A STRUCTURAL MODEL EXPLAINING CORRELATES OF
BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD AND VICTIM PERCEPTION
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS in
Psychology by
Kristine D. Christianson
SPRING
2014

A STRUCTURAL MODEL EXPLAINING CORRELATES OF
Approved by:
BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD AND VICTIM PERCEPTION
A Thesis by
Kristine D. Christianson
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Marya Endriga, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Lawrence Meyers, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Third Reader
Timothy Gaffney, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date ii

Student: Kristine D. Christianson
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D.
Date
Department of Psychology iii

Abstract of
A STRUCTURAL MODEL EXPLAINING CORRELATES OF
BELIEF IN A JUST WORLD AND VICTIM PERCEPTION by
Kristine D. Christianson
In this study, the effects of religious orientation, protestant work ethic (PWE), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and belief in a just world (BJW) on victim perception were assessed using a structural equation modeling approach. Of the 362 undergraduate students who participated in this study, 71.5% were female and ranged in age from 17 to 58 years ( M = 21.05,
SD = 4.19). Participants completed inventories measuring observed variables related to each of the aforementioned traits. The hypothesized model demonstrated somewhat less than acceptable fit with the data; therefore, a re-specified model was constructed. The re-specified model demonstrated good/adequate fit, χ
2
(15) = 40.753, p < .001, GFI = .973, CFI = .971, RMSEA
= .069
. Higher levels of BJW and RWA were associated with more negative perceptions of victims, and higher levels of religiosity and PWE were associated with greater BJW and RWA.
Study limitations and future directions are also discussed.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Marya Endriga, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To Dr. Endriga, you remind me to take inventory of what is important in my life. I cannot begin to express how truly amazing you are. Thank you for all of your guidance and support.
To Dr. Meyers, you gave me the courage to evaluate the direction of my life, and change things that were impeding my happiness. I am forever grateful. Thank you for everything.
To Dr. Gaffney, you have helped inspire my love for all things quantitative. I will forever value our time during research group and IRT class. Thank you.
To my parents, thank you for providing me with opportunities that you did not have yourselves. I hope to make you proud of the path I have chosen.
To my sister, Nicole, thank you for giving me perspective. You are brilliant, and I know you will come to find your own way.
To Tarren, who has given me endless support throughout this process—thank you for your love, patience, kindness, and understanding. I am so proud of all we have accomplished together.
To my wonderful research assistants Annette and Rebecca, who put up with my craziness every day without complaint—you are incredibly gifted people and I am confident that your impact on the world will be truly unrivaled.
To my thesis group, thank you for always offering support and encouragement when this entire process seemed insurmountable.
Finally, to anyone who has touched my life—even in the most mundane of encounters— you have helped lead me to a place that is exactly where I am supposed to be…
Thank you! v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ viii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................. 1
Literature Review.............................................................................................. 3
Purpose ............................................................................................................ 18
Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 19
2. METHOD ............................................................................................................. 20
Participants ...................................................................................................... 20
Materials ......................................................................................................... 20
Procedure ........................................................................................................ 30
Design ............................................................................................................. 31
3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 32
Data Screening ................................................................................................ 32
Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................... 32
Specifying the Model ...................................................................................... 36
Re-specification of the Model ......................................................................... 38 vi

Mediation Analyses ........................................................................................ 41
4. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 46
Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 46
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 51
Future Directions ............................................................................................ 53
Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 54
Appendix A. The Just World Scale........................................................................... 55
Appendix B. Global Belief in a Just World Scale .................................................... 57
Appendix C. Multidimensional Belief in a Just World Scale ................................... 58
Appendix D. Intrinsic/Extrinsic Revised Scales ....................................................... 60
Appendix E. Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale .................................................... 61
Appendix F. Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile .................................................. 62
Appendix G. Victim Blame Scale ............................................................................. 65
Appendix H. Attribution of Blame Scale .................................................................. 67
Appendix I. Demographics ....................................................................................... 69
Appendix J. Consent Form ....................................................................................... 71
Appendix K. Debriefing............................................................................................ 72
References ................................................................................................................... 74 vii

LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
1.
Participant Demographic Characteristics……….……………………………. 21
2.
Reliability Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics for Observed Variables…. 33
3.
Correlations between Observed Variables……… ... .…………………………35
4.
Re-specification of the Hypothesized Model with Corresponding Model Fit
After each Modification………………….……… .. ………………………… 39 viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
1.
Proposed relationships between predictor variables, BJW, and negative
Page perception of victims............................................... …………………………. 19
2.
Model testing hypothesized relationships between predictor variables and victim perception……………….… .................... …………………………… 38
3.
Re-specified model after removal of low path coefficients………………….. 40
4.
The unmediated model of the direct effect of religiosity on RWA..………… 42
5.
The unmediated model of the direct effect of PWE on BJW..………………. 42
6.
The unmediated model of the direct effect of RWA on victim perception.…. 43 ix

1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
During the fall of 1987, the Sacramento Bee newspaper printed an article titled,
“Once an Acronym Moves in, There goes the Neighborhood” (Dexter, 1987, October 16).
This article was a synopsis of a local non-profit organization dedicated to serving victims of violent crime through counseling and advocacy. Concerned citizen Marilyn Mahoney spoke out against the presence of the organization in her community, citing the commercialization of the area as a major cause for concern. Mahoney was quoted in the article:
This neighborhood is going to fight. I’m really sorry that [organization] is in the middle of it, we should all be for any kind of organization that helps victims, but if you let them in, where does it stop? If it means there won’t be an organization for victims, that’s just too damn bad. I know that sounds cold, but we’re angry. Most of the time we’re real nice and real quiet, but when my neighbors snuck over there and saw what they were doing—they tend to sneak around sometimes—well, the wagons are circling. (1987, October 16, p. A2)
While this seeming lack of regard for victims of violent crime is not uncommon, what
Mahoney failed to realize is that her statements would result in a rallying of public support for the agency, and ensured that their operations were to continue for many years to come.
Nearly twenty-five years later I became a volunteer for this same agency and

2 witnessed firsthand the derogation that often burdens innocent victims of crime, and became intrigued by the underlying motivations for which it occurs.
No one is immune from the effects of violence. For many, violence may be a distant concern, perhaps affecting a friend of a friend, or even someone we know more personally. However, many unfortunate others will become targets of violence themselves. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, an estimated 6.8 million people in the United States reported a violent victimization in 2012 (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2013). Further, it is estimated that greater than 50 percent of violent crimes go unreported, suggesting that this number may actually be twice as high.
Despite this clear evidence of the prevalence of victimization, the tendency to derogate victims is still an issue.
Victims of violence experience significant emotional and/or physical wounds that leave the individual vulnerable to declines in mental health. Oftentimes, individuals become victims through no fault of their own other than the unfortunate circumstance of chance. However, people often engage in victim blaming, which describes a tendency to place blame on seemingly innocent victims (Johnson, Mullick, & Mulford, 2002). This behavior can have devastating effects on victims of crime. For example, perceptions of self-blame have been shown to cause severe psychological consequences for victims of rape (Arata, 1999; Meyer & Taylor, 1986). Additionally, according to Meyer and Taylor
(1986), self-blame led to symptoms of depression and higher levels of fear. These findings suggest that the tendency for individuals to blame victims is an area worthy of further exploration.

3
Literature Review
Attempts have been made to explain this phenomenon using a concept referred to as just-world bias or belief in a just world (BJW) .
The just-world bias, first posited by
Lerner (1977), maintains that human beings experience a desire to believe in a just world—a world in which harm does not befall innocent victims unless they have somehow brought the harm upon themselves. He contends that the tendency to blame the victim stems from the need to relieve the psychological distress related to observations that directly counter their beliefs in a just world. Lerner and Miller provide the following definition of the just-world bias:
Individuals have a need to believe that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve. The belief that the world is just enables the individual to confront his physical and social environment as though they were stable and orderly. Without such a belief it would be difficult for the individual to commit himself to the pursuit of long-range goals or even to the socially regulated behavior of day-to-day life. (1978, p. 1030)
As an integral coping mechanism, people will often go to great lengths to defend their just world beliefs. Evidence suggesting that the world is unjust may cause considerable distress as individuals are forced to reconcile their internally held beliefs with their observations. Accepting that the world is unjust would cause them to recognize that they could encounter similar harm undeservingly—a truth that may cause aversive reactions from some people.

4
Lerner’s BJW theory coincides with cognitive dissonance theory, which was first posited by Festinger (1957). This theory suggests that when humans are confronted with a situation in which their inwardly-held beliefs are in opposition to their behavior, they experience distress, or “dissonance”, and must find some way to alleviate the psychological discomfort. This incongruent behavior is usually elicited because of peer pressure or some other type of reward for acting in opposition to their beliefs. People are then faced with the decision to maintain their inward beliefs in spite of the fact that their behavior or actions have countered them, or to adopt the beliefs endorsed by the new behavior or statement (perhaps to gain a reward for holding such beliefs or to avoid punishment). The more pressure placed on the individual, the more likely she or he is to change the inwardly held belief or opinion.
Consistent with the theory of cognitive dissonance, an individual who maintains a
BJW is likely to experience discomfort when faced with the suffering of an innocent victim. According to Lerner and Miller (1978), when individuals are confronted with evidence to suggest an injustice has occurred, they revert to one of two options: they either try to somehow compensate the victim or they rationalize that the victim’s suffering is justified. This latter option is referred to as the derogation effect, in which the suffering of the victim is rationalized as the consequence of some internal defect of the victim. This is especially likely to occur when an individual is directly responsible for the suffering of the victim. Here, the individual attempts to reduce the dissonance she or he feels over the discrepancy between her or his actions and belief in the world as just. In order to alleviate this psychological discomfort, an individual will often choose to

degrade the victim, blaming the victim’s inferiority as the justification for suffering.
However, the derogation effect seems to be mitigated in the event that individuals are able to place the blame for the suffering elsewhere (e.g., an experimenter or society).
Based on the aforementioned review of the literature, it may be logical to infer that people largely fall into one of two possible categories—one group believing the world is just and another believing that the world is unjust. However, another line of thinking as proposed by Furnham and Procter (1989; 1992) advocated the perspective that BJW could yield an additional outcome—namely the belief in a random world or a world that is not just. This additional outcome suggests that justness or unjustness does not necessarily occur consistently, but rather may be the result of random and/or unpredictable factors. Because of this perceived inadequacy in previous descriptions of
BJW, Furnham and Procter advocated for a multidimensional perspective of BJW. They maintained that spheres of control reflecting personal, interpersonal, and socio-political domains might more accurately portray BJW phenomena. The personal domain refers to control over individual/nonsocial elements, such as personal achievement; the interpersonal domain reflects control over social interactions, for example interactions in a group or dyad; and the socio-political domain refers to control over political and social systems and may be exhibited through participation in political demonstrations and activism (Paulhus, 1983). Furnham and Procter maintained that the problem of this third group in support of a random world is resolved by allowing perceptions of justness to vary across these three domains of control. For example, this multidimensional portrayal allows one to endorse BJW across one domain while rejecting it for others.
5

6
In more recent literature, researchers have advocated for a system justification approach for explaining the tendency to derogate victims (Jost & van der Toorn, 2012).
System justification refers to the tendency for people to believe that societal systems are fair. Similar to BJW, people often rely on this belief to reduce distress they feel over observing social inequities, and are thus highly motivated to protect this belief. This theory further explains why people tend to acquiesce to social norms and are diligent in upholding them, including the promotion of stereotypes. Therefore, system justification seems to be an adaptation of the socio-political domain of BJW as conceived by Furnham and Procter (1989) in its similarity to a consideration of society and the systems important to its functioning.
Interestingly enough, even individuals from disadvantaged groups are motivated to protect their belief in a fair, right and just system (Jost & van der Toorn, 2012) through both active and passive processes. According to Jost and van der Toorn, “system justification is thought to satisfy basic epistemic needs for consistency, certainty, and meaning; existential needs to manage threat and distress; and relational needs to coordinate social relationships and achieve shared reality with others” (2012, p. 335).
Those needs are sometimes met by manifesting stereotypes, such as believing that advantaged members of society are more competent than the disadvantaged. Further, attribution of blame to disadvantaged groups results in decreased self-esteem, in-group favoritism, and detriments to long-term psychological well-being. For individual victims, this may be detrimental to well-being and inspire a tendency toward self-hatred.

7
While BJW and system justification theories seem to coexist harmoniously, marked dissimilarities exist between the two. In particular, Lerner’s BJW maintains that individuals are initially motivated to protect victims and fix unfair systems; however, it is not until they are prevented from righting these wrongs that they resort to derogating and blaming victims for their own fate (Jost & van der Toorn, 2012). On the other hand, a system justification approach would suggest that people have a tendency to engage in exaggerating the goodness of social systems; further, even when an opportunity exists to fix an ailing system, people often will avoid taking action in order to preserve the status quo. Jost and van der Toorn (2012) maintained that this phenomenon is present even when people bear no personal responsibility to the victim for potential negative consequences.
While the literature has largely portrayed BJW as a detrimental habit to be avoided, researchers have alternatively posited it to be a positive and healthy coping mechanism (Džuka & Dalbert, 2000). Dalbert (1998) raised several reasonable points on the adaptive qualities of BJW. Namely, BJW may influence the perception of one’s own life and social interactions. Dalbert held BJW to be a stabilizing force that helps people deal with their daily struggles as well as a method for victims of unjust fate to cope with their trauma. For victims, BJW may facilitate the healing process by reducing the tendency to ruminate about their trauma. Other studies have also suggested that BJW helps individuals cope with stress (Lerner, 1980; Reis, 1984; Tomaka & Blascovich,
1994). For example, Tomaka and Blascovich (1994) subjected participants to stressinducing tasks and then measured their perceived stress and appraisal of threat in relation

8 to individual levels of BJW. Their findings indicated that individuals with higher levels of BJW exhibited significantly less stress, as well as appraised the situation as less threatening. Their findings suggested that BJW acts as a stress-moderator, much like optimism does, that helped participants to remain calm during the task. These findings suggest that the just world bias may actually provide the individual with a powerful coping mechanism.
Further, researchers have linked BJW to higher satisfaction with life for both victims and non-victims alike (Dalbert, 1998). Dalbert (1998) conducted correlational analyses to determine the relationship between BJW and satisfaction with life. Dalbert’s entirely female sample included students (non-victims), as well as mothers of a disabled child and unemployed workers (victims). Her findings indicated that for all groups, BJW was associated with greater satisfaction with life and positive mood. Dalbert maintained that BJW works as a coping resource and that the more people believe that they get what they deserve, the greater their satisfaction with life. While Dalbert used the term
“victims” somewhat loosely in her study and her results may not be entirely generalizable, it may be valuable to determine whether these findings are applicable to other types of victims as well. Though this shift in the research literature proposes that
BJW may be related to positive health, this stance diminishes the importance of the selfharm that may result when victims internalize these beliefs and begin to blame themselves. Further, maintaining such beliefs could cause an individual to neglect a healthy level of cautiousness and awareness of surroundings. This lack of attention could possibly increase her or his risk of victimization.

9
A vast array of research has focused on determining the individual correlates of
BJW; however few models exist which explain the phenomenon on a holistic basis. For example, religiosity (Heaven & Connors, 2001), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA;
Lambert, Burroughs & Nguyen, 1999) and protestant work ethic (PWE; Christopher,
Zabel, Jones & Marek, 2008) have been linked to BJW in individual studies; however few studies have considered how these variables may interact with one another. The focus of this thesis will be to develop a model explaining these connections to BJW, and the impact of these beliefs in relation to the perception of victims of violence.
Religiosity
Religiosity is generally regarded as a complex, multidimensional construct that cannot be accurately measured via a single-item or unidimensional scale (Allport & Ross,
1967; Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989). Allport and Ross’s (1967) conceptualization of religiosity as composed of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations is largely accepted in the literature. They suggest that intrinsic religious orientation reflects an internally driven motive to practice religion—it is the ultimate motive for the individual’s being. On the other hand, extrinsic religious orientation refers to other motivators towards religiosity, such as security, socialization, and status. Allport and Ross provide the following distinction: “…the extrinsically motivated person uses his religion, whereas the intrinsically motivated lives his religion” (1967, p. 434).
Religion can greatly shape one’s perception of the world and sense of morality; it can drive behavior toward either beneficial or harmful actions in the name of religious faith. History has shown that religion can motivate individuals toward good actions (like

10 loving thy neighbor, volunteering to help the less fortunate, etc.), but it has also been used as justification for some of the most heinous acts ever perpetrated (such as the
Crusades, the Holocaust, and the terrorist attacks during 9-11, to name a few). If such atrocities can occur in the name of religious faith, then it is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that much less extreme examples can permeate more commonplace situations. Many religions endorse beliefs supporting BJW ideology, such as punishment for the commission of sins. Further, the belief in a superior being (e.g.,
God) who acts in a fair and purposeful manner seems to align with the perspective that the world is fair and just.
Due to these assumptions, much research has been devoted to unraveling the connection between BJW and religiosity, yielding mixed results. For example, Crozier and Joseph (1997) found no relationship between attitudes toward Christianity and BJW in a sample of 143 students aged 16-18. In another study, Zweigenhaft, Phillips, Adams,
Morse, and Horan (1985) found the association between religiosity and BJW to be a function of religious preference. Catholics were the only group to exhibit the expected positive relationship between BJW and importance of religion and frequency of church attendance. Conversely, for Quakers, Baptists and agnostics, BJW and importance of religion were negatively related. Alternatively, findings of Rubin and Peplau’s (1973) study involving 180 Boston University undergraduate students suggested belief in an active God (“a Being beyond ourselves who takes an active part in the affairs of man”; p.
89), frequent church attendance, and self-reported religiosity were associated with greater
BJW. Rubin and Peplau further endorsed religiosity as an antecedent of BJW, since

11
Western religions tend to stress the presence of an active God, which may help to depict the world as fair and just. These results suggest that the relationship between religiosity and BJW may actually be quite complex and far from resolved. While this literature has yielded mixed results in regard to a direct connection between religiosity and BJW, religiosity has been consistently related to certain other characteristics associated with
BJW; one such relationship has been exhibited between religiosity and RWA.
Right-Wing Authoritarianism
RWA refers to a conservative and conventional personality characterized by rigidity of thought and morality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Sanford,
1950). RWA is a complex construct in which individuals are motivated to preserve ingroup values and ideals, especially regarding religion, sexuality, and submission to authority figures (Christopher et al., 2008). This characterization also means RWA is often associated with derogation of others as manifested through prejudicial attitudes.
The complexity of RWA is evidenced by recent studies suggesting that RWA may be a multidimensional construct (e.g., Funke, 2005; Passini, 2008). For example, Funke
(2005) has advocated for a three-cluster dimensional model of RWA consisting of authoritarian submission, aggression, and conventionalism. Viability of this model has been supported by findings of Passini (2008) who demonstrated that this multidimensional conceptualization provided a better fit to the data than the traditional unidimensional model.
RWA is a long-standing correlate of BJW (Christopher et al., 2008; Connors &
Heavens, 1987; Lambert et al., 1999; Rubin & Peplau, 1973). Another finding of the

12
Rubin and Peplau (1973) study involving 180 Boston University undergraduate students and discussed above in the religiosity section, was a strong positive relationship between
BJW and authoritarianism, suggesting some overlap between these two constructs.
Further, findings from Connors and Heaven’s (1987) study indicated that BJW was correlated with authoritarian attitudes, a tendency to conform to authority and a preference for right-wing political parties. In a more recent study, Christopher et al.
(2008) found a moderate positive relationship between BJW and RWA, suggesting that endorsing just world beliefs corresponded with greater RWA. Based on these findings, the relationship between BJW and RWA has been consistently supported in the literature.
The connection between BJW and RWA may be partially explained by the association of RWA with perceptions of risk, whereby human beings are driven to behave in a certain way in order to mitigate possible risks of negative events they believe may or may not happen to them (Lambert et al., 1999). Generally, individuals who exhibit a high level of RWA tend to see the world as more threatening than others. Just world beliefs tend to act as a coping mechanism to protect the individual from worry over such threats, since endorsing BJW suggests that leading a virtuous life will shield one from victimization or other misfortune. Therefore, individuals who are high in RWA may be more likely to feel threatened and engage in BJW in order to alleviate the distress caused by those threats. This explanation of mitigation of perceptions of risk related to RWA may help to elucidate the tendency to defend just world beliefs and practices. Thus, RWA appears to be an important component in a model to explain BJW and victim perception, and that higher levels of RWA may correspond with higher levels of BJW.

13
Direct positive relationships between religiosity and RWA have also been identified (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; de Regt, 2012; Heaven & Connors, 2001), adding support to the suggestion of an indirect relationship between religiosity and BJW.
Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) found that “authoritarians tend to carry the teachings of their childhood religion into adulthood, and tend to go to church more often, pray, and read scripture more often than others. They also report having experienced very little doubt about their religion throughout their lives” (p. 114). Individuals with a higher level of authoritarianism were motivated by the teachings of their religion to submit to authority, be more hostile toward out-group members, and condone strict rules for appropriate behavior. Further, those maintaining that they were raised with no religion appeared to be the lowest in authoritarianism. These findings lend evidence for directionality within the proposed model, as religiosity seems to be an antecedent to
RWA. Taken together, religiosity and RWA seem to explain a good deal of BJW and its associated behavior. However, previous research shows support for yet another component in the model, PWE, which is considered in the following section.
Protestant Work Ethic
As a concept that originated under the guise of a religious belief system, PWE has since evolved to be considered a mechanism of modern capitalism, in which accumulation of wealth and prosperity are central ideals (Weber, 1958). PWE describes a set of attitudes and beliefs pertaining to the importance of work (Miller, Woehr, &
Hudspeth, 2002). Attitudes and beliefs surrounding PWE ideology concern areas such as hard work, delay of gratification, conservation of resources, and anti-leisure, suggesting

14 that PWE may be a multidimensional construct (Furnham, 1990). Miller et al. (2002) have provided support for this assertion, proposing that this construct is composed of seven dimensions: (a) centrality of work, (b) self-reliance, (c) hard work, (d) anti-leisure,
(e) morality/ethics, (f) delay of gratification, and (g) avoidance of wasted time. Thus, those who are high in PWE ideology are likely to emphasize the importance of work for work’s sake, reliance on the self, working hard to achieve goals/rewards, maintaining rigid morals/ethics, and delaying gratification. They are also likely to hold negative views of leisure and wasted time. Miller et al. (2002) provided evidence of construct validity for this multidimensional perspective on work ethic through its relationships with expected personality characteristics, cognitive ability and manifest needs.
PWE has been linked to higher levels of BJW and RWA (e.g., Christopher et al.,
2008; Miller et al., 2002). For example, Christopher et al. (2008) used multiple regressions to predict BJW and RWA from the seven proposed dimensions of PWE. They found that the specific PWE facets of hard work yielding desirable outcomes and antileisure were most predictive of BJW. They also found that the facets of mortality/ethics and self-reliance were the strongest predictors of RWA. Further, it has been argued that
BJW is implicated in long-term goal-directedness (Hafer, 2000; Lerner & Miller, 1978), which corresponds to the PWE ideals of hard work yielding successful outcomes and delay of gratification (Miller et al., 2002). In another study, Miller et al. (2002) found that those who have a higher level of PWE ideology are likely to endorse the belief that individuals who are disadvantaged within society have simply not worked hard enough.
PWE ideology points to torpidity as the cause of disadvantage and thus endorses the

15 converse presumption that individuals who work hard will not become victims. The tenets of PWE ideology are that those who are successful have earned their rewards and those who are disadvantaged have done something wrong to earn their misfortune. It seems then that endorsing the belief that working hard will yield rewards is, at its core,
BJW.
Connections between PWE and religiosity have also been identified in the literature (e.g., Beit-Hallahmi, 1979; Jones, Furnham, & Deile, 2010; Ray, 1982). Beit-
Hallahmi (1979) found that in a sample of American college students, PWE was related to religious conventionality and church attendance. He further found that PWE was also related to religious affiliation: Catholics and Protestants had significantly higher scores on a measure of PWE than agnostics/atheists and Jewish participants. Ray (1982) conducted five separate studies producing similar results among different Australian samples. Through these studies, Ray found that PWE was a significant predictor of church attendance and present religious belief. Further, Ray found that differences in
PWE were observed not between the various religious beliefs, but rather between believers and non-believers in God, with the former exhibiting higher levels of PWE.
These classic studies reveal some interesting findings worthy of further exploration.
Victim Perception
The previous review of the literature has addressed various aspects of the central focus of this study—victim perception. Prior research has primarily focused on assessing the relationship between BJW and attribution of blame to rape victims specifically (e.g.,
Ford, Liwag-McLamb & Foley, 1998; Kleinke & Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Taylor, 1986).

16
For example, Kleinke and Meyer (1990) found that there is a difference between males and females in their ascription of fault to perpetrators of rape; specifically, males who displayed a high level of BJW assigned less blame to perpetrators, whereas females with a high BJW level considered the perpetrator to be at fault. Further, they found that those with low levels of BJW were more likely to recommend longer prison sentences to perpetrators of rape, regardless of participants’ gender.
Attempts have also been made to explain the mechanisms by which blame is ascribed to victims of other types of misfortunes. For example, Furham and Procter
(1992) investigated whether just world beliefs were involved in attitudes toward individuals who had been diagnosed with AIDS. They administered a multidimensional scale of BJW along with a measure of attitudes towards AIDS patients to college students in order to test their hypothesis. Their findings suggested that individuals with higher levels of socio-political BJW have more negative attitudes toward AIDS patients. Similar to rape victims, people tend to believe that AIDS patients have somehow brought their illness upon themselves, thus preserving their just world beliefs. While AIDS patients may not be the main interest of the current study, Furnham and Procter’s use of an attitudinal component shows merit for use in the current study.
BJW has been implicated in the aforementioned scenarios; however, research is lacking regarding whether victim blaming in cases of rape and other misfortunes also applies to other victims of violence. While research studies involving other groups are sparse, some studies suggest that victims of other types of situations are also prey to just world beliefs (e.g., Bieneck & Krahé, 2011; Fox & Cook, 2011; Lerner & Simmons,

17
1966). In a classic study conducted by Lerner and Simmons (1966), participants were led to believe that a fellow student (a confederate in the study) would receive painful electrical shocks in return for incorrect responses during a learning task. Their findings indicated that participants tended to reject and devalue the victim when they believed they were powerless to stop subsequent shocks, thus protecting their just world beliefs.
Similar phenomena have been established in more recent studies, such as one conducted by Fox and Cook (2011). This study considered victim blaming tendencies in regard to a variety of crimes of violence including assault, sexual assault, and robbery. Their findings indicated that increased knowledge regarding victimology (a semester long course) mitigated just world beliefs, regardless of crime type. Finally, in a study conducted by Bieneck and Krahé (2011), vignettes were used to compare attributions of blame to victims of rape and robbery, while manipulating the level of force and coercion.
They found that generalized beliefs were stronger in cases of rape than in robbery. This suggests that people are more likely to blame victims of rape for their circumstance than victims of robbery. These studies, taken in whole, suggest that the presence and strength of BJW tendencies may vary depending on the type of crime.
When considering anecdotal examples of victim blaming, it is easy to see why rape victims have come to be the focus of BJW issues. For example, society may ascribe the consequence of rape to the length of a woman’s skirt, suggesting she was at the wrong place at the wrong time, or even that she was hanging out with the wrong crowd.
While these attributions have become somewhat hackneyed, it should be noted that rape victims are not the only individuals to be blamed for their misfortunes. For instance,

18 drive-by shootings are commonly cited as the result of the victim’s gang involvement, or victims of physical assault may be accused of “asking for it.”
On a more personal level, I have worked for several years at a nonprofit agency providing advocacy to victims of violent crime; as a result, I have developed a profound passion for helping victims of the “other crimes.” While resources for victims of rape and domestic violence are plentiful, help is often much more limited for survivors of assault, attempted murder, robbery, home invasion, etc. However, the pain and suffering caused from being a victim of such a trauma can be equally devastating to a person’s well-being.
For example, victims may suffer marked anxiety and isolation from others. It is therefore a goal of this study to extend findings related to rape victims to victims of violence, more generally.
Purpose
Current research regarding the correlates of BJW has succeeded in linking one or a few individual variables in a single study (i.e., Christopher et al., 2008; Lambert et al.,
1999); however, lacking in the research is a model that provides a more holistic interpretation of the interaction of these variables in relation to BJW and victim perception. Thus, the purpose of this study is to link the individual correlates of BJW and victim perception using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to better explain the phenomenon. Specifically, the proposed model tests the impact of religiosity, RWA, and PWE on BJW and victim perception.

19
Hypotheses
The proposed model explaining the relationships between the aforementioned predictor variables, BJW, and victim perception is presented in Figure 1. This model provides that people exhibiting a high level of religiosity will also demonstrate higher levels of PWE and RWA (Hypothesis 1); people with higher levels of PWE will exhibit higher levels of RWA and BJW (Hypothesis 2); people with a higher level of RWA will also exhibit a higher level of BJW and have a more negative perception of victims
(Hypothesis 3); finally, those with a high level of BJW will also demonstrate a more negative perception of victims (Hypothesis 4).
Figure 1
Figure 1. Proposed relationships between predictor variables, BJW, and negative perception of victims. All relationships are posited to occur in a positive direction.

20
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
Three hundred and sixty-two undergraduate psychology students recruited from the human subjects pool of a psychology department within a public university in
Northern California participated in this study. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 58 years ( M = 21.05, SD = 4.19), with 13 declining to state their age. Participants were mostly female and of White/Caucasian ethnicity. More detailed demographic information is presented in Table 1. Students received one hour of credit toward satisfying the department’s three-hour research participation requirement. No qualifications were required to participate in this study, and students were only allowed to participate in this study once.
Materials
Belief in a Just World
Three separate measures of BJW were provided in this study. The first and one of the most widely used measures of BJW is Rubin and Peplau’s (1975) Just World Scale
(Appendix A). This 20-item scale uses a 6-point response scale ranging from very strongly disagree (1) to very strongly agree (6). Some of the items of the Just World
Scale include “Basically, the world is a just place”, “Students almost always deserve the grades they receive in school”, and “People who meet with misfortune have often brought it on themselves”. Items 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are reverse scored and then

Table 1
Participant Demographic Characteristics
Participant characteristic
Gender
Female
Male
Transgender
Missing
Ethnicity
White/Caucasian
Latino
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Multi-Ethnic
Black/African American
Middle Eastern
Other
American Indian
Class Rank
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate Student
Missing
Annual Household Income
$0-$10,000
$10,001-$20,000
$20,001-$30,000
$30,001-$50,000
$50,001-$80,000
$80,001-$100,000
$100,001+
Missing
Religious Preference
Christian/Protestant
Catholic
Atheist/Agnostic
Other
Buddhist
21 n
50
67
53
36
70
2
2
60
61
25
10
120
114
48
47
17
84
31
26
10
4
2
78
103
107
259
100
1
2
117
88
( table continues )
%
19.3
.6
.6
16.6
16.9
13.8
18.5
14.6
9.9
6.9
2.8
33.1
31.5
13.3
13.0
4.7
23.2
8.6
7.2
2.8
1.1
.6
21.5
28.5
29.6
71.5
27.6
.3
.6
32.3
24.3

22
Participant characteristic
Religious Preference
Muslim/Islam
Jewish
Mormon
Missing
Political Preference
Very Liberal
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
Very Conservative
Missing
Note. N = 362. n
8
3
2
3
24
105
174
51
3
5 the mean of the items is calculated. Higher scores indicate a greater tendency toward
BJW. This scale has yielded somewhat questionable internal consistency values in the past, though Christopher et al. (2008) report an acceptable Cronbach’s α of .68. A metaanalysis of studies using the Just World Scale conducted by Hellman, Muilenburg-
Trevino, and Worley (2008) suggested that internal consistency alphas have ranged from
.48 to .79 ( M = .64). The construct validity of this scale has been considered in relation to experimental designs linking BJW tendencies to victim derogation. These studies have suggested that a higher score on the Just World Scale corresponds to a greater likelihood
%
2.2
.8
.6
.8
6.6
29.0
48.1
14.1
.8
1.4 to engage in victim derogation (i.e., Lerner & Simmons, 1966).
A more recently developed scale which has yielded stronger internal consistency values is the Global Belief in a Just World Scale (GBJWS; Lipkus, 1991; Appendix B).
This scale consists of 7 items rated on a 6-point response scale ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (6), with no reverse scored items. Some of the items of this scale include “I feel that people earn the rewards and punishments they get”

23 and “I feel that people get what they deserve”. An item mean is calculated with scores ranging from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating a greater tendency toward BJW. Lipkus reported a good Cronbach’s α of .83. Other studies (i.e., Hellman et al., 2008) have reported internal consistency coefficients ranging from .65 to .89 ( M = .81). Construct validity of this scale was assessed through a correlational analysis which indicated positive correlations with internal locus of control, overall trust, trust in institutions, and perceived sincerity in others (Lipkus, 1991). The GBJWS further showed positive correlations with personal, interpersonal, and political justice.
Finally, because of the discourse regarding BJW as a multidimensional construct
(i.e., Lipkus, 1991; Whatley, 1992), the Multidimensional Belief in Just World Scale
(MBJWS; Appendix C) was also included (Lipkus, 1991). This scale consists of 30 items divided into three subscales measuring a person’s propensity toward personal, interpersonal and socio-political BJW. Participants were asked to respond using a 7-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), with the midpoint reflecting a neutral opinion (4). Items 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27, and 29 reflect reverse scored items. The personal subscale refers to “control over the non-social environment pertaining to primarily personal achievements” (Lipkus, 1991, p. 1171).
Some items on the personal subscale include “I am less likely to get hurt in traffic accidents if I drive with caution” and “If I get mugged or raped, I am just plain unfortunate” (reverse scored). In order to determine the score for the personal subscale, a mean of items 1-10 is computed resulting in subscale scores ranging from 1-7. The interpersonal subscale concerns “sense of control in dyadic and group situations”

24
(Lipkus, 1991, p. 1171). Some of the items on this subscale include “Parents who form good relationships with their offspring bring up more successful children” and “Friendly people have the best marriages”. Calculating the interpersonal subscale score involves computing a mean of responses to items 11-20, creating a range of scores from 1-7.
Finally, the socio-political subscale refers to “control over economic and political affairs”
(Lipkus, 1991, p. 1171). Items on this subscale include “It is rare for an innocent man to be wrongly sent to jail” and “Although evil men may hold political power for a while, in the general course of history good wins out”. Calculating a score for the socio-political items involves computing a mean of responses to items 21-30, creating a range of scores from 1-7. The MBJWS may also be scored as a scale total by summing all of the responses for a particular participant. Taken individually, the subscales produced quite poor α coefficients (personal α = .42, interpersonal = .32, and socio-political = .43).
Construct validity of the scale was determined through correlational analysis. Lipkus found that the MBJWS corresponded with findings from the GBJWS analysis with the following exceptions: personal BJW was negatively correlated with control due to chance, and was not correlated with trust in institutions (1991). The scale also showed positive correlations between each of the MBJWS subscales and each of the spheres of justice.
Religiosity
Participants’ religiosity was measured using Gorsuch and McPherson’s
Intrinsic/Extrinsic-Revised Scales (1989; Appendix D). This scale utilizes a 5-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Items 3, 10, and

25
14 are reverse scored then item responses on the corresponding subscales are added.
Higher scores indicate a higher level of religiosity for each of the following subscales: items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 14 measure intrinsic religious orientation (I; “I enjoy reading about my religion”; α = .83); items 6, 8, and 9 measure personally extrinsic religious orientation (Ep; “ What religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow
”; α = .57); items 2, 11, and 13 assess socially extrinsic religious orientation
(Es; “I go to church/synagogue/temple because it helps me to make friends”; α = .58); and adding the Ep and Es subscales yields a total score for extrinsic religiosity, Ep/Es-
Revised (α = .65).
Validity has been supported through factor analytic procedures confirming the intrinsic/extrinsic scales load on separate factors (Kirkpatrick, 1988; Gorsuch &
McPherson, 1989). Further, Gorsuch and McPherson contend that the use of two separate scales measuring extrinsic religious orientation is supported through results of factor analyses and low correlations between personal and social religiosity (1989). While construct validity information for the current scale is unavailable, correlational analyses of the original scale by Allport and Ross (1967) suggests a strong relationship between the I subscale and self-rated importance of religion or religious commitment (Donahue,
1985). Further, Hunt and King (1971) provide an argument that the extrinsic component identifies uncritical, selfish, and utilitarian reasons for an individual’s religiosity, but cites no statistical evidence to support this conclusion.

26
Right-Wing Authoritarianism
A revised version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer, 2006;
Appendix E) was used to assess participants’ level of authoritarianism. Passini (2008) revised this scale in order to reflect RWA as a multidimensional construct. This scale consists of a 5-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(5), with the mid-point corresponding to a neutral rating (3). Items 4, 8, and 12 are reverse scored, and a mean for each of the subscales is calculated. These subscales include (a) items 1-4 measuring aggression (i.e., “The recent growth in crime shows that we have to use extreme measures against delinquents”); (b) items 5-8 measuring submission
(i.e., “It’s important for children to learn to obey authorities”); and (c) items
9-12 measuring conventionalism
(i.e., “Our country would be great if we respected our traditions”). Scores on the subscales range from 1-5, with higher scores suggesting a more authoritarian response for the particular subscale. Passini (2008) reports a very good Cronbach α of .81 for the full scale. Validity of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Scale appears to be sound given strong correlations with similar constructs such as authoritarian-fundamentalism (range: r = .66 to r = .75) and Christian orthodoxy (range: r
= .61 to r = .67; Altemeryer & Hunsberger, 1992).
Protestant Work Ethic
The Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile (MWEP; Miller et al., 2002; Appendix
F) was used to assess participants’ level of association with a PWE ideology. This scale uses a 5-point response scale ranging from disagree (1) to agree (5) and includes seven subscales measuring separate facets of PWE ideology. Items 5, 8, 14, 16, 18, 27, 31, 43,

27
48, 49, 57, 58, and 63 are reverse scored then subscale and composite scores are calculated by computing the mean of the appropriate subscale for each participant, or the mean of all items for the composite. Thus, scores for each subscale and the composite score ranged from 1 to 5. High scores on this scale reflect a stronger tendency toward a
PWE ideology, and higher scores on each of the subscales reflect a higher degree of association with their corresponding categories. These subscales include (a) items 1, 9,
12, 23, 36, 39, 56, and 65 which measure avoidance of wasting time (i.e., “I constantly look for ways to productively use my time”; α = .75); (b) items 2, 4, 10, 13, 30, 33, 40,
41, 52, and 64 assessing centrality of work (i.e., “I feel content when I have spent the day working”; α = .84); (c) items 3, 11, 19, 29, 42, 46, and 62 measuring delay of gratification (i.e., “The best things in life are those you have to wait for”; α = .79); (d) items 5, 8, 14, 18, 27, 31, 43, 49, 58, and 63 assessing anti-leisure (i.e., “Life would be more meaningful if we had more leisure time (reversed)”; α = .87); (e) items 7, 15, 16,
25, 37, 48, 51, 54, 57, and 61 measuring morality/ethics
(i.e., “It is important to treat others as you would like to be treated”; α = .77); (f) items 6, 21, 26, 28, 32, 34, 44, 50,
55, and 59 measuring self-reliance
(i.e., “Self-reliance is the key to being successful”; α =
.89); and (g) items 17, 20, 22, 24, 35, 38, 45, 47, 53, and 60 measuring hard work yields desirable outcomes
(i.e., “By simply working hard enough, one can achieve their goals”;
α = .85).
Miller et al. provided robust evidence for the validity of the MWEP (2002). They established construct validity through positive correlations between the seven subscales
(range: r = .06 to r = .57), the total scale scores and conscientiousness ( r = .51) and need

28 for achievement ( r = .43). Further, convergent validity was established through positive correlations between the subscales and personality (range: r = .01 to r = .52) and need characteristics (range: r = .02 to r = .39). The self-reliance subscale was positively related to need for autonomy ( r = .35), and negatively related to need for affiliation ( r = −.35).
The wasted time dimension and total scale score were positively related to dominance ( r
= .28 and r = .23, respectively) and negatively related to need for affiliation ( r
= −.21, for both). The leisure dimension was negatively related to need for autonomy ( r = −.21).
Finally, the morality/ethics subscale was positively related to agreeableness ( r = .32) and negatively related to need for autonomy ( r
= −.22).
Victim Perception
Victim perception was evaluated using two separate measures. The first was Fox and Cook’s (2011) 27-item measure of acceptance of myths related to victimization
(Appendix G). Participants were asked to respond to items regarding a variety of violent victimization scenarios, including acceptance of rape myths, intimate partner violence, stalking, physical assault, child maltreatment and same-sex relationships. This scale uses a 4-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (4). There are no reverse scored items and a total scale score is computed by taking a mean of participant responses. Total scale scores range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating a greater level of acceptance of victimization myths. Some sample items of this scale include “A healthy woman who does not physically resist a rapist shares the blame if she is raped”, “A person who does not call the police on their stalker shares the blame for being stalked”, and “A drunk man who intentionally flirts with another man’s girlfriend

29 at a bar shares the blame for the other man punching him”. Fox and Cook report strong internal consistency (α = .90) when used as a pretest measure (2011). Because this is one of very few general victim blaming scales, there is not much evidence to support the validity of this scale. However, Fox and Cook report that items were derived from previous research on victim blaming and anecdotal experiences of myths related to victimization, including rape myths (Burt, 1980; Ward, 1988).
Because limited validity information exists for the aforementioned scale, the
Attribution of Blame Scale (ABS; Loza & Clements, 1991; Appendix H) was also administered to participants. In the past, this scale has been primarily utilized to assess inmates’ attributions of blame for criminal activities. However, a translated version of the scale was administered to college students in Iceland and displayed psychometric properties similar to the inmate population (Peersen, Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 2000).
This 24-item scale includes a six-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). Participants’ causal attributions of blame are assessed on four subscales. Items 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 23, and 24 assess victim blame (“Victims should be blamed for being attacked”; α = .78); items 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 21, and 22 measure offender blame (“When a crime occurs, it is the offender’s fault”; α = .74); items 3, 7, 11, 15, and
19 measure alcohol blame (“Alcohol is to be blamed for most of the crimes in our society”’; α = .84); and items 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 assess societal blame (“When a man commits a crime it is society that should be blamed”; α = .64). A score is computed for each subscale by calculating a mean of the participant’s responses on the corresponding scale. Scores for each of the subscales range from 1 to 6.

30
Ward (1980) factor analyzed the original version of this scale (the Attributions of
Rape Scale) and found that four factors related to societal blame, victim blame, assailant blame, and sociological blame emerged. Further, Loza and Clements (1991) report good one-week test-retest reliability of the ABS (α = .77). Content validity of the ABS subscales was established through use of expert judges (psychologists with five or more years’ experience in forensics), who assigned items to each of the four subscales. The judges correctly identified which items corresponded with each of the subscales of victim blame, offender blame, alcohol blame, and societal blame without error (100 percent of judgments were correct).
Demographics
Participants were also asked to report their age, gender, ethnicity, class standing, annual income, religious affiliation, and political orientation (Appendix I).
Procedure
This research took place within the psychology department at a state university in
Northern California. Each session took approximately 1 hour and up to 20 participants were allowed to partake in the study for a given session. Participants entered the research room at their assigned time and were asked to silence or turn off their cell phones before beginning the study. They recorded their names, research website IDs, and email addresses on a sign-in sheet once they were seated. Consent forms (Appendix J) were then distributed to participants and read aloud by the researcher. Participants were then asked to sign the consent form and the researcher collected the forms and placed them in an envelope separate from packets containing the inventories so as to protect the

31 confidentiality of participants. After consent forms were collected, the researcher instructed participants to be as honest as possible in their responses, not to include their names or any other identifying marks on their packets, and that their responses would remain confidential. The researcher then distributed the packets of inventories with each packet containing the inventories in a random order, with the exception of the demographics questionnaire, which appeared last. When participants were finished with their packets, they were asked to turn the packet upside down and wait for the researcher to collect it. The researcher then collected the packets and orally debriefed the participants. Participants were allowed to keep the debriefing forms (Appendix K) with the researcher’s contact information. They were then thanked for their time and dismissed from the research room. This study along with these detailed procedures was approved by the university’s psychology department human subjects committee.
Design
Data analysis involved data screening and performing descriptive analyses to assess compliance with assumptions; this was followed by principal components analysis
(PCA) and construction of a structural model of religiosity, PWE, RWA, BJW and victim perception. The hypothesized structural model as presented in Figure 1 was first evaluated using SEM procedures. The model was then re-specified based on modification indices and low path coefficients. Data analysis was accomplished using PASW Statistics for Windows, Version 18.0 (SPSS; SPSS Inc., 2009) software package, and the Amos
(Arbuckle, 2006) module of SPSS.

32
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Data Screening
Before proceeding with analyses, data were inspected for errors in scoring and/or data entry; and compliance with assumptions of SEM, including absence of missing values and multicollinearity, and multivariate normality. Mean scores were computed for each of the observed variables for participants completing at least 80 percent of a given scale. One of the SEM assumptions requires all values within a data file to be specified
(i.e., there are no missing values; Kline, 2005). A missing values analysis revealed relatively few missing values in the data file (range of zero to 1.4 percent missing). A total of 40 missing values were replaced using the multiple regression estimation procedure in SPSS (SPSS Inc., 2009).
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics and internal consistency coefficients are presented in Table
2. Cronbach’s alphas in the current study closely reflected those suggested in past literature with a few exceptions. Personal BJW produced an alpha coefficient worse than was previously reported (current α = .37, previous α = .42). Further, interpersonal BJW
(current α = .46, previous α = .32) and socio-political BJW (current α = .51, previous α =
.43) both produced coefficients better than was suggested in past literature. Socially extrinsic (current α = .78, previous α = .58) and personally extrinsic religiosity (current α

33
Table 2
Reliability Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics for Observed Variables
Measure
Intrinsic Religiosity
Socially Extrinsic
Religiosity
Personally Extrinsic
Religiosity
Avoidance of Wasting
Time
Centrality of Work
α
.82
.78
.85
.76
.83
Delay of Gratification .78
Anti-Leisure .85
Morality/Ethics
Self-Reliance
Hard Work Yields
Desirable Outcomes
BJW (Rubin & Peplau ,
1975)
†
BJW (Lipkus, 1991)
Personal BJW
†
Interpersonal BJW
†
Socio-Political BJW
†
.74
.87
.89
.82
.37
.46
.51
Mean
2.98
1.85
3.31
3.71
3.80
3.83
2.77
4.38
3.76
4.09
.57 3.41
3.48
4.02
4.82
3.74
SD
.89
.84
1.20
.60
.62
.67
.65
.47
.64
.62
.43
.87
.62
.60
.68
RWA Total
RWA Aggression
†
.78
.61
RWA Submission
†
.59
RWA Conventionalism
†
.67
2.71
2.61
2.88
2.65
.56
.70
.66
.78
Attribution of Blame .76 1.87 .75
Acceptance of
.93 2.00 .55
Victimization Myths
Note. N = 362.
†
Excluded from subsequent analyses.
95% Confidence Interval
SEM Lower Limit Upper Limit
.05 2.89 3.07
.04
.06
.03
.03
.02
.03
.04
.03
.04
.04
.05
.03
.03
.04
.03
.04
.03
.02
.03
.03
1.76
3.19
3.65
2.66
2.54
2.81
2.57
1.79
3.39
3.96
4.76
3.67
3.74
3.76
2.70
4.33
3.69
4.03
3.37
1.94
1.93
3.44
3.77
3.87
3.90
2.83
4.43
3.83
4.16
3.46
2.06
2.77
2.68
2.94
2.73
1.94
3.57
4.09
4.88
3.81

34
= .85, previous α = .57) also produced substantially better alpha coefficients than previously reported.
The following observed variables were excluded from subsequent analyses based on Cronbach’s alphas failing to reach an acceptable level of internal consistency: BJW
(Rubin & Peplau, 1975), personal BJW, interpersonal BJW, socio-political BJW, RWA aggression, RWA submission, and RWA conventionalism. Because the multidimensional measures of BJW were found to be unreliable, a unidimensional conceptualization of
BJW was adopted instead. BJW was measured in all following analyses using Lipkus’
(1991) Global BJW measure and is henceforth referred to as BJW. Further, while RWA’s scales measuring separate facets were found to be unreliable, Passini (2008) also advocates use of a total scale score, which was found to be a more reliable measure of
RWA. Thus, a unidimensional perspective was also adopted for RWA.
On average, participants demonstrated scores above the midpoint for the following measures: personally extrinsic religious orientation, avoidance of wasting time, centrality of work, delay of gratification, morality/ethics, self-reliance, and hard work yields desirable outcomes. Further, average scores were lower than the midpoint for the following measures: intrinsic religious orientation, socially extrinsic religious orientation, anti-leisure, BJW, RWA, attribution of blame to victims, and acceptance of myths related to victimization.
Bivariate correlations were computed for the remaining observed variables and are presented in Table 3. Values approaching unity are suggestive of multicollinearity and indicate a violation of one of the assumptions for SEM. Mostly weak to moderate

Table 3
Correlations between Observed Variables
Measure
1. I
1.
--
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
2. Es .47**
3. Ep
4. Time .13* .00
--
.73** .42** --
5. Cen .13* .07
.18**
.20**
--
.55** --
6. Del
7. Lei
8. Mor
9. Rel
.14** .04
−.00
.07
−.03
−.03
−.09
.09
.06
.08
−.12* .07
.47**
.11*
.38**
.29** .05
--
--
.34** .32** .34** .13*
.44** .34** .25** −.06
--
.22** --
10. Work .10*
11. BJW
†
.11*
.02 .24** .61** .49** .45** .09
.16** .15** .32** .18** .24** .07
.41**
.04
.57** --
.18** .42** --
12. RWA
13. Att
14. Myth
.31**
.10
.09
.19**
.19**
.10
.27**
.11
.07
.34**
.12*
.23**
.17**
.04
.08
.15**
.10*
.00
−.08
−.01 .15**
−.30** .04
.28**
.08
.41**
.27**
--
.39**
.18** −.11* −.11* .08 .17** .27** .35**
--
.58**
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01. I = intrinsic religious orientation; Ep = personally extrinsic religious orientation; Es = socially extrinsic religious orientation; Time = avoidance of wasting time; Cen = centrality of work; Del = delay of gratification; Lei = anti-leisure; Mor = morality/ethics; Rel = self-reliance; Work = hard work yields desirable outcomes; Att = attribution of blame to victims; Myth = acceptance of myths related to victimization.

correlations were observed between variables (range: r = .00 to r = .73). The weakest
36 relationships between variables were intrinsic religious orientation and anti-leisure, socially extrinsic religious orientation and avoidance of wasting time, and socially extrinsic religious orientation and hard work yields desirable outcomes. Moderate relationships were observed between avoidance of wasting time and hard work yields desirable outcomes and avoidance of wasting time and centrality of work. However, these correlations were not sufficiently high enough to be of concern in this study. The strongest relationship was between intrinsic religious orientation and personally extrinsic religious orientation, with a correlation approaching unity. However, these latter variables are theorized to be indicators of the same latent trait so analyses proceeded with some caution applied to the strength of this relationship.
Specifying the Model
Based on the aforementioned theoretical relationships between the variables, a structural model relating each of the predictor variables of religiosity, RWA, and PWE with BJW and perception of victims was proposed. Poor reliability estimates for multidimensional scales for BJW and RWA were used as justification for unidimensional conceptualization of these constructs, and were therefore treated as observed variables in the model. An exploratory PCA was performed in order to determine which indicators best specified the latent traits for the remaining variables of religiosity, PWE, and perception of victims. A three-component solution with promax rotation explaining 59.21 percent of the variance was selected. Variables exhibiting factor loadings of greater than
.500 were selected for inclusion in the model. The latent trait of religiosity was comprised

37 of observed variables of intrinsic religious orientation, personally extrinsic religious orientation, and socially extrinsic religious orientation. The latent trait of PWE consisted of observed traits of avoidance of wasting time, centrality of work, delay of gratification, morality/ethics, self-reliance, and hard work yields desirable outcomes. The latent outcome variable of victim perception consisted of attribution of blame to victims and acceptance of myths related to victimization.
The Amos (Arbuckle, 2006) module of SPSS (SPSS Inc., 2009) based on a full information maximum likelihood procedure to estimate the parameters was used to evaluate the structural model. The following measures were used to assess goodness of fit: comparative fit index (CFI), goodness of fit index (GFI) and normed fit index (NFI).
For each of these fit indices, values exceeding .95 were deemed indicators of good fit
(Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2013b). Additionally the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was used; values less than .05 reflect good fit (MacCallum,
Browne, & Sugawara, 1996) but Meyers et al. (2013b) suggest values between .06 and
.08 reflect adequate fitting models.
The results of the proposed model are provided in Figure 2. All of the paths in the model were statistically significant in the proposed model; however, fit with the data was less than acceptable, χ
2
(60) = 232.867, p < .001, GFI = .912, NFI = .858, CFI = .889,
RMSEA = .089, with 90 percent confidence interval of .077 and .102. The four predictors explained a total of 27 percent of victim perception.

38
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model testing hypothesized relationships between predictor variables and victim perception.
Re-specification of the Model
The poor fit indices of the hypothesized model suggested that a re-specified model may provide a better fit with the data. In the next phase of analyses, the model was re-specified based on Amos (Arbuckle, 2006) modification indices and practical significance of the indicators. Modifications were completed successively until an adequate model fit was reached. The successive steps to reach the re-specified model and

39
Table 4
Re-specification of the Hypothesized Model with Corresponding Model Fit after each
Modification
Modification
No.
Indicators
χ 2
(df) GFI NFI CFI RMSEA
Correlated error terms 4 and 8
Correlated error terms 4 and 9
Correlated error terms 7 and 9
Removed path to morality/ethics
Removed path to self-reliance
Removed path to social extrinsic religious orientation
Removed path to delay of gratification
Removed path to centrality of work
13
13
13
12
11
10
9
8
211.991
(59)
206.604
(57)
200.847
(57)
125.320
(48)
105.316
(39)
81.216
(30)
60.060
(22)
40.753
(15)
.919
.920
.922
.947
.952
.959
.965
.973
.871
.874
.878
.915
.920
.932
.944
.955
.902
.905
.909
.945
.948
.956
.963
.971
Note. Error term numbering refers to the hypothesized model in Figure 2. the corresponding fit indices are presented in Table 4, and the resulting model is
.085
.084
.084
.067
.069
.069
.069
.069 presented in Figure 3.
The final version of the re-specified model demonstrated adequate to good fit with the data, χ 2
(15) = 40.753, p < .001, GFI = .973, NFI = .955, CFI = .971, RMSEA = .069,

40
Figure 3
Figure 3. Re-specified model after removal of low path coefficients. with 90 percent confidence interval of .044 and .095. The GFI, NFI, and CFI fit indices all suggested the model was a good fit. However, the value for the RMSEA may suggest the model is only an adequate fit to the data. While a non-significant χ 2 is preferred, in instances of large sample sizes as in the current study, this preference is difficult to achieve (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2013a). The four predictors explained a total of 27 percent of the variance of victim perception. Victim perception was driven by direct effects of RWA and BJW, as well as indirect effects from religiosity and PWE.
Individuals with greater religiosity exhibited higher levels of PWE and RWA; people

with greater PWE also exhibited higher RWA and BJW; individuals with greater RWA
41 showed greater BJW and acceptance of myths related to victimization and attribution of blame to victims; and finally, those with greater BJW also tended to have negative perceptions of victims.
Mediation Analyses
The re-specified model allowed three tests of simple mediation to assess (a) the potential mediating effect of PWE on the relationship between religiosity and RWA, (b) the potential mediating effect of RWA on the relationship between PWE and BJW, and
(c) the potential mediating effect of BJW on the relationship between RWA and victim perception. In order to test for mediation, the model must meet the following necessary conditions: (a) the predictor must significantly predict the outcome variable in isolation;
(b) the predictor must significantly predict the mediator; and (c) the mediator must significantly predict the outcome variable (Meyers et al., 2013a). For the first test of mediation, these conditions were satisfied as religiosity was found to be a significant predictor of RWA (outcome variable; result shown in Figure 4) in isolation and PWE (the mediator; β = .237, p
< .001), and PWE significantly predicted RWA (β = .322, p < .001).
The second test of mediation also met the above criteria as PWE was found to be a significant predictor of BJW (outcome variable; result shown in Figure 5) in isolation and
RWA (the mediator; β = .322, p < .001), and RWA significantly predicted BJW (β =
.258, p < .001). Finally, for the third test of mediation, these conditions were satisfied as
RWA was found to be significant predictor of victim perception (outcome variable; result shown in Figure 6) in isolation and BJW (the mediator; β = .405, p < .001), and BJW

Figure 4
Figure 4.
The unmediated model of the direct effect of religiosity on RWA was an excellent fit to the data, χ
2
(1) = 1.768, p = .184, GFI = .997, NFI = .995, CFI = .998,
RMSEA = .046, with 90 percent confidence interval of .000 and .157. The direct path was statistically significant, p < .001.
Figure 5
Figure 5.
The unmediated model of the direct effect of PWE on BJW was a good fit to the data, χ 2
(1) = 6.238, p = .013, GFI = .989, NFI = .974, CFI = .978, RMSEA = .120, with 90 percent confidence interval of .045 and .218. The direct path was statistically significant, p < .001.
42

significantly predicted victim perception (β = .363; p < .001). These conditions being
43 satisfied, mediation was then assessed.
The first test of mediation involved the potential mediating effect of PWE on the relationship between religiosity and RWA. The unmediated model is presented in Figure
4. An Aroian test (Aroian, 1944/1947), a variant of the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982, 1986), was used to determine the significance of the indirect path of religiosity through PWE.
Results of this test indicated that the indirect effect of religiosity through PWE on RWA was significant, z = 2.940, p = .003. A Freedman-Schatzkin test (Freedman & Schatzkin,
1992) was used to further evaluate whether the direct path of religiosity to RWA was significantly reduced with PWE in the model. This test indicated that the path was significantly reduced when PWE was included as a mediator, t (360) = 4.819, p < .001.
Figure 6
Figure 6.
The unmediated model of the direct effect of RWA on victim perception was a good fit to the data, χ
2
(1) = 9.253, p = .002, GFI = .983, NFI = .958, CFI = .962, RMSEA
= .151, with 90 percent confidence interval of .074 and .247. The direct path was statistically significant, p < .001.

44
The indirect effect was .062, while the direct effect was .338. Taking a ratio of these two effects suggests that approximately 18.23 percent of the effect of religiosity on RWA is mediated through PWE. When PWE was included as a mediator, the relationship between religiosity and RWA was reduced to a lesser but statistically significant value, suggesting that PWE is related to greater RWA, and partially mediates the effects of religiosity.
The same tests were used to assess the potential mediating effect of RWA on the relationship between PWE and BJW. The unmediated model is presented in Figure 5.
Results of an Aroian test indicated that the indirect effect of RWA through PWE on BJW was significant, z = 3.641, p < .001. Further, a Freedman-Schatzkin test indicated that the path between PWE and BJW was significantly reduced when RWA was included in the model, t (360) = 4.755, p < .001. The indirect effect was .123, while the direct effect was
.468. Taking a ratio of these two effects suggests that approximately 26.21 percent of the effect of PWE on BJW is mediated through RWA. When RWA was included as a mediator, the relationship between PWE and BJW was also reduced to a lesser, but statistically significant value, suggesting that RWA is related to greater BJW, and partially mediates the effect of PWE.
Again, the Aroian and Freedman-Schatzkin tests were used to assess the potential mediating effect of BJW on the relationship between RWA and victim perception. The unmediated model is presented in Figure 6. Results of an Aroian test indicated that the indirect effect of RWA through BJW on victim perception was significant, z = 2.623, p =
.009. Further, a Freedman-Schatzkin test indicated that the path between RWA and victim perception was significantly reduced when BJW was included in the model, t (360)

45
= 4.521, p < .001. The indirect effect was .050, while the direct effect was .450. Taking a ratio of these two effects suggests that approximately 11.18 percent of the effect of RWA on victim perception is mediated through BJW. When BJW was included as a mediator, the relationship between RWA and victim perception was also reduced to a lesser, but statistically significant value, suggesting that BJW is related to a more negative perception of victims, and partially mediates the effect of RWA.

46
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
Because of the potential detrimental effects of placing blame on victims of crime, developing an understanding of the traits associated with its occurrence is a worthy area for psychological research. The purpose of this study was to unravel the associations between religiosity, PWE, RWA, and BJW on victim perception using a SEM approach.
This study further provides proposed causal directions of relationships among correlates of BJW and victim perception. The results suggest a complex relationship between the correlates of BJW and victim blaming, with partial support of the hypothesized model; however, a more parsimonious explanation, as posited in the re-specified model, may be more appropriate to explain victim perception. The re-specified model, which proved to be an adequate fit to the data, suggests that people who are more religious and have greater PWE are more likely to believe in a just world and are more likely to hold poor opinions of victims. Also inclusive in this investigation was evidence to suggest that
RWA and BJW may be unidimensional constructs, as evidenced by low reliability estimates for multidimensional measures. Results related to individual hypotheses are discussed below in greater detail.
Hypotheses
The first hypothesis, which stated that more religious people would demonstrate higher levels of PWE and RWA, was partially supported by the re-specified model.
Moderate positive relationships were observed between both religiosity and RWA, and

religiosity and PWE, suggesting that more religious individuals tended to have higher
47 levels of PWE and RWA. Further, the strongest indicators of religiosity were intrinsic and personally extrinsic religious orientation, suggesting religiosity reflected internally directed motivators to be religious (e.g., desire to engage in prayer). These findings support previous research by Furnham (1990), which suggested that PWE may be linked to a conservative mindset, as well as findings by Ray (1982) and Beit-Hallahmi (1979) who suggested that religious conventionality and church attendance were related to PWE.
Further, religiosity was found to be a significant predictor of RWA, supporting findings of Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) who suggested that one’s religion may act as a motivator for the support of strict rules and submission to authority inherent in RWA ideology.
The second hypothesis, which posited that people with higher levels of PWE would also exhibit higher levels of RWA and BJW, was also supported in the re-specified model. The model revealed that people with greater PWE also exhibited greater RWA and BJW. In this study, the strongest predictors of PWE were avoidance of wasting time and the belief that hard work yields desirable outcomes. These findings support relationships previously identified by Christopher et al. (2008), who found specific facets of PWE were related to both BJW and RWA. Specifically, their finding that hard work yielding desirable outcomes was the strongest predictor of BJW was also supported in the current study. Further, the current findings support Miller et al.’s (2002) result, providing evidence of a relationship between PWE and an ideology that is similar to BJW. This evidence suggests that endorsing beliefs such as hard work yielding desirable outcomes,

avoiding wasting time, and focusing on work as central to one’s existence help to fuel
48 acceptance of BJW. PWE ideology specifically points to laziness as the source of problems, working in concert with the belief that the world is fair and just. Further, when success is judged by self-sufficiency, social programs designed to aid the less fortunate may be considered less than ideal. In either instance, the resulting derogation of others is the same.
While a direct relationship between religiosity and BJW was not posited in the current study, religiosity’s importance in the model is apparent when considering its indirect impact on BJW through PWE. More religious individuals tended to also have higher PWE, which does have a large impact on BJW. Because more religious individuals tend to fall on the more conservative end of the political spectrum, their ideals are also aligned with ideas of hard work yielding desirable outcomes and avoidance of wasting time. This suggests that religiosity may be indirectly corresponding with higher levels of BJW and negative victim perception. Future researchers should consider these indirect relationships to better understand religiosity’s impact on each of these variables.
The third hypothesis, that people with a higher level of RWA would demonstrate greater BJW and more negative perceptions of victims, was also supported in the respecified model. In this study, higher RWA corresponded with greater BJW and a more negative perception of victims. This relationship between RWA and BJW supports
Lambert et al.’s (1999) explanation of BJW as a mechanism to mitigate perception of risks for those who are high in RWA. Further, RWA was found to have a greater impact on perception of victims than did BJW in the model. This suggests that RWA may

actually be a more important variable to consider since it had the single largest direct
49 impact in the model, likely due to RWA’s association with prejudicial attitudes of those who do not support similar ideals (Christopher et al., 2008). Future researchers may consider revising the current structural model with RWA as a more prominent factor, and developing more sound measures of RWA in order to determine its potential multifaceted impact on BJW and victim perception.
The final hypothesis, which stated that those with a high level of BJW would also demonstrate a more negative perception of victims, was also supported. This finding supports previous research such as Kleinke and Meyer’s (1986) study, which found a similar association when considering blame ascribed to victims of rape. Further, this finding was similar to results of Furnham and Procter (1992) and Lerner and Simmons
(1966) who found similar results when it came to blaming patients afflicted with AIDS and victims of perceived electric shocks, respectively. Therefore, the goal of extending these findings to a more general population of crime victims was successful in replicating a relationship between BJW and victim perception. However, while there does appear to be a relationship between BJW and victim perception, the strength of this relationship was relatively small when considering the larger impact of RWA in the model. This finding suggests that while BJW does influence victim perception, its impact may be less important than RWA’s. However, it remains to be determined whether the strength of the relationship with BJW is dependent upon the type and severity of the crime, as has been suggested by findings of Bieneck and Krahé (2011), who identified differences between victims of rape and robbery.

50
The exploratory mediation analyses also revealed that higher levels of religiosity are associated with greater PWE, which leads to greater RWA, and that PWE partially mediates religiosity’s effect on RWA. This finding suggests that religiosity does not fully explain RWA on its own, but also works in concert with PWE yielding a greater level of
RWA. Conventionality associated with the personal motivations toward religiosity, which were the strongest indicators of religiosity in the re-specified model, may explain the observed relationship with PWE. This shared facet of conventionality may also be working to increase levels of RWA. This explanation supports connections between these variables previously identified by Beit-Hallahmi (1979). Further, PWE may be associated with greater RWA because of its associations with derogations of out-groups, as has been suggested by Miller et al. (2002). Simultaneously, religiosity may be corresponding with the submission to authority aspect of RWA, as was suggested by Altemeyer and
Hunsberger (1992). These findings may provide important directions for identifying additional indicators for the latent traits of religiosity, PWE, and RWA.
The mediation analyses also revealed greater PWE yields higher levels of RWA, which leads to greater BJW, and that RWA partially mediates the effect of PWE on BJW.
This finding suggests that a portion of PWE’s explanation occurs not directly on BJW, but through RWA. This portion of explanation could be related to the tendency toward out-group derogation shared between PWE and RWA, as posited in the paragraph above.
Further, RWA and BJW may be related by the mitigation of perception of risk, as has been proposed by Lambert et al. (1999). The association may be further explained by
PWE and BJW’s connection with the belief that individuals earn their lot in life, whether

51 it occurs through accumulation of wealth or protection from misfortune. This result supports Miller et al.’s (2002) findings revealing similar relationships between PWE and
BJW.
The final mediation analysis revealed that higher levels of RWA leads to greater
BJW, which results in a more negative perception of victims, and that BJW partially mediates the effect of RWA on victim perception. Similar to results above, RWA cannot fully explain victim perception in isolation, but increases negative perception of victims partially through its impact on BJW. It appears that this association is due both to RWA and BJW’s connection through mitigation of perception of risk, as was suggested by
Lambert et al. (1999), as well as their relationship with the derogation of out-groups, an association previously identified by Connors and Heaven (1987). Further, the relationship between RWA and negative victim perception may be explained by its association with promotions of stereotypes as was suggested by Christopher et al. (2008).
Limitations
While the results of this study seem to suggest an interrelationship between religiosity, PWE, BJW, and victim perception, there were some limitations to this study.
First, this study made use of a convenience sample consisting of exclusively college undergraduate students. Though ethnically diverse, this population was younger than the average United States citizen, males were largely underrepresented, and this group was not very financially or educationally diverse. Further, a self-report demographic question suggested participants identified as quite liberal, which may have contributed to relatively low variance estimates for some of the measures corresponding with mindsets that are

more conservative. Therefore, the generalizability of these results may be questionable.
52
Future studies should investigate whether these results remain consistent with a more diverse sample.
Another limitation is the sample size of the study. While in most circumstances a sample size of greater than 300 participants is respectable when using SEM, high numbers of participants are required in order for estimates to be stable. Another potential issue in this study was the limited availability of scales not specific to sexual victimization. Future researchers should focus on developing more reliable and valid scales to measure victim perception. Further, cultural differences may result in different perspectives on hard work, religion, and BJW. However, in this study, sample sizes were not large enough to justify constructing separate structural models to further investigate this hypothesis.
Yet another limitation involves the construction of the latent traits in the respecified structural model. Kline (2005) recommends a minimum of three indicators in order to properly identify latent traits, because traits with fewer than three indicators are prone to problems in estimation. In the current study, the re-specified model contained three latent traits of religiosity, PWE, and victim perception that were identified by only two indicators each. Because the traits of the re-specified model may be under-identified, this could cause the estimates of those traits to be unreliable. Future researchers should investigate the dimensionality of these latent traits to determine whether more than one dimension is justified for each of these traits.

53
Future Directions
Suggestions for future research include adding additional variables in order to better explain victim perception. The re-specified model only accounted for 27 percent of the variance in victim perception, suggesting that other factors are contributing to negative perception of victims. For example, relationships between BJW and social dominance orientation (Bizer, Hart, & Jekogian, 2011; Christopher et al., 2008), and locus of control and interpersonal trust (Lipkus, 1991) have been suggested in the literature. Future researchers may wish to investigate the applicability of these variables in a model explaining victim perception. Further, future research should consider possible mediators, and may investigate the impact of demographic variables as possible covariates, such as socioeconomic status and ethnicity in the model. One of the limitations in this study was that the majority of participants identified as either liberal or very liberal, therefore future researchers should also consider a more diverse sample, or otherwise control for political preference of participants. Another possible line of future research includes the applicability of this model to specific crime types (e.g., robbery, home invasion, assault, etc.), and at varying levels of crime severity. As well, future researchers may consider whether a similar interrelationship of variables is applicable to incidents of accidental trauma and natural disasters.
Additionally, the exploratory mediation analyses may provide directions for future research regarding the dimensionality of the latent traits in this study. For example, conventionality may represent a shared facet of religiosity, PWE, and RWA. Other potential indicators include an out-group derogation dimension related to PWE, RWA

54 and BJW and a dimension reflecting mitigation of perceptions of risk related to RWA and
BJW. Either these dimensions are entirely absent from the currently published measures or their existing measures fail to meet acceptable levels of reliability. Therefore, future researchers should consider revising current scales to reflect these additional dimensions or develop novel measures to encompass these findings.
Conclusions
This research suggests that victim perception is a complex construct related to
BJW, religiosity, PWE and RWA. Despite the discourse regarding potential multidimensionality of BJW and RWA, this study showed greater support for BJW and
RWA representing unidimensional traits. Further, RWA appears to be a larger contributor to negative perception of victims than BJW. This study highlights the need to isolate which characteristics affect victim perception, so appropriate interventions may be taken in order to reduce potential detrimental effects to victims. Internalizing self-blame over events that are often completely out of their control can have adverse consequences for victims, and the risk of doing further harm is too great to accept the possible positive effects of holding just world beliefs. While it may be impossible to suppress our innate need to categorize and label individuals based on their physical appearance and/or life experiences, this research helps us to identify factors related to our development of perception of victims. I hope that this research helps garner an awareness of the factors associated with negative perception of victims, and that that awareness may help to discourage individuals from taking the further step of developing negative attributions toward victims.

55
APPENDIX A
The Just World Scale
Instructions: Indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement by circling your answer choice using the following scale:
1= Strongly disagree
2 =
Somewhat disagree
3 = Slightly disagree
4 = Slightly agree
5 =
Somewhat agree
6 =
Strongly agree
1. I’ve found that a person rarely deserves the reputation he has………………………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6
2. Basically, the world is a just place…………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. People who get “lucky breaks” have usually earned their good fortune…………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Careful drivers are just as likely to get hurt in traffic accidents as careless ones…………………………....
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. It is a common occurrence for a guilty person to get off free in American courts…………………………... 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Students almost always deserve the grades they receive in school………………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Men who keep in shape have little chance of suffering a heart attack………………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6
8. The political candidate who sticks up for his principles rarely gets elected………………………....
1 2 3 4 5 6
9. It is rare for an innocent man to be wrongly sent to jail……………………………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6
10. In professional sports, many fouls and infractions never get called by the referee……………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. By and large, people deserve what they get…………. 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. When parents punish their children, it is always for good reasons………………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6
13. Good deeds often go unnoticed and unrewarded……. 1 2 3 4 5 6
14. Although evil men may hold political power for a while, in the general course of history good wins out.. 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. In almost any business or profession, people who do their job well rise to the top…………………………..
1 2 3 4 5 6
16. American parents tend to overlook the things most to be admired in their children………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6
17. It is often impossible for a person to receive a fair trial in the USA………………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6

56
18. People who meet with misfortune have often brought it on themselves………………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6
19. Crime doesn’t pay…………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6
20. Many people suffer through absolutely no fault of their own……………………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6

57
APPENDIX B
Global Belief in a Just World Scale
Instructions: Indicate your level of agreement with respect to how well to how well each statement applies to others and yourself using the following scale:
1= Strongly disagree
2 =
Somewhat disagree
3 = Slightly disagree
4 = Slightly agree
5 =
Somewhat agree
6 =
Strongly agree
1. I feel that people get what they are entitled to have… 1 2 3 4 5 6
I feel that a person’s efforts are noticed and
2. rewarded……………………………………………..
1 2 3 4 5 6
3. I feel that people earn the rewards and punishments they get……………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I feel that people who meet with misfortune have brought it on themselves……………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I feel that people get what they deserve……………… 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. I feel that rewards and punishments are fairly given… 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. I basically feel that the world is a fair place…………. 1 2 3 4 5 6

58
APPENDIX C
Multidimensional Belief in a Just World Scale
Instructions: Indicate your level of agreement with respect to how well to how well each statement applies to others and yourself using the following scale:
1 =
Strongly disagree
2 =
Moderately disagree
3 =
Slightly disagree
4 =
Neutral
5=
Slightly agree
6 =
Moderately agree
7 =
Strongly agree
1. I think that I deserve the reputation I have among the people who know me.…………………………......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. When I get “lucky breaks” it is usually because I have earned them……………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. When I take examinations I rarely seem to get the grade I deserve……………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. As a child I was often punished for things that I had not done……………………………………………..
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I am less likely to get hurt in traffic accidents if I drive with caution…………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. I have found that people who work the hardest at their jobs are not always the ones who get promoted…………………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. If I watch what I eat, I will live longer……………... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. If I suffer a misfortune, I have usually brought it on myself in some way…………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Being nice to people will not necessarily bring me lots of friends………………………………………..
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. If I get mugged or raped, I am just plain unfortunate………………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. In a job selection interview, the best applicant hardly ever gets the job……………………………..
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. Parents who think of others before themselves seem to lose out in life…………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. Parents who form good relationships with their offspring bring up more successful children………..
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. Friendly people have the best marriages…………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. People who make the effort to invite people into their homes deserve lots of friends………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. People who offer help in times of crisis rarely find their help is reciprocated when they are the one in need…………………………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

59
17. Lonely people are just no good at making friends…. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. People who divorce have only themselves to blame for the unhappiness they may suffer………………..
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. The group leader who prefers to solve group problems in democratic fashion is less successful….
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. Outward-going, sociable people deserve a happy life…………………………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. The political candidate who sticks up for his principles rarely gets elected………………………..
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. It is rare for an innocent man to be wrongly sent to jail…………………………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. Although evil men may hold political power for a while, in the general course of history good wins out……………………………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. Crime does not pay…………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. It is often impossible for a person to receive a fair trial in this country…………………………………..
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. In a free market economy, the only excuse for poverty can be laziness and lack of enterprise………
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Political representatives are more interested in getting into power than representing their constituency…………………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. The federal government has ensured that every citizen has an acceptable standard of living…………
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. The forces of law and order discriminate against black people in this country…………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30. Harsh as it may sound, mass unemployment has ensured that the people in work are the ones most deserving of employment……………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

60
APPENDIX D
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Revised Scales
Instructions: Please read each item carefully. Using the scale shown below, please select the number that best describes YOU and put that number in the blank provided.
1 = I strongly disagree
2 = I tend to disagree
3 = I’m not sure
4 = I tend to agree
5 = I strongly agree
1. I enjoy reading about my religion………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I go to church/ synagogue/ temple because it helps me to make friends.…………………………………………….
3.
It doesn’t much matter what I believe so long as I am good……………………………………………………...
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
4. It is important to spend time in private thought and prayer……………………………………………………
5. I have often had a strong sense of God’s presence……...
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6. I pray mainly to gain relief and protection……………… 1 2 3 4 5
7. I try hard to live all my life according to my religious beliefs…………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
8. What religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow……………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5
9. Prayer is for peace and happiness……………………….
1 2 3 4 5
10.
Although I am religious, I don’t let it affect my daily life……………………………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5
11. I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends…... 1 2 3 4 5
12. My whole approach to life is based on my religion……..
1 2 3 4 5
13. I go to church mainly because I enjoy seeing people I know there………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Although I believe in my religion, many other things are important in life…………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5

61
APPENDIX E
Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale
Instructions: This survey is part of an investigation of general public opinion concerning a variety of social issues. You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others, to varying extents. Please indicate your reaction to each statement by circling your response according to the following scale:
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
1. The recent growth in crime shows that we have to use extreme measures against delinquents…………………..
1 2 3 4 5
2. Our country would be great if we got rid of the “rotten apples” who are ruining everything…………………….. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Our government has to eliminate all opponents...............
4.
We have to be tolerant toward protesters………………..
5.
It’s important for children to learn to obey authorities….
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1 2 3 4 5
6. Our country would be great if we did what the authorities tell us to do…………………………………..
1 2 3 4 5
7. People that criticize the authorities create useless doubts in people’s minds………………………………………..
1 2 3 4 5
8. People must, always and for whatever reason, have greater freedom to protest against the government……...
1 2 3 4 5
9. Our country would be great if we respected our traditions………………………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5
10. The “old-fashioned way” and the “old-fashioned values” still show the best way to live…………………………...
1 2 3 4 5
11. The established authorities have to exercise the power of censorship to stop the diffusion of immoral material…... 1 2 3 4 5
12. It is fair to allow marriages between gays and lesbians… 1 2 3 4 5

62
APPENDIX F
Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile
Instructions: The following is a series of work-related statements. Please circle the alternative that best represents your opinion to the right of each item. For example, if you strongly agree with item number one you would circle SA to the left of the question.
There are a total of 65 statements. Please read each statement carefully. For each statement circle the response that best represents your belief or opinion.
Circle SA if you strongly agree with the statement.
Circle
Circle
Circle
Circle
A
N
D if you if you if you
SD agree if you
with the statement. neither agree nor disagree disagree with the statement. with the statement. strongly disagree with the statement.
1. It is important to stay busy at work and not waste time…………………………………………………...
SA A N D SD
2. I feel uneasy when there is little work for me to do…. SA A N D SD
3. If I want to buy something, I always wait until I can afford it………………………………………...……..
SA A N D SD
4. I feel content when I have spent the day working…… SA A N D SD
5. Life would be more meaningful if we had more leisure time…………………………………………...
SA A N D SD
6. To be truly successful, a person should be selfreliant……....................................................................
SA A N D SD
7. One should always take responsibility for one’s actions………………………………………………...
SA A N D SD
8. I would prefer a job that allowed me to have more leisure time…………………………………………... SA A N D SD
9. Time should not be wasted, it should be used efficiently…..................................................................
SA A N D SD
10. Even if I were financially able, I would not stop working……………………………………………….
SA A N D SD
11. I get more fulfillment from items I had to wait for….. SA A N D SD
12. I schedule my day in advance to avoid wasting time... SA A N D SD
13. A hard days work is very fulfilling…………………... SA A N D SD
14. The more time I can spending in a leisure activity, the better I feel……………………………………………
SA A N D SD
15. One should always do what is right and just………… SA A N D SD
16. I would take items from work if I felt I was not getting paid enough…………………………………..
SA A N D SD
17. Nothing is impossible if you work hard enough…….. SA A N D SD

63
18. The less time one spends working and the more leisure time one has, the better……………………….
SA A N D SD
19. Things that you have to wait for are the most worthwhile……………………………………………
SA A N D SD
20. Working hard is the key to being successful………… SA A N D SD
21. Self-reliance is the key to being successful………….. SA A N D SD
22. If one works hard enough, one is likely to make a good life for oneself…………………………………..
SA A N D SD
23. I constantly look for ways to productively use my time…………………………………………………...
SA A N D SD
24. Hard work makes one a better person……………….. SA A N D SD
25. One should not pass judgment until one has heard all of the facts……………………………………………
SA A N D SD
26. People would be better off if they depended on themselves.................................................................... SA A N D SD
27. Work takes too much of our time, leaving little time to relax………………………………………………..
SA A N D SD
28. One should live one’s own life independent of others as much as possible…………………………………..
SA A N D SD
29. A distant reward it usually more satisfying than an immediate one………………………………………..
SA A N D SD
30. It is very important for me to always be able to work.. SA A N D SD
31. More leisure time is good for people………………… SA A N D SD
32. One must avoid dependence on other persons whenever possible…………………………….……...
SA A N D SD
33. Even if I inherited a great deal of money, I would continue to work somewhere…………………...……. SA A N D SD
34. I do not like having to depend on other people……… SA A N D SD
35. By working hard a person can overcome every obstacle that life presents………………………….….
SA A N D SD
36. I try to plan out my workday so as not to waste time... SA A N D SD
37. You should never tell lies about other people……….. SA A N D SD
38. Any problem can be overcome with hard work……... SA A N D SD
39. How a person spends their time is as important as how they spend their money………………………….
SA A N D SD
40. Even if it were possible for me to retire, I would still continue to work……………………………………...
SA A N D SD
41. Life without work would be very boring…………….. SA A N D SD
42. I prefer to save until I can afford something and not buy it on credit……………………………………….. SA A N D SD
43. The world would be a better place if people spent more time relaxing……………………………………
SA A N D SD
44. I strive to be self-reliant……………………………… SA A N D SD

64
45. If you work hard you will succeed…………………... SA A N D SD
46. The best things in life are those you have to wait for... SA A N D SD
47. Anyone who is able and willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding…………………………...
SA A N D SD
48. Stealing is all right was long as you don’t get caught.. SA A N D SD
49. The job that provides the most leisure time is the job for me. ……………………………………………….
SA A N D SD
50. Having a great deal of independence from others is very important to me…………………………………
SA A N D SD
51. It is important to treat others as you would like to be treated………………………………………………...
SA A N D SD
52. I experience a sense of fulfillment from working…… SA A N D SD
53. A person should always do the best job possible……. SA A N D SD
54. It is never appropriate to take something that does not belong to you………………………………………… SA A N D SD
55. Only those who depend on themselves get ahead in life…………………………………………………….
SA A N D SD
56. Wasting time is as bad as wasting money…………… SA A N D SD
57. There are times when stealing is justified…………… SA A N D SD
58. People should have more leisure time to spend in relaxation……………………………………………..
SA A N D SD
59. It is important to control one’s destiny by not being dependent on others…………………………………..
SA A N D SD
60. By simply working hard enough, one can achieve one’s goals……………………………………………
SA A N D SD
61. People should be fair in their dealings with others…... SA A N D SD
62. The only way to get anything worthwhile is to save for it…………………………………………………..
SA A N D SD
63. Leisure time activities are more interesting than work……......................................................................
SA A N D SD
64. A hard days work provides a sense of accomplishment………………………………………
SA A N D SD
65. A distaste for hard work usually reflects a weakness of character…………………………………………... SA A N D SD

65
APPENDIX G
Victim Blame Scale
Instructions: Please answer the following questions about your beliefs corresponding with the following scale:
1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Somewhat disagree
3= Somewhat agree
4 = Strongly agree
1. A woman who does not leave an abusive partner shares the blame if she continues to be abused by this partner……………………… 1 2 3 4
2. A woman who provokes a partner who she knows has been violent in the past shares the blame if she continues to be abused by this partner……………………………………………………................ 1 2 3 4
3. A woman who conceals her partner’s violent behavior shares the blame if she continues to be abused by this partner……………….. 1 2 3 4
4. A woman who acts submissive in order to avoid her violent partner’s abuse shares the blame if she continues to be abused by this partner…………………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4
5. A man who does not leave an abusive partner shares the blame if he continues to be abused by this partner………………………….. 1 2 3 4
6. A man who provokes a partner who he knows has been violent in the past shares the blame if he continues to be abused by this partner……………………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4
7. A man who conceals his partner’s violent behavior shares in the blame if he continues to be abused by this partner………………... 1 2 3 4
8. A man who acts submissive in order to avoid his violent partner’s abuse shares the blame if he continues to be abused by this partner……………………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4
9. A woman who has had prior sexual intercourse with a man shares the blame if that man sexually assaults (rapes) her at a later date…
10. A woman who leaves a party drunk with someone she just met
1 2 3 4 shares the blame if she is raped……………………………………. 1 2 3 4
11. A woman who wears revealing clothes (i.e., short skirts or tight shirts) shares the blame if she is raped…………………………….. 1 2 3 4
12. A woman who goes jogging late at night in a deserted area shares the blame if she is raped………………………………………….... 1 2 3 4
13. A woman who opens the door of her apartment to a stranger shares the blame if she is raped…………………………………………… 1 2 3 4
14. A healthy woman who does not physically resist a rapist shares the blame if she is raped……………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4
15. A woman who has consented to sexual relations but then changes 1 2 3 4

66 her mind shares the blame if she is raped…………………………..
16. A person who is stalked by someone they had sex with in the past shares the blame for being stalked by that person now……………. 1 2 3 4
17. A person who does not tell their stalker to stop the behaviors shares the blame for being stalked………………………………… 1 2 3 4
18. A person who does not call the police on their stalker shares the blame for being stalked……………………………………………. 1 2 3 4
19. A drunk man who intentionally flirts with another man’s girlfriend at a bar shares the blame for the other man punching him………… 1 2 3 4
20. A sober man who intentionally flirts with another man’s girlfriend at a bar shares the blame for the other man punching him………… 1 2 3 4
21. A drunk man in a verbal argument with another drunk man shares the blame for being punched by the other man……………………. 1 2 3 4
22. A child who has thrown a temper tantrum in a public place shares the blame for a parent verbally abusing the child as a result of the child’s behavior…………………………………………………….
1 2 3 4
23. A child who has thrown a temper tantrum in a public place shares the blame for a parent physically abusing the child as a result of the child’s behavior………………………………………………...
1 2 3 4
24. A child who physically abuses a parent shares the blame for the parent physically abusing the child………………………………... 1 2 3 4
25. Two gay men publically displaying affection for each other share the blame for a physical altercation started by a third man who sees their display…………………………………………………... 1 2 3 4
26. Prison inmates who take money or cigarettes in exchange for consensual sexual acts share the blame if they are raped by other inmates in prison…………………………………………………... 1 2 3 4
27. Male prison inmates who dress or talk in feminine ways share the blame if they are raped in prison…………………………………... 1 2 3 4

67
APPENDIX H
Attribution of Blame Scale
Instructions: Indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement by circling your answer choice using the following scale:
1= Strongly disagree
2 =
Somewhat disagree
3 = Slightly disagree
4 = Slightly agree
5 =
Somewhat agree
6 =
Strongly agree
1. Victims of crime nearly always deserve what they get.. 1 2 3 4 5 6
2. When a crime occurs, it is the offender’s fault………... 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Alcohol is to be blamed for most of the crimes in our society………………………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Society’s rigid rules bring people to jail………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. Provocation by the victim is the cause of most crimes.. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Most crimes can be attributed to problems in the offender’s personality………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6
7. If people would stop drinking the crime rate would be sharply reduced………………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6
8. Living in a bad neighborhood is the cause of most crimes…………………………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6
9. Victims should be blamed for being attacked…………. 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Most offenders commit crimes because they can’t control themselves……………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6
11. Alcohol is responsible for the majority of inmates being locked up………………………………………………..
1 2 3 4 5 6
12. When a man commits a crime it is society that should be blamed……………………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6
13. Women who are raped have usually set themselves up to be raped……………………………………………... 1 2 3 4 5 6
14. Criminal behavior is often caused by mental illness…... 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. Alcohol makes people commit crime………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. Current societal morality is the cause of so many crimes…………………………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6
17. There is no such thing as an innocent victim…………... 1 2 3 4 5 6
18. Criminal behavior is the result of an abnormal personality……………………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6
19. The high incidence of violent acts is related to drinking. 1 2 3 4 5 6
20. The media are responsible for so much violence on the street…………………………………………………….
1 2 3 4 5 6

68
21. A person who commits rape is mentally ill, or psychologically disturbed………………………………
1 2 3 4 5 6
22. Rapists are driven to commit rape by something wrong in their personality……………………………………...
1 2 3 4 5 6
23. Women entice men to rape them………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 6
24, A woman hitchhiker is almost asking to be raped……... 1 2 3 4 5 6

APPENDIX I
Demographics
Age: ___ Years old
Gender: a.
Female b.
Male c.
Transgender d.
Other (please specify) _______________________________
Ethnicity (please select only one): a.
Black/African American b.
White/Caucasian c.
Asian American/Pacific Islander d.
Latino e.
Middle Eastern f.
American Indian g.
Multi-Ethnic h.
Other (please specify) _______________________________
Class Standing: a.
Freshman b.
Sophomore c.
Junior d.
Senior e.
Graduate Student
Annual Household Income: a.
$0-$10,000 b.
$10,001-$20,000 c.
$20,001-$30,000 d.
$30,001-$50,000 e.
$50,001-$80,000 f.
$80,001-$100,000 g.
$100,001+
69

Religious Preference: a.
Christian/Protestant b.
Jewish c.
Buddhist d.
Atheist/Agnostic e.
Catholic f.
Muslim/Islam g.
Mormon h.
Other (please specify) _______________________________
Political Orientation: a.
Very Liberal b.
Liberal c.
Moderate d.
Conservative e.
Very Conservative
70

71
APPENDIX J
Consent Form
I hereby agree to participate in research that will be conducted by Kristine
Christianson, Rebecca Fabyan, and Annette Rodriguez. In this research, I will receive a packet of material containing some demographic questions and some inventories pertaining to such topics as my personal beliefs, my reactions to some situations, my judgments of others, and how I feel about some experiences.
The research will take place in one of the research rooms on the third floor of
Amador Hall and will require one (1) hour of my time.
I understand that I will receive one (1) hour of credit toward satisfying the
Psychology Department’s research participation requirement by participating in this study.
I understand that I may not personally benefit from participating in this research, but it is hoped that this research may lead to a better understanding of the factors related to judgment of others.
Although some questions may make me feel uncomfortable, I understand that I may skip any question. I also understand that I may discontinue my participation at any time without any penalty other than loss of research credit and that the investigator may discontinue my participation at any time.
This information was explained to me by Kristine Christianson, Rebecca Fabyan, or
Annette Rodriguez. I understand that she will answer any questions I may have now or later about this research. Kristine Christianson can be reached at kristinechristianson@gmail.com.
Signature: Date:

72
APPENDIX K
Debriefing
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to construct a model describing a theory known as belief in a just world (BJW) in relation to victim blaming. BJW describes the tendency for people to view the world as fair and just and where people get what they deserve (Lerner,
1977). This theory has been used to explain victim blaming. In this study, just world beliefs were measured by the Just World Scale, the Global Belief in a Just World Scale, and the Multidimensional Belief in a Just World Scale; victim blaming was measured by the Victim Blame Survey and the Attribution of Blame Scale.
Hypotheses and Supporting Research
When an individual observes the suffering of another innocent person, it creates an inconsistency between her or his beliefs that the world is fair, and observations suggesting that it is not (Lerner & Miller, 1978). When this occurs people will often degrade or blame the victim, in order to rationalize why bad things are happening to the victim. This rationalizing behavior is known as the derogation effect , in which people will attribute the cause of suffering to some internal defect of the victim. Because victim blaming can have devastating effects for victims of crime, such as depression and increased fear (Meyer & Taylor, 1986), it has become a topic of particular interest in the field of psychology.
Prior research has focused on assessing the relationship between BJW and blaming specifically rape victims (e.g., Ford, Liwag-McLamb & Foley, 1998; Kleinke & Meyer,
1990; Meyer & Taylor, 1986). A goal of this study is to extend some of these findings to other victims of crime, more generally. In the current study, I hypothesized that some possible characteristics affecting BJW and victim blaming were social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, religiosity, protestant work ethic ideology, internal locus of control, and interpersonal trust. Each of the inventories you completed measured one or more of these characteristics. The data analysis will involve pooling the data from all participants and performing statistical analyses to determine relationships between each of the variables with BJW and victim blaming.
Psychological Services
If you have experienced any personal distress caused by the content or materials in this research and want to talk to someone, counseling services are available through the
Student Health Center free of charge. Please contact Psychological Services at 278-6416 for assistance.
Contact Information
The results of this study are expected to be available in the Spring of 2013. If you would like further information about this study or have questions regarding this study,

please contact Kristine Christianson at kristinechristianson@gmail.com at your convenience.
Thank you for participating!
73

References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
74
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 , 423-443.
Altemeyer, B. (2006). Who are the authoritarian followers? In The authoritarians
(chapter 1). Retrieved from http://www.theauthoritarians.com.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,
2 (2), 113-133.
Arata, C. M. (1999). Coping with rape: The roles of prior sexual abuse and attributions of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14 (1), 62-78.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Aroian, L. A. (1944/1947). The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18 , 265-271.
Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1979). Personal and social components of the Protestant ethic. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 109 (2), 263-267.
Bieneck, S. & Krahé, B. (2011). Blaming the victim and exonerating the perpetrator in cases of rape and robbery: Is there a double standard? Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 26 (9), 1785-1797.

75
Bizer, G. Y., Hart, J., & Jekogian, A. M. (2011). Belief in a just world and social dominance orientation: Evidence for a meditational pathway predicting negative attitudes and discrimination against individuals with mental illness. Personality and Individual Differences, 52 (3), 428-432.
Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38 , 217-230.
Christopher, A. N., Zabel, K. L., Jones, J. R., & Marek, P. (2008). Protestant ethic ideology: Its multifaceted relationships with just world beliefs, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 45 (6), 473-477.
Connors, J., & Heaven, P. C. (1987). Authoritarianism and just world beliefs. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 127 (3), 345-346.
Crozier, S., & Joseph, S. (1997). Religiosity and sphere-specific just world beliefs in 16 to 18 year olds. Journal of Social Psychology, 137 , 510-513.
Dalbert, C. (1998). Belief in a just world, well-being, and coping with an unjust fate. In
L. Montada, M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 87-105). New York, NY: Plenum Press. de Regt, S. (2012). Religiosity as a moderator of the relationship between authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: A cross-cultural comparison.
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22 (1), 31-41.
Dexter, P. (1987,October 16). Once an acronym moves in, there goes the neighborhood.
The Sacramento Bee, p. A2.

Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis.
76
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (2), 400-419.
Džuka, J., & Dalbert, C. (2000). Well-being as a psychological indicator of health in old age: A research agenda. Studia Psychologica, 42 (1-2), 61-70.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Ford, T. M., Liwag-McLamb, M. G., & Foley, L. A. (1998). Perceptions of rape based on sex and sexual orientation of victim. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
13 (2), 253-263.
Fox, K. A., & Cook, C. L. (2011). Is knowledge power? The effects of a victimology course on victim blaming. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26 (17), 3407-3427.
Freedman, L. S., & Schatzkin, A. (1992). Sample size for studying intermediate endpoints within intervention trials of observational studies. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 136 , 1148-1159.
Funke, F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26 (2), 195-218.
Furnham, A. (1990). The Protestant work ethic: The psychology of work-related beliefs and behaviours. London: Routledge.
Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1989). Belief in a just world: Reviews and critique of the individual difference literature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28 (4), 265-
384.
Furnham, A., & Procter, E. (1992). Sphere-specific just world beliefs and attitudes to
AIDS. Human Relations, 45 (3), 265-280.

77
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-Revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28 (3), 348-
354.
Hafer, C. L. (2000). Investment in long-term goals and commitment to just means drive the need to believe in a just world. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
16 (9), 1059-1073.
Heaven, P. C. L., Connors, J. R. (2001). A note on the value correlates of social dominance orientation and right-wring authoritarianism. Personality and
Individual differences, 31 , 925-930.
Hellman, C. M., Muilenburg-Trevino, E. M., & Worley, J. A. (2008). The belief in a just world: An examination of reliability estimates across three measures. Journal of
Hunt, R. A., & King, M. (1971). The intrinsic-extrinsic concept: A review and evaluation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10 (4), 339-356.
Johnson, L. M., Mullick, R., & Mulford, C. L. (2002). General versus specific victim blaming. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (2), 249-263.
Jones, H. B., Jr., Furnham, A., & Deile, A. J. (2010). Religious orientation and the
Protestant work ethic. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 13 (7-8), 697-706.
Jost, J. T., & van der Toorn, J. (2012). System justification theory. In P. M. Van Lange,
A. W. Kruglanski, E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology
(Vol 2) (pp. 313-343). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

78
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1988). A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin
Measures of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. In D. O. Moberg, M. L. Lynn
(Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of relgion (Vo. 1). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Kleinke, C. L., & Meyer, C. (1990). Evaluation of rape victim by men and women with high and low belief in a just world. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14 , 343-353.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Lambert, A. J., Burroughs, T., & Nguyen, T. (1999). Perceptions of risk and the buffering hypothesis: The role of just world beliefs and right-wing authoritarianism.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (6), 643-656.
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms.
Journal of Personality, 45 (1), 1-52.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York:
Plenum Press.
Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process:
Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85 (5), 1030-1051.
Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the ‘innocent victim’:
Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (2),
203-210.

79
Lipkus, I. (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.
Loza, W., & Clements, P. (1991). Incarcerated alcoholics’ and rapists’ attributions of blame for criminal acts. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 23 (1), 76-83.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1, 130-149.
Meyer, C. B., & Taylor, S. E. (1986). Adjustment to rape. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50 (6), 1226-1234.
Meyers, L. M., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013a). Applied multivariate research:
Design and interpretation (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Meyers, L. M., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2013b). Performing data analysis using
IBM SPSS
®
. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Miller, M. J., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. (2002). The meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60 , 451-489.
Passini, S. (2008). Exploring the multidimensional facets of authoritarianism:
Authoritarian aggression and social dominance orientation. Swiss Journal of
Psychology, 67 (1), 2008, 51-60.
Paulhus, D. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (6), 1253-1265.

Peersen, M., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Sigurdsson, J. F. (2000). The relationship between
80 general and specific attribution of blame for a “serious” act and the role of personality. Nord J Psychiatry, 54 (1), 25-30.
Ray, J. J. (1982). The Protestant ethic in Australia. The Journal of Social Psychology,
116 (1), 127-138.
Reis, H. T. (1984). The multidimensionality of justice. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 25-61). New York: Plenum
Press.
Rubin, Z., & Peplau, A. (1973). Belief in a just world and reactions to another’s lot: A study of participants in the national draft lottery. Journal of Social Issues, 29 (4),
73-93.
Rubin, Z., & Peplau, A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues,
31 , 65-89.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects and their standard errors in structural equation models. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 159-186). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sobel. M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects in structural equation models.
In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). Washington, D.C.:
American Sociological Association.
SPSS Inc. (Released 2009). PASW Statistics for Windows, Version 18.0. Chicago: SPSS,
Inc.

Tomaka, J., & Blascovich, J. (1994). Effects of justice beliefs on cognitive appraisal of
81 and subjective physiological, and behavioral responses to potential stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (4), 732-740.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Criminal victimization, 2012 (DOJ Publication No.
NCJ 243389). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ward, M. (1980). Attribution of blame in rape (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD.
Ward, C. (1988). The Attitudes Towards Rape Victims Scale: Construction, validation, and cross-cultural applicability. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12 , 127-146.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.).
New York: Scribners. [Original work published 1904-1905].
Whatley, M. A. (1992). Belief in a Just World Scale: Unidimensional or multidimensional? The Journal of Social Psychology, 133 (4), 547-551.
Zweigenhaft, R. L., Phillips, B. K. G., Adams, K. A., Morse, C. K., & Horan, A. E.
(1985). Religious preference and belief in a just world. Genetic, Social, and
General Psychology Monographs, 111 (3), 331-348.