Getting "just deserts" or seeing the "silver lining": the relation between judgments of immanent and ultimate justice.
People can perceive misfortunes as caused by previous bad deeds (immanent justice reasoning) or resulting in ultimate compensation (ultimate justice reasoning). Across two studies, we investigated the relation between these types of justice reasoning and identified the processes (perceptions of dese...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Language: | EN |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doaj.org/article/2a0c372cec444c72a57daf92d7c70ba9 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | People can perceive misfortunes as caused by previous bad deeds (immanent justice reasoning) or resulting in ultimate compensation (ultimate justice reasoning). Across two studies, we investigated the relation between these types of justice reasoning and identified the processes (perceptions of deservingness) that underlie them for both others (Study 1) and the self (Study 2). Study 1 demonstrated that observers engaged in more ultimate (vs. immanent) justice reasoning for a "good" victim and greater immanent (vs. ultimate) justice reasoning for a "bad" victim. In Study 2, participants' construals of their bad breaks varied as a function of their self-worth, with greater ultimate (immanent) justice reasoning for participants with higher (lower) self-esteem. Across both studies, perceived deservingness of bad breaks or perceived deservingness of ultimate compensation mediated immanent and ultimate justice reasoning respectively. |
|---|