, and rapaciousness.

Beyond the dictionary list, researchers (for a summary, see Bruhn & Lowery, 2012) find that regardless of national culture, people seek to satisfy five needs: security, shelter, sustenance, sex, and self-expression. Values are related to perceptions of need. In the United States, values include material comfort, wealth, competition, and individualism.

Ambition is a benign term for socially acceptable greed. Greed is ambition beyond the norms of a culture. High levels of greed interfere with personal, corporate, and national well being.

Greed is a biopsychosocial motivational force that appears to be a part of human nature. It isn’t surprising to see some tout the values of greed despite general religious teachings condemning greed.

Greed: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

If I were a famous researcher, I think I would like to write a piece for a major news outlet called Greed: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly because, I believe the answer to the question, “Is Greed a Double-Edged Sword?” (Zhu and others, 2019) is yes. On the one hand, people with high levels of greed aim for higher levels of social status and the associated benefits, which includes a variety of material goods.

The “good” of greed for an employer can be the respect for those in authority who are in a position to control the advancement of the greed-driven employee, not to mention the high job performance. Greedy people want more and never seem to be satisfied— these are the two elements of greed described by Seuntjens, Zeelenberg, van de Ven, & Breugelmans (2019).

The “bad” of greed include the lack of performance when employees view their organisation as not distributing benefits in a fair manner and destructive competition. Greed is also linked to a willingness to take bribes and break rules (e.g., Seuntjens et al., (2019). Bruhn & Lowery (2012) identify the downside using terms like “envy, power lust, exploitation, manipulation, deception, and a sense of entitlement” (p.138).

I also note the work of Gray, Ward, and Norton (2014) demonstrating a “paying it forward effect.” In their studies, people pay forward equality and generosity, though they tend to be less generous. But they tend to excess when paying forward greed and acts of cruelty.

Managing Greedy People and Organisations

Fair play is critical to prevent greed-linked cheating. The findings from Zhu et al. (2019) suggest government and organisational leaders ought to ensure a culturally fair distribution of resources to benefit from the energies of greedy people.

Boundaries are needed at all levels of society to establish acceptable norms for ambition.

Monitor acts of Paying it Forward. It’s important to reward positive acts of kindness and generosity. But it’s equally important to be quick to address the payback of greed and harm, which can quickly lead to harmful relationships and an unsafe culture (e.g., Gray et al., 2014).

Leaders’ public pronouncements of regret may be helpful. Expressing regret about greedy behaviour and unfairness appear to have some impact on strengthening norms about fairness. Conversely, leaders who tout the virtues of greed can influence violations of social boundaries (van der Schalk, Kuppens, Bruder, & Manstead, 2015).

Public exposure of deception is important. National leaders, the press, organisations, and individuals play an important role in exposing the tricks of the greedy who use misrepresentation, lies, and deception to exploit others in their pursuit of goods (Steinel & De Dreu, 2004). A free press and support for whistleblowers are needed to curb measurable harm from the negative effects of greed.

advertisement
See Creating Surveys to help measure attitudes, values, and behavior in organizations.




See the Dispositional Greed Scale as a measure of Greed.

Also see the related concept of Altruism and the work of Batson.


References

Bruhn, J. G., & Lowrey, J. (2012). The good and bad about greed: How the manifestations of greed can be used to improve organizational and individual behavior and performance. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(2), 136–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029355

Gray, K., Ward, A. F., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Paying it forward: Generalized reciprocity and the limits of generosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031047

Seuntjens, T. G., Zeelenberg, M., van de Ven, N., & Breugelmans, S. M. (2015). Dispositional greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 917–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000031

Steinel, W., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2004). Social Motives and Strategic Misrepresentation in Social Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.419

van der Schalk, J., Kuppens, T., Bruder, M., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2015). The social power of regret: The effect of social appraisal and anticipated emotions on fair and unfair allocations in resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000036.supp (Supplemental)

Zhu, Y., Sun, X., Liu, S. & Xue, G. (2019). Is greed a double-edged sword? The roles of the need for social status and perceived distributive justice in the relationship between greed and job performance. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02021

Saturday, October 19, 2019

Sunk Cost Effect : Psychology of Sunk Cost



The psychology of sunk cost, also called the sunk-cost effect and the sunk-cost fallacy, refers to a finding that people tend to continue investing time, money, or effort into an activity, despite evidence that the increased effort will not likely yield the desired outcome. Work by Kahenman (e.g., 2011) and others document the sunk-cost effect.

In common language, the effect has been called "throwing good money after bad" as when an investor continues to purchase stock despite a precipitous decline in stock price.

In "sunk-cost relationships," one partner may invest considerable effort to win the other back even though friends agree there is little or no hope for restoring the relationship. Focusing on losses means an inability to move forward and recover. 

Rego et al. (2018) looked at the sunk-cost effect in committed relationships. Their first expeirment revealed "the likelihood of participants staying in the relationship was higher when money and effort, but not time, had been previously invested in that relationship." In their next study, they looked at time: "Results revealed a sunk time effect, that is, participants were willing to invest more time in a relationship in which more time had already been invested."



People may hang on to old clothes they have rarely or never worn just because they spent so much on the purchase.

The sunk-cost effect can also be seen in religion. For example, people who have a firm commitment to a religious belief despite evidence that many holding a similar faith no longer hold such a rigid belief because it led them to loss of physical health, emotional health, or relationships. A religious person may vigorously invest time, effort, and money defending a previously held belief. This sunk cost effect has been applied to beliefs that divide Christians (Sutton, 2013, 2016). 

The sunk-cost effect can be seen in politics. Many people invest heavily in a political leader. When evidence reveals flaws, they are more likely to stick with the flawed leader than invest in a new leader with more potential. As can be seen in history, seriously flawed leaders can lead to ruin for the wellbeing--an even deaths-- of millions.

Arkes & Blumer (1985) linked the sunk-cost effect to a desire not to appear wasteful in people who increased their attendance following the high price they paid for a season ticket.

The sunk-cost effect generalizes. The focus of research has been on an individual's irrational behavior; however, Christopher Olivola (2018) found an interpersonal effect. that is, people change their behavior in response to other people's past investments.

Sunk-costs, personality, and biopsychology

Fujino et al. (2016) report on the sunk-cost effect, personality, and biopsychology relationship. 

"Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we investigated neural responses induced by sunk costs along with measures of core human personality. We found that individuals who tend to adhere to social rules and regulations (who are high in measured agreeableness and conscientiousness) are more susceptible to the sunk cost effect. Furthermore, this behavioral observation was strongly mediated by insula activity during sunk cost decision-making. Tight coupling between the insula and lateral prefrontal cortex was also observed during decision-making under sunk costs. " (Abstract)

 


References

Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124–140.

Fujino, J., Fujimoto, S., Kodaka, F., Camerer, C. F., Kawada, R., Tsurumi, K., Tei, S., Isobe, M., Miyata, J., Sugihara, G., Yamada, M., Fukuyama, H., Murai, T., & Takahashi, H. (2016). Neural mechanisms and personality correlates of the sunk cost effect. Scientific reports6, 33171. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33171

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Olivola, C. Y. (2018). The Interpersonal sunk-cost effect. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1072-1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617752641

Rego, S., Arantes, J., & Magalhães, P. (2018). Is there a sunk cost effect in committed relationships? Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 37(3), 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9529-9

Sutton, G. W. (2016). A house divided: Sexuality, morality, and Christian cultures. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. ISBN: 9781498224888

Note: Sinking boat Image created in Designer.



Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com

   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

   X  @Geoff.W.Sutton


Publications (many free downloads)
  
Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     
  
ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


If you study sunk-costs and other effects, consider 
  
Creating Surveys on AMAZON








Monday, August 12, 2019

Just World Hypothesis

Cosmic Justice 2024
Geoffrey Sutton & Designer AI


The just world hypothesis, according to Lerner and Miller (1978), “states that people have a need to believe that their environment is a just and orderly place where people usually get what they deserve (p. 1030).”

In Lerner’s view, the just world hypothesis focuses on people who observe others' suffering and interpret the observation in a way that avoids believing that they too could suffer, or at least suffer unjustly. To cope with the discomfort, observers may act to ensure justice happens for the victims or conclude that the victims suffer because of something they have done.

In experimental research, the information provided to participants who observe suffering influences the attitude of the participants toward the person who was the victim.


If there is evidence that what happened to the victim is not likely to affect the observer then, a victim derogation effect ("blame the victim") may be seen.

An empathy effect may reduce victim-blaming as seen in a study when participants were asked to imagine themselves in the victim’s situation.

Religiosity may be a factor.
In one study, those who were more highly religious did not respond differently to victims in different suffering contexts as did those low on religiosity, which may suggest that the highly religious believe justice will prevail—if not in this world, then in the world to come. 

The biblical story of Job appears to represent a struggle to understand why bad things happen to good people. In the New Testament, the disciples asked Jesus to explain a man's blindness by telling them who sinned--the man or his parents. Jesus did not endorse either cause (John 9: 1-12). The story reveals an enduring belief among some religious adherents that people suffer because of personal, family, or even national sin.

Measurement
A few scales have been developed to assess just world beliefs. One example is the Just World Belief Scale by Vondehaar & Carmody (2015). Another is the Global Beliefs in a Just World Scale (Lipkus, 1991).

Other terms
Other terms for the just world hypothesis include just world theory, just world fallacy, and the just world effect. A related phrase is blaming the victim.

Application
Just world theory may explain why people blame the victims of sexual and other forms of physical abuse and various crimes. Rape victims and victims of sexual harassment have been accused of having a responsible role in the harm done to them. People who suffer from an  illness or the effects of substance use disorders may be viewed as suffering as the result of poor choices. The theory may also explain the lack of concern for harm done to prisoners as if they deserve whatever they suffer in prison. 

References

           Furnham A. & Boston, N. (1996) Theories of rape and the just world, Psychology, Crime & Law, 2:3, 211-229, DOI: 10.1080/10683169608409779 

Gravelin, C. R., Biernat, M., & Bucher, C. E. (2019). Blaming the Victim of Acquaintance Rape: Individual, Situational, and Sociocultural Factors. Frontiers in psychology9, 2422. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02422


Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85(5), 1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030

Lipkus, Isaac. (1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(11), 1171-1178. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90081-L


           Vonderhaar, Rebecca L., & Carmody, Dianne Cyr. (2015). There are no “innocent victims”: The influence of just world beliefs and prior victimization on rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(10), 1615-1632. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514549196

Living Well  BUY ON AMAZON

Links to Connections

Checkout My Page    www.suttong.com

  

My Books  AMAZON          and             GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Articles: Academia   Geoff W Sutton   ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton