Belief in a Just World and the Perceived Injustice of Dying Young or Old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated how belief in a just world (i.e., that people get what they deserve) affects the perceived injustice of dying young versus dying old. Younger and older adult participants completed a measure of their just world beliefs and then were randomly assigned to read one of four newspaper articles purportedly about a person who died in an automobile accident. In the articles, both the victim's age (19 or 79) and the victim's outlook on life (concerned about the future or living for today) were varied. Results indicated that participants viewed the death of a younger victim as more unjust than the death of an older victim. Older adults, however, experienced less negative affect than did younger adults when reading the article. Older adults also expressed a higher belief in a just world (BJW) than did younger adults. In addition, BJW was related to perceived justice. Participants with a higher BJW perceived the deaths of both victims as more tragic and unjust than did those with a low BJW. The victim's outlook on life did not affect perceived justice. Implications for medical decision-making, the use of aggressive treatment, and the relative value of youth versus age are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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".