IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i12p2247-2257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can Belief in a Just World Buffer Mood and Career Prospects of People in Need of Risk Protection? First Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel Nudelman
  • Kathleen Otto
  • Claudia Dalbert

Abstract

Research indicates that individuals high in belief in a just world (BJW) are confident that they will not fall victim to unforeseeable disasters. The current study tested the hypothesis that BJW acts as buffer that serves to sustain mood and career prospects of those in need of risk protection. Threat was manipulated by confronting participants with risks regarding their career outlook, and individual differences in threat perception were measured by degree of uncertainty tolerance. As hypothesized, BJW helped protect the mood of participants threatened by serious career‐related risks who were unable to tolerate uncertainty. The finding supported the buffer hypothesis regarding mood, but not career prospects, possibly due to a more conscious mindset or variability in self‐efficacy. However, BJW was overall positively associated with career prospects. Moreover, it was suggested that BJW can also serve as a personal resource, not only protecting from risk, but also enhancing mood among those with high uncertainty tolerance.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel Nudelman & Kathleen Otto & Claudia Dalbert, 2016. "Can Belief in a Just World Buffer Mood and Career Prospects of People in Need of Risk Protection? First Experimental Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2247-2257, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:12:p:2247-2257
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12588
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12588
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12588?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    2. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    3. Dalbert, Claudia & Umlauft, Sren, 2009. "The role of the justice motive in economic decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 172-180, April.
    4. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hui Wang & Yuke Xiong & Xia Liu, 2023. "How are Family Resources and School Resources Related to Low-Income Adolescents’ Psychological Adjustment? The Moderating Role of Belief in a Just World," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 16(2), pages 655-670, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sara Jonsson & Inga-Lill Söderberg, 2018. "Investigating explanatory theories on laypeople’s risk perception of personal economic collapse in a bank crisis – the Cyprus case," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(6), pages 763-779, June.
    2. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    3. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    4. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    5. Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier, 2022. "Baromètre de la confiance des consommateurs québécois à l’égard des aliments -1 re édition," CIRANO Project Reports 2020rp-39, CIRANO.
    6. Shi-jie Jiang & Feiyun Xiang & Iris Yang, 2023. "Effect of Prevention Focus on the Relationships Among Driving Accident History, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Automobile Insurance Coverage Decisions," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, July.
    7. Wang, Xunxiao & Wu, Chongfeng, 2018. "Asymmetric volatility spillovers between crude oil and international financial markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 592-604.
    8. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. Yingyu Zhang & Hui Luan & Wei Shao & Yingjun Xu, 2016. "Managerial risk preference and its influencing factors: analysis of large state-owned enterprises management personnel in China," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 135-158, August.
    10. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    11. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    12. Laura K. Siebeneck & Thomas J. Cova, 2012. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception Throughout the Evacuation and Return‐Entry Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1468-1480, September.
    13. Andy S. L. Tan & Susan Mello & Ashley Sanders‐Jackson & Cabral A. Bigman, 2017. "Knowledge about Chemicals in e‐Cigarette Secondhand Vapor and Perceived Harms of Exposure among a National Sample of U.S. Adults," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1170-1180, June.
    14. Noland, Robert B & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-79, January.
    15. Jerry V. Mitchell, 1992. "Perception of Risk and Credibility at Toxic Sites," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 19-26, March.
    16. Kim, Yeolib & Kim, Seung Hyun & Peterson, Robert A. & Choi, Jeonghye, 2023. "Privacy concern and its consequences: A meta-analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    17. Kristin B. Dobbin & Amanda L. Fencl & Gregory Pierce & Melissa Beresford & Silvia Gonzalez & Wendy Jepson, 2023. "Understanding perceived climate risks to household water supply and their implications for adaptation: evidence from California," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 1-20, April.
    18. Sandra Cortés & Soledad Burgos & Héctor Adaros & Boris Lucero & Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá, 2021. "Environmental Health Risk Perception: Adaptation of a Population-Based Questionnaire from Latin America," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.
    19. Deborah A. Cohen & Debra S. Knopman, 2018. "Existing Regulatory Approaches to Reducing Exposures to Chemical‐ and Product‐Based Risk and Their Applicability to Diet‐Related Chronic Disease," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2041-2054, October.
    20. Andree Ehlert & Jan Seidel & Ursula Weisenfeld, 2020. "Trouble on my mind: the effect of catastrophic events on people’s worries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 951-975, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:12:p:2247-2257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.