Who believes in a just world? A multilevel latent profile analysis of Justice Capital using the European Social Survey

1.1 Belief in a just world and Justice Capital

Those who endorse self-report measures of BJW tend to see a strong cause-and-effect mechanism in life, where rewards and punishments are earned through one's efforts. Those with a weaker endorsement of BJW see life's experiences as more random. In this sense, BJW serves the adaptive function of helping individuals to make sense of a sometimes random and meaningless world (Dalbert, 2001). Here, I conceptualize BJW as an individual differences variable (for a summary of research where BJW effects are inferred experimentally, see Ellard et al., 2016). The belief that the world is just for oneself (personal BJW) has been distinguished from the general belief in a just world (general BJW; Dalbert, 1999). While moderately positively correlated (Hafer et al., 2020), these parallel facets tend to associate with differing outcomes. Whereas BJW-other tends to associate with harsh social attitudes—a just world necessitates people taking responsibility for their actions—personal BJW is consistently associated with positive attitudes and characteristics; a personally just world makes the future predictable and controllable (for a review see Bartholomaeus & Strelan, 2019).

BJW likely develops from immanent justice reasoning as children socialize and develop cognitively (Lerner et al., 1976). The need to believe in a just world develops specifically to maintain the personal contract, an agreement with oneself to forgo immediate gratification of desires in order to obtain greater long-term rewards (Lerner et al., 1976). Only in a world that is stable and orderly can one count on seeing a fair reward for their long-term investment; in a random world, this investment is less likely to pay off. The Justice Capital framework builds on this theorizing by describing how individual differences in personal BJW arise, and are maintained, over the life course. While Justice Capital is hypothesized to explain variation in personal BJW, it is also applicable to general BJW. The focus of this study is general BJW as a measure of personal BJW is absent from the pre-existing data set.

Justice Capital refers to people's cumulative access to justice across five domains throughout their lives (Thomas, 2022). Relevant to the present investigation are the domains of demographic characteristics and societal wealth and inequality. Access to justice is theorized to influence the strength of one's BJW. For instance, when an unjust event occurs those with a higher economic status have access to lawyers, insurance, or medical care that will allow them to mitigate the worst outcomes (Thomas, 2018). Similarly, those with higher social status have access to influential individuals and networks, allowing them to navigate into higher paying employment (Yu et al., 2020) experiencing just rewards for their efforts. Those from privileged groups will also experience differing levels of chronic power that can be used to leverage “justice” in one's own favor (Thomas & Mucherah, 2016). Societal level factors might also influence one's general BJW. For instance, living in an affluent society may increase the population's access to justice in much the same way as it does at the individual level. Contrastingly, societies with higher levels of inequality may hamper the development of general BJW. A society lacking in equality may discourage people from believing that work is fairly rewarded (Thomas, 2022). Initial work in this area indicates that self-report BJW scores reflect assessments of people's experiences of justice (Sutton et al., 2008). More recent work has established that personal and general BJW vary significantly across country and, specifically for personal BJW, across levels of wealth (Bartholomaeus, Kiral Ucar, et al., 2023). Further empirical substantiation, however, is required. If differences in access to justice do influence general BJW, then a number of profiles with varying worldviews should exist within any given population.

1.2 The just world belief system

To identify profiles with varying worldviews, I draw on belief systems theory to define a just world belief system (Rokeach, 1968). I propose that general BJW can be conceptualized as a central belief in a network of interrelated socio-political beliefs including distributive and procedural justice beliefs, and the belief in equality of opportunity. These beliefs represent the primary ways in which researchers have conceptualized justice motivations (Gollwitzer & van Prooijen, 2016), and yet, research on the systematic interplay between them is nascent. Furthermore, each belief within this system is plausibly influenced by one's access to justice over the course of their lives.

The four principles of distributive justice (including equality, equity, and need [Deutsch, 1975], and the newer addition of entitlement [Hülle et al., 2018]), represent guiding norms in how people evaluate the distribution of rewards and punishments within a society. Equality refers to the notion that goods should be distributed equally regardless of need or effort. Equity, alternatively, is the principle that goods should be distributed according to each person's contributions or effort. Need refers to the idea that goods should be distributed based on individual needs, and entitlement is the belief that goods should be assigned based on one's social or group status. Individuals with access to the means of justice can acquire resources based on their effort or status. Those with high Justice Capital will, therefore, likely adhere to the distributive justice principles of equity and entitlement. Alternatively, those with restricted access to justice are more likely to endorse principles of equality or need; having been denied access to resources because of their status and despite the effort they exert (Thomas, 2022).

Procedural justice relates to evaluations of the process by which justice is administered (Lind & Tyler, 1988), that is, evaluations of the way in which justice is done, independent of the outcome. The extent of one's endorsement of procedural justice can be explained by their level of access to Justice Capital. Those who benefit from the current political and social system are motivated to rationalize the system as fair (Jost & Hunyady, 2002). The beneficiaries who, as a function of their status, have access to justice across various domains in their lives are, therefore, more likely to believe the system, which affords them these benefits to be procedurally just. Finally, belief in equality of opportunity—which is conceptually similar to, yet distinct from, procedural justice (Trautmann, 2023)—is the belief that all people have equal life chances. People with higher Justice Capital are likely to have experienced fair consideration when striving to achieve in their education or career (Thomas, 2022). This life experience may be associated with the assumption that, because the world is just, others within society will also have fair opportunities for advancement regardless of their ascriptive characteristics (Witt, 1991). In this sense, Justice Capital may also foster a belief in the equality of opportunity.

Studying justice beliefs within a dynamic system will provide a number of new insights. First, it will show which justice beliefs are more likely to be endorsed together, thus providing an insight into the broader socio-political views of individuals with strong and weak general BJW. Second, by statistically modeling an interdependent belief system, this study will provide more accurate estimates of associations between clusters of beliefs and the demographic and experiential covariates that give rise to them. Finally, this study will provide an estimate of how common clusters of justice beliefs are in a large population. That is, it will show both the content and coverage of justice beliefs. As with the typological approach to personality (Specht et al., 2014), this study provides a novel and important complimentary approach to the study of specific justice beliefs in isolation.

1.3 Meritocrats and egalitarians

Extant literature indicates the likely presence of two contrasting latent profiles, which I term here as meritocrats and egalitarians. The meritocrat profile will strongly endorse general BJW. Given the negative correlation between general BJW and the equality principle (Faccenda & Pantaléon, 2011), and that general BJW is associated with rationalizing the harsh treatment of low status groups (see Hafer & Sutton, 2016 for a review), meritocrats will likely score lower on equality and need principles. In contrast, general BJW theorizing has as a core tenant the equity principle (Lerner, 1980) and is considered a system justifying belief (Jost & Hunyady, 2005). Meritocrats, therefore, will likely have stronger scores on the equity and entitlement principles. Egalitarians will likely show the inverse endorsement of these beliefs, with lower scores on general BJW, equity, and entitlement, but higher scores on equality and need.

Those with high general BJW are less likely to perceive discrimination against minorities (see Hafer & Choma, 2009 for a review); are more likely to legitimize the current political system (Jost & Hunyady, 2005); and report less involvement in political action (Furnham, 2003). Furthermore, endorsement of the equity principle is indirectly and positively associated with procedural justice (Van der Toorn et al., 2010). Given these associations, the meritocrat profile will likely have higher scores, and the egalitarian profile lower scores, on procedural justice. Finally, stronger general BJW is negatively associated with support for affirmative action policies (Wilkins & Wenger, 2014). One might rationalize that in a just world there is no historic or systematic injustices that call for these policies. Given this association, and in the absence of direct empirical evidence, general BJW is likely positively associated with the perception of equal opportunity for all people. The meritocratic profile, therefore, is expected to have higher scores on equality of opportunity beliefs, compared with lower scores for the egalitarian profile.

1.4 Demographic and experiential correlates of justice beliefs

To further interrogate the Justice Capital framework, I will investigate associations between the latent profiles and nine individual-level demographic and experiential correlates (gender, age, income, education, religion, political activity, political orientation, and experiences of discrimination and crime) and two country-level correlates (societal wealth and inequality). Extant findings on the associations between these individual and country-level variables and general BJW, distributive and procedural justice, and equality of opportunity beliefs are, at times, disparate. I, therefore, now present a brief review of these associations to highlight areas of contrast in the findings and provide a foundation for subsequent hypothesizing.

Findings on gender and age differences in general BJW are mixed. While some research indicates increased levels of general BJW for women (Nesterova et al., 2015) and a decrease with age (Fox et al., 2010; Oppenheimer, 2006; Scholz & Strelan, 2021) other studies indicate no differences (Bartholomaeus, Kiral Ucar, et al., 2023; Nartova-Bochaver et al., 2018). Similarly, while some studies indicate a positive relationship between general BJW and socio-economic status (Thomas, 2018; Thomas & Napolitano, 2017), others show no or mixed relationships (Bartholomaeus, Kiral Ucar, et al., 2023; Thomas & Mucherah, 2016). General BJW is positively associated with religiosity (see Furnham, 2003 for a review), with political conservatism (Clifton & Kerry, 2022), and with engaging in less political activity (Furnham, 2003). The influence of negative life experiences on general BJW is unclear. While exposure to unjust treatment leads to transient changes in one's BJW (Bartholomaeus, Burns, & Strelan 2023), prolong hardship, such as being incarcerated, is not associated with diminished personal BJW (Bartholomaeus & Strelan, 2021). There are no significant associations between general BJW and country-level indicators of wealth and inequality (García-Sánchez et al., 2022).

Support for distributive and procedural justice beliefs have also been observed to differ across gender and age (Caldwell et al., 2009; Huppert et al., 2019; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997). Distributive justice principles (equality, equity, and need) are negatively correlated with income, while entitlement has a positive correlation (Hülle et al., 2018). Procedural justice is negatively associated with financial disadvantage (Laurin et al., 2011). Further, limited evidence shows mixed findings on the associations between distributive principles of equality and need, procedural justice principles, and religiosity (Factor et al., 2014; Thomson & Froese, 2018). Both need-based distributive principles (equality and need) and procedural justice principles are associated with political liberalism (Bierbrauer & Klinger, 2002; Thomson & Froese, 2018). Distributive justice beliefs are negatively associated with negative life experiences, such as intimate partner violence, whereas procedural justice beliefs are unrelated (Calton & Cattaneo, 2014). Research on the association between distributive and procedural justice principles and country-level indicators of wealth and inequality appears limited, an important gap the present study will address.

Perceptions of inequality of opportunity are stronger among men and older individuals (Brunori, 2017). Inequality of opportunity is also negatively associated with education (Brunori, 2017). While there is no research on the association between equality of opportunity beliefs and religiosity, these beliefs tend to associate with political conservatism (Kang, 2020). Given the positive correlation between conservatism and religiosity (Piazza & Sousa, 2014), the perception of equality of opportunity may also be positively correlated with religiosity. The perception of equality of opportunity is negatively associated with negative life experiences, such as discrimination in the workplace (Triana et al., 2015). Finally, equality of opportunity is negatively associated with country-level inequality, but positively associated with country-level wealth (García-Sánchez et al., 2022).

1.5 The present study

In the present study, I will test the veracity of the Justice Capital framework in two parts. First, I aim to identify differing latent profiles within a large representative sample. I hypothesize that two profiles will emerge; the meritocrat profile will show high scores on general BJW and the equity and entitlement principles, but lower scores on the equality and need principles. This profile will have elevated scores on procedural justice and the belief in equality of opportunity. The egalitarian profile will show the inverse of this pattern. As latent profile analysis is an exploratory technique, I will probe the data for more nuanced profiles.

Second, I will examine the demographic and experiential correlates of the emergent latent profiles. Compared with the egalitarian profile, I hypothesize that meritocrats will report higher income, more years of education, stronger religious views, and right-leaning political views. Meritocrats will also report less political activity and fewer experiences of discrimination. Analysis of associations between profiles and gender, age, and recent experiences of crime will be exploratory. At a country-level, the meritocrat profile will be positively associated with societal wealth. Analysis of country-level associations with societal inequality will be exploratory.

2.1 Participants and procedure

Participants were N = 49,519 respondents to the ninth round of the European Social Survey (European Social Survey European Research Infrastructure, 2023) from 29 countries. Incomplete observations with more than 5% missing data (n = 6310) were deleted list wise. For the remaining incomplete observations (n = 9843), values were imputed using Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2010). The final dataset included n = 43,209 complete observations (47.4% male, M_age = 50.9, SD = 18.13, age ranged from 15 to 90 years; see Table S1 in the supplementary materials for descriptive statistics by country). Data collection occurred between August 2018 and May 2019; participants responded to questions as a part of a larger survey. Data was collected in face-to-face sessions with trained interviewers. Details on the European Social Survey methodology and the full public data set are available at http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org.

2.2 Measures

2.3 Statistical analysis

Pre-registration of this secondary analysis, input analysis code, statistical output, and supplementary material are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/e3tpw/?view_only=e15bc4d6a8ea485a9f889c3c6338f3d4. MLPA was employed as it can model the smallest number of discrete classes of individuals sharing similar response patterns while accounting for a nested data structure (Henry & Muthén, 2010). Furthermore, this technique represents the theoretical assertion of a belief system by incorporating the seven belief variables into a single model, thus accounting for the shared variance between them. If one were to analyze each of the seven belief variables directly with their covariates, this would necessitate seven separate multilevel models. These individual models would not account for the shared variance between the belief variables and this could inflate or suppress the model estimates. For instance, the significant association between say age and procedural justice might become nonsignificant when including BJW in the same model. By accounting for the shared variance between these beliefs, the true association between them and the covariate of age is more accurately estimated.

Statistical analyses were conducted in R (version 4.2.3) and Mplus (version 8.9). Initially, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to ensure accurate measurement of all constructs with multiple indicators. A fixed-effects latent profile analysis (LPA) was then estimated to iteratively determined the number of latent profiles. Criteria for LPA fit were based on theoretical interpretability, the Akaike information criterion (AIC), the Bayesian information criterion (BIC; lower values indicate better fit), and entropy values (higher values are better, but no conventional cut-off exists [Weller et al., 2020]). Diagonals of the posterior probability matrix were also inspected, values between 0.80 and 0.90 were considered adequate. Only solutions with latent profiles >5% of the total sample were acceptable. Once a stable fixed-effects LPA model was established a MLPA model including country as the cluster variable was estimated. MLPA models with Level 1 covariates, and then combined Level 1 and Level 2 covariates were then estimated.

3.1 Confirmatory factor analysis

The initial CFA included general BJW (three items), procedural justice beliefs (three items), equality of opportunity for the self (two items), and for others (two items) loading on their respective latent factors. While the initial CFA showed adequate fit to the data, χ²(29) = 4533.3, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.951, RMSEA = 0.060 CI_90% [0.058, 0.061], SRMR = 0.033, removing the equality of opportunity for self-factor (which exhibited borderline internal consistency, α = 0.67) resulted in a conceptually more consistent model with superior fit, χ²(17) = 1251.0, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.989, TLI = 0.982, RMSEA = 0.041 CI_90% [0.039, 0.043], SRMR = 0.028. This revised model was selected as the basis for the LPA.

3.2 Fixed-effects latent profile analysis

Small-to-moderate correlations were observed in the expected directions between the seven indicator variables (Table 1). I ran four fixed-effects LPA models with two to five profiles (Table 2). The BIC value decreased with each model, indicating improving fit. This continuing decrease in BIC beyond an interpretable number of classes is common, especially in large data sets (Marsh et al., 2009). Entropy, profile size, posterior probabilities, and theoretical interpretability were, therefore, used to determine the most appropriate model. The three-profile solution had the second highest entropy value (Model 1.3, Table 2), larger profile sizes (>10%), and posterior probabilities >0.80. The four-profile solution (Model 1.4) had lower posterior probabilities for one profile (Profile 1 = 0.79). The five-profile solution (Model 1.5) had one profile approaching, and one profile <5% of the total sample size (Profile 4 = 6.6%, Profile 5 = 3.0%).

The three-profile solution resulted in three theoretically concordant and distinct profiles, while the four-profile solution reproduced the two-profile solution but with smaller sub-profiles. The five-profile solution had theoretically untenable and disproportionately small fourth and fifth profiles. I tentatively proceeded with the three-profile solution, as it provided the most parsimony and met most of the a priori criteria. In line with predictions two distinct profiles emerged: the meritocrats (52.5%) and egalitarians (37.4%). A third profile showed a middle group, termed moderates (10.3%). Given the potential influence of country-level clustering on the profile composition, size, and shape, I only interpreted the profiles from the final MLPA model.

3.3 Multilevel latent profile analysis

I estimated a three-profile model with country as a Level 2 cluster variable (Model 2, Table 2). The BIC increased along with an unexpected increase in entropy. The profile sizes became more balanced between groups and posterior probabilities remained similar to the three-profile fixed-effects model. The variation in the probability of having a meritocratic profile was statistically significant across countries, V(U₀₁) = 1.33, p < 0.001, as was the variation in the probability of having an egalitarian profile, V(U₀₂) = 3.56, p < 0.001.

Level 1 predictors of gender, age, income, education, religion, political activity, political orientation, discrimination, and victimhood were then included as fixed effects (Model 3, Table 2). The model showed substantial improvement in fit compared with Model 2, ∆BIC = -87224.4, increased entropy, and some change in the profile sizes, while showing posterior probabilities >0.90. Model 4.1 included the Level 2 predictors of HDI and Gini coefficient. This model showed inferior fit compared with Model 3, ∆BIC = 90410.7. Entropy decreased and profile sizes were similar to the initial LPA three-profile model (Model 1.3); posterior probabilities remained >0.80. To interrogate the decreased fit of Model 4.1, I estimated a revised model which included a common factor on the Level 2 random means (as demonstrated by Henry & Muthén, 2010). This addition substantially improved model fit (Model 4.2; Table 2), but also artificially inflated a number of the regression coefficients. Profile sizes shifted while posterior probabilities remained similar. I, therefore, interpreted the latent profiles and regression coefficients of Model 4.1, which had the most stable solution.

3.4 Profile interpretation

Model 4.1 indicated three distinct profiles (see Figure 1). Meritocrats (52.2%) had moderate-to-high endorsement of general BJW and moderate-to-low endorsement of equality. This profile had high levels of equity and need, and the highest levels of entitlement of all profiles. Meritocrats also reported the strongest endorsement of procedural justice beliefs and equality of opportunity beliefs. The contrasting egalitarian profile (37.4%) reported lower levels of general BJW and higher scores on equality compared with meritocrats. While egalitarians did not differ to meritocrats on scores of equity and need, they did show lower scores on entitlement, procedural justice, and equality of opportunity beliefs. The moderate profile (10.0%) had similar levels of general BJW to the egalitarians and similar levels of equality to the meritocrats. The moderates had the lowest endorsement of the equity and need principles. They did not differ compared with the other profiles on scores of entitlement and occupied the middle ground on procedural justice and equality of opportunity beliefs.

3.5 Covariates of latent profile membership

Table 3 reports the associations between the latent profiles and the demographic and experiential covariates. Compared with egalitarians, meritocrats were more likely to be male and younger; have a higher income; have attained more years of education; to be politically conservative (right-leaning); to not identify as being a part of a group that is discriminated against; and as not having been the victim—or have a household member as a victim—of a crime in the past 5 years. Religiosity and political activity were unrelated to profile membership. The same pattern of results emerged when comparing meritocrats to moderates, except for nonsignificant effects for age and experience of crime. In comparison with meritocrats, egalitarians were more likely to be female and older; have a lower income; have attained fewer years of education; to be politically liberal (left-leaning); more likely to identify as being a part of a group that is discriminated against; and to report themselves or a household member as being the victim of a crime in the past 5 years. Compared with moderates, egalitarians were more likely to be older; have lower income; to be politically liberal (left-leaning); and have experienced discrimination and crime. The Level 2 covariate of HDI consistently associated with differing probabilities of profile membership, whereas Gini coefficient did not (Table 3). Compared with both egalitarians and moderates, meritocrat profile membership was associated with higher HDI. Egalitarian membership, compared with meritocrats but not moderates, was associated with lower HDI.

4.1 Distributive justice principles

Over half the sample were identified as meritocrats and over a third as egalitarians. As expected meritocrats scored higher on general BJW, entitlement, procedural justice, and equality of opportunity beliefs, and lower on the equality principle compared with egalitarians. Unexpectedly, no differences were observed on scores of equity or need. The equity and need principles, therefore, poorly differentiated between the meritocrat and egalitarian profiles. Notably, for egalitarians, endorsing the principles of equality and equity were not mutually exclusive. The need to believe that efforts are fairly rewarded, may still serve a psychological function, even for those with strong equality views. Justice motive theory suggests that all people have a need to believe in a just world in order to maintain their personal contract (Lerner, 1980). This drive provides a way for people to exert their will over their environment, and work toward valued ends. Egalitarians with lower general BJW, relative to meritocrats, likely still need to believe in a sense of equity, where the effortful pursuit of goals will lead to commensurate rewards.

Surprisingly, the meritocrat profile did not show stronger endorsement of the equity principle compared with egalitarians. Equity is central to BJW theorizing, but as discussed above, may be a widespread view because of the basic psychological role it fulfills. Meritocrats, however, did score lower on equality. In the context of equivalent equity scores, it is not a strong adherence to the equity principle that sets meritocrats apart, but the rejection of the equality principle. Rejecting the notion of equality may be a protective act by meritocrats. Disregarding effort when determining rewards may pose a threat to meritocrat's perception of a just world. Indeed, this explanation aligns with broader just world scholarship showing that threats to general BJW can elicit strong and negative reactions (Ellard et al., 2016).

Meritocrats also had similar scores to egalitarians on the need principle. While literature indicates that people downplay the needs of others in order to avoid a threat to their BJW (Hafer & Choma, 2009; Oldmeadow & Fiske, 2007), experimental evidence suggests that observers do not always derogate a victim, but can show sympathy (see Dawtry et al., 2018 for a review). Downplaying the suffering of others is not a uniform just world response. In this light, the tendency for people with higher general BJW to also espouse the view that resources should be distributed according to need appears reasonable. Indeed, this finding aligns with the positive associations between personal BJW and prosocial and altruistic behavior (see Bartholomaeus & Strelan, 2019 for a review). Notably, the moderate profile was characterized by a rejection of both the equity and need principles. This smaller profile may represent people with ambivalent attitudes toward the structure of society, or those with mixed views toward society not captured in the present study.

4.2 Procedural justice and equality of opportunity

This study showed that meritocrats are more likely to believe in procedural justice and equality of opportunity. These findings support the theorizing that access to Justice Capital might foster both general BJW and procedural justice beliefs. The link between higher general BJW and the perception of equal opportunity aligns with past research showing associations between personal BJW and the perception of just treatment by others (Donat et al., 2016) and the tendency to deem life events as fair (Dalbert & Donat, 2015). These novel findings, however, also extend just world theorizing. People infer repercussions about the justness of their own fate from the observations of others (Bartholomaeus, Burns, & Strelan 2023; Lerner, 1980). This same mechanism may lead people to make assumptions about the access to opportunities others have based on their own opportunities. These findings may be relevant when investigating the associations between BJW and support for equal access policies in education and employment. Believing that equality of opportunity already exists for others may explain why people with strong general BJW are less likely to support policies designed to establish equality of opportunity (e.g., Wilkins & Wenger, 2014).

4.3 Findings on individual- and country-level covariates

Hypotheses relating to the associations between profiles and covariates were largely confirmed. Compared with egalitarians, meritocrats were more likely to have higher income, more years of education, right-leaning political views, and perceive less discrimination. Contrary to hypotheses, religious views and political activity were unrelated to profile membership. Exploratory analysis showed that meritocrats were more likely to be male, younger, and not have experienced a crime in the last 5 years. In support of predictions, meritocrats were more likely to come from countries with higher wealth, whereas country-level inequality was unrelated to profile membership.

These findings further empirically substantiate the Justice Capital framework; those with greater access to wealth and education were more likely to endorse general BJW and related justice beliefs. In line with past research, people with higher general BJW were more likely to be politically conservative (Furnham, 2003), and perceive less personal discrimination (Choma et al., 2012). In this sample, engaging in political activity was rare (see Table S1 in the supplementary material), and this overall lack of variance may have caused the null relationship. Similarly, the decreasing primacy of formal religion throughout Europe may explain the nonsignificant associations between religiosity and profile membership (Tromp et al., 2020).

While exploratory, the associations between gender, age, and victimization provide avenues for extending the Justice Capital framework. For instance, avoiding injustices may be as important a component of Justice Capital as the ability to remediate injustices. The power that many men tacitly experience across cultures (Petersen & Hyde, 2010) may allow them to avoid experiencing injustices. Similarly, young people, spending most of their time in ordered and stable environments (e.g., school and university) where injustices are minimized, may have higher levels of Justice Capital (Oppenheimer, 2006). This aspect of Justice Capital is further highlighted by the tendency for meritocrats to report having no experience of crime against themselves or a household member in the last 5 years. The absence of this injustice may directly lead to the endorsement of meritocratic views, or serve as a proxy for demographic characteristics—such as living in a safe neighborhood or having a secure home—that foster meritocratic views. The Justice Capital framework can be valuably extended by considering not only the access people have to justice, but also how they avoid injustices.

While the level of inequality across countries was unassociated with profile membership, people from countries with higher HDI scores—indicating higher wealth, better healthcare, and access to education—were more likely to espouse meritocratic worldviews. This finding further supports the Justice Capital framework by showing that access to justice is not only important at the individual level, but also at the country level. When a country has the systems to provide easier access to justice for their citizens, the country as a whole may foster a stronger meritocratic belief system. The question that remains unanswered is whether meritocratic worldviews lead to more, or less, positive outcomes for individuals and society. Evidence suggests that BJW has both benefits for the individual (Bartholomaeus & Strelan, 2019) and negative social repercussions (see Hafer & Sutton, 2016 for a review).

4.4 Limitations and future research

This study had a number of limitations. With respect to the latent profile composition, some of the unexpected findings were derived from constructs measured with only a single item, that is, the distributive justice principles of equity, equality, need, and entitlement. Measurement error can amplify or suppress the true associations between constructs (Murrah, 2020). Replication of the findings presented here using multi-item scales and other convergent techniques would be beneficial. Specifically, that participants' support of the equality principle, and not the equity principle, was a distinguishing factor between meritocrats and egalitarians requires replication. The rejection of equality, and not necessarily the endorsement of equity, by proponents of BJW has numerous applied implications, such as further understanding the negative association between general BJW and affirmative action programs (Wilkins & Wenger, 2014).

Additionally, the analyses presented here could not answer questions of causation, specifically between experiences of discrimination and general BJW. Future research testing this causal relationship would provide a more stringent test of the Justice Capital framework. If increased general BJW causes people to perceive less discrimination, then this would support the view that general BJW is a stable higher-order construct that, uninfluenced by life circumstances, guides one's perception of the world (see Clifton, 2020 & Thomas, 2022 for a discussion). If this were the case, the association would provide limited insight into why individuals differ in their general BJW. However, if the experience of discrimination causes people to systematically see the world as less just, then this would contribute to the Justice Capital notion that one's experience of the world determines their BJW (see Bartholomaeus, Kiral Ucar, et al., 2023 for discussion). A future research program might test whether people with strong general BJW are less likely to interpret actions as discriminatory or whether people from more privileged groups encounter less discriminatory actions.