A fair go? How belief in a just world shaped attitudes, intentions, and behaviors before and after the Australian referendum on a First Nations voice to parliament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In October 2023, Australia voted on whether to enshrine in the constitution an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander “Voice” to Parliament. Debate around the Voice raised questions of justice and deservingness for a marginalized group within Australian society. The belief in a just world, the perception of fairness in this world for others (BJW‐other) and the self (BJW‐self), was, therefore, central to how people formed and expressed their opinions. In this longitudinal study ( N = 253), we examined associations between BJW‐other, BJW‐self, and attitudes, intentions, and actions towards the Voice before and after the vote. Analysis indicated broadly negative associations between T1 BJW‐other and pro‐Voice outcomes (at both timepoints), while BJW‐self was positively related. Findings were, however, inconsistent when controlling for a broad range of sociopolitical covariates. These findings make an important contribution to justice motive theory by illustrating the role of justice beliefs in the political context.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".