In the intricate landscape of human psychology, the concept of justice holds a pivotal role in shaping perceptions, behaviors, and social dynamics. A recently published study by researchers Zhang X. and Zhang Y., entitled “Belief in a just world or belief in just others? A study on the object of belief in a just world,” appearing in the 2025 volume of BMC Psychology, advances our understanding of how individuals conceptualize justice and its implications for interpersonal trust and societal cohesion. This comprehensive investigation probes the nuanced distinctions between two related but distinct psychological constructs: belief in a just world and belief in just others, offering groundbreaking insights into their respective functions and impacts.
Belief in a just world (BJW) has long been a cornerstone concept in psychological research, encapsulating the idea that people fundamentally desire to see the world as a place where fairness prevails, outcomes correspond to actions, and moral desert is honored. This belief, while comforting and adaptive in many contexts, has been scrutinized for its role in victim blaming and perpetuation of social inequalities. Yet, Zhang and Zhang’s study challenges the monolithic view of BJW by dissecting the concept into subcomponents and specifically contrasting it against belief in just others (BJO), which pertains more narrowly to the expectation that other individuals adhere to fairness and moral rectitude in their actions.
The study underscores the critical distinction between these two constructs. While BJW represents a broader, more abstract worldview—a generalized expectancy that life is fair and just—BJO zeroes in on interpersonal beliefs, focusing on whether others in one’s social milieu can be trusted to act justly. This nuanced differentiation holds profound implications for social cognition, interpersonal relationships, and even collective societal attitudes. Zhang and Zhang meticulously explore how these beliefs operate independently yet interactively, influencing emotional well-being, coping mechanisms, and social dynamics.
Employing robust methodological frameworks, the researchers gathered extensive data across diverse demographic groups, utilizing psychometrically validated scales alongside innovative survey techniques. By deploying multivariate analyses and structural equation modeling, the study not only illuminated the distinct psychological profiles associated with each belief system but also mapped out their predictive power concerning key psychological and behavioral outcomes, such as resilience in the face of injustice, propensity toward social activism, and susceptibility to conspiracy ideation.
One compelling finding of the study was that belief in just others, more than a generalized BJW, correlates strongly with adaptive social behaviors and higher levels of interpersonal trust. Individuals endorsing high BJO scores demonstrated greater prosocial engagement and were less prone to cynical attributions about others’ motives. This suggests that fostering trust in others as just agents can be a crucial factor in building cohesive communities and mitigating social alienation, especially in increasingly polarized societies.
Conversely, the BJW construct was found to have a paradoxical relationship with coping. While adherence to a just world belief system can provide psychological comfort by offering a sense of order and meaning, it can also engender maladaptive responses, such as victim blaming or rationalization of systemic injustices. Zhang and Zhang’s data indicate that an overly rigid BJW may impair empathy and reduce motivation to challenge unfair practices, underscoring the complex moral and psychological trade-offs inherent in these beliefs.
Further dissecting the interaction between BJW and BJO, the researchers propose a dual-system framework that accounts for both abstract worldview maintenance and concrete social trust calibration. This model advances the psychological theory by elucidating how individuals navigate the tension between cognitive consistency and social experience, balancing an idealized notion of fairness with lived realities of human behavior. Such a framework has wide-ranging implications for interventions aimed at enhancing social trust and reducing intergroup conflict.
The study’s interdisciplinary approach integrates insights from social psychology, moral philosophy, and behavioral economics, lending it significant breadth and depth. Zhang and Zhang’s findings contribute to a burgeoning literature that seeks to refine our understanding of justice perceptions beyond simplistic dichotomies, fostering a more sophisticated appreciation of how individuals and societies interpret fairness and moral order.
Moreover, this research equips policymakers, educators, and social workers with empirical tools to address social fragmentation. By highlighting the distinct roles of BJW and BJO, the study invites a reevaluation of strategies designed to promote social justice awareness, mental health resilience, and community engagement. Enhancing belief in just others, for instance, might be a powerful lever to counteract disenchantment and foster cooperative behavior in diverse social settings.
The implications extend deeply into the realm of conflict resolution and reconciliation processes. Understanding the psychological underpinnings of justice beliefs enables practitioners to tailor interventions that not only affirm the need for fairness but also build trust among conflicting parties. Zhang and Zhang’s dual-system perspective advocates for initiatives that move beyond simply endorsing abstract principles to actively cultivating interpersonal trust networks.
A particularly innovative aspect of the research is its exploration of cultural variability in justice beliefs. The data reveal that social and cultural contexts significantly modulate the prominence and effects of BJW and BJO. In collectivist cultures, for example, belief in just others appears more strongly linked to social harmony and personal well-being, whereas in individualistic settings, BJW assumes a more dominant psychological role. This cross-cultural sensitivity enhances the study’s relevance in our globalized world, where understanding cultural nuances is paramount for effective social policy and psychological support.
From a neuroscientific vantage point, Zhang and Zhang’s inquiry invites further exploration into the cognitive and affective mechanisms that underpin justice beliefs. Emerging research suggests that areas of the brain involved in moral judgment, empathy, and reward processing are likely implicated in sustaining these belief systems. Future integration of neuroimaging methods could unravel how these mental constructs manifest biologically, possibly opening pathways for novel interventions targeting mental health disorders linked to justice-related cognitions.
The study also raises important questions about the evolution of justice beliefs in the context of digital media and information ecosystems. The rise of social networks, misinformation, and algorithm-driven echo chambers challenges traditional beliefs in fairness and trustworthiness of others. Zhang and Zhang hint at the necessity of examining how online environments reshape BJW and BJO, potentially exacerbating polarization or fostering new forms of solidarity.
In sum, Zhang and Zhang’s investigation offers a compelling and richly textured account of how humans navigate the complex terrain of justice beliefs. By parsing the differences and synergies between belief in a just world and belief in just others, the research provides a vital blueprint for academic inquiry, clinical practice, and social policy. The study not only advances theoretical understanding but also offers practical insights with the potential to strengthen social fabric in an era marked by uncertainty and division.
As societies grapple with questions of fairness amidst rising inequality and social upheaval, understanding the psychological foundations of justice perceptions becomes ever more critical. Zhang and Zhang’s work stands at the forefront of this endeavor, illuminating pathways that can foster greater empathy, trust, and collective resilience.
Subject of Research: Belief in a just world versus belief in just others and their psychological and social implications.
Article Title: Belief in a just world or belief in just others? A study on the object of belief in a just world.
Article References:
Zhang, X., Zhang, Y. Belief in a just world or belief in just others? a study on the object of belief in a just world. BMC Psychol 13, 564 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02897-5
Image Credits: AI Generated
