Predicting alternative strategies for preserving a belief in a just world: The case of repressive coping style
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Researchers suggest that observers of innocent suffering will negatively evaluate the victim as a strategy for maintaining their belief in a just world. We propose an alternative class of strategies and test whether individual differences in repressive coping style predict the type of strategy people will use. In the first two studies, we exposed repressors versus nonrepressors to victims whose suffering should pose a high versus low threat to the need to believe in a just world. Repressors had a greater tendency to positively reappraise the high threat victim's suffering. Nonrepressors had a greater tendency to negatively evaluate the high threat victim. A third study replicated the results for the high threat conditions and suggested that repressors' positive reappraisal is not because of a tendency to minimize suffering. Our research (i) demonstrates a class of strategies for preserving the belief in a just world other than negatively evaluating the victim and (ii) is among the first to examine directly an individual difference predictor of alternative just‐world preservation strategies. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".