Graduate Trainees’ Social Justice Supports,Beliefs,Interest,and Commitment

Abstract

The present study examined the direct and indirect relationships between belief in a just world, belief in an unjust world, perceived social supports, and training supports, and social justice self-efficacy beliefs, interest, and commitment among 274 graduate counselor trainees. Structural equation modeling revealed that social justice self-efficacy had direct and indirect effects on social justice commitment by bolstering social justice interest. Furthermore, the more participants believed that the world was a just place, the less interest and commitment they expressed for social justice advocacy. Moreover, the more social support, training supports, social justice self-efficacy, and interest participants reported, the higher their commitment to doing social justice work. Finally, training supports only had a direct link to social justice commitment. Implications for theory, training programs, and research are addressed.

Keywords

social cognitive model of social justice social justice interest social justice commitment training

In recent years, scholars from various counseling disciplines (e.g., counseling, clinical, school, social work, marriage, and family) have demonstrated an increased interest in social justice (e.g., Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Shriberg et al., 2008). This is not surprising given that social justice is clearly associated with mental health and well-being (Speight & Vera, 2008), multicultural competence (Arredondo, Tovar-Blank, & Parham, 2008; Vera & Speight, 2003), and nondiscriminatory practices based in social issues (Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005). As such, proponents of social justice argue that therapists and psychologists need to move beyond individual-level interventions to systemic action (Toporek, Gerstein, Fouad, Roysircar, & Israel, 2006). Consistent with this systemic focus, social justice has been equated with the notion of equality or equal opportunity in society. To achieve social justice, advocacy is essential. Social justice advocacy is defined as the response to systemic inequalities that serve to marginalize and disenfranchise various groups of people (Vera & Speight, 2003).

Given the salience of social justice in mental health, researchers (e.g., Caldwell & Vera, 2010; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011) have identified several factors that contribute to the development of positive attitudes toward social justice involvement, such as personal moral imperative, political interests, personal biases, characteristics of the training program, and social support. Despite these important findings, theory-driven investigations are needed to understand the underlying variables that shape social justice beliefs, interest, and commitment among graduate trainees (Miller et al., 2009). In the current study, we aimed to extend previous research (Beer, Spanierman, Greene, & Todd, 2012; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011) by examining the role of social justice self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, interest, and commitment, for graduate trainees across diverse counseling disciplines.

In this study, social justice self-efficacy, interest, and commitment are operationalized similarly to Miller and Sendrowitz’s (2011) use of these terms. Particularly, social justice self-efficacy beliefs have been defined as one’s belief about one’s ability to perform specific social justice tasks across domains; social justice interest as the pattern of likes, dislikes, and indifferences regarding social justice activities; and social justice commitment as the specific choice goals one plans on following to advocate for social justice (Lent et al., 2003; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Based on the work of Bandura (1986), Vroom (1964), and Lent (2005), we defined outcome expectations as personal beliefs about the likely effects (positive or negative) of certain actions based on its valence.

Social Justice Interest and Commitment From a Social Cognitive Framework

Consistent with previous studies (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Miller et al., 2009), the present study utilized the social cognitive model of social justice interest and commitment (based on Social Cognitive Career Theory [SCCT], Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994) as a conceptual framework. Founded in Bandura’s (1986, 2000) social cognitive theory of triadic reciprocity, the model asserts the importance of person attributes (e.g., internal cognitive-affective states or beliefs) and their contexts (e.g., training, peers) in shaping outcome behaviors such as interest and choice goals (i.e., commitment, Lent et al., 1994) in social justice advocacy. Thus, at a person level, domain-specific self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations (i.e., the subjective beliefs that certain acts will produce certain outcomes) facilitate one’s interest in that domain, which then leads to the establishment of goals for involvement in that domain (i.e., commitment, Lent, 2005). These beliefs and expectations are also responsive to contextual factors, and may be modified through personal accomplishments, vicarious learning, and social persuasion (Lent et al., 1994). We believe that this model provides a useful framework because it not only emphasizes the role of self-referent thinking in motivation to act, but also highlights the influence of dynamic and situation-specific interactions between individuals and their changing contexts on personal agency (Lent et al., 1994). Moreover, SCCT has been empirically supported across multiple disciplines (Lent et al., 2001) as well as in counselor training (Lent, Hackett, & Brown, 1998). The model also offers a solid foundation for current conceptual and empirical work on social justice (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Miller et al., 2009) with its links to self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, choice goals (i.e., intent to engage in social advocacy), and actual behavior (i.e., interest, commitment, and social justice advocacy, Nilsson & Schmidt, 2005; Ollif, 2001; Van Voorhis & Hostetter, 2006).

Recent studies (e.g., Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Miller et al., 2009) have examined the role of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations when studying trainees’ interest and commitment in social justice. Although the findings from these studies support the theory of direct and indirect relationships between domain-specific self-efficacy, outcome expectations, interest, and commitment, their generalizability is limited to counseling psychology trainees and college students in general. Moreover, to capture the salience of social justice outcome expectations, we sought to examine the role of belief in a just and an unjust world (a person attribute) that captures a broader “personal belief about probable [positive or negative] response outcome” (Lent et al., 1994, p. 83) based on perceptions of specific actions toward oneself or others. In the current study, we examined the role of self-efficacy beliefs and hypothesized direct and indirect relationships between self-efficacy and the development of social justice interest and commitment. Furthermore, we sought to explore the relationship between belief in a just and an unjust world, a form of outcome expectation, in the development of social justice interest and commitment and perceived social and training supports in the development of social justice self-efficacy, interest, and commitment.

Just and Unjust World Beliefs and Social Justice Interest and Commitment

The importance of multicultural competencies and the need to focus on personal assumptions and biases has been a significant contribution to the counseling literature (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). Such an emphasis has not only highlighted the value-laden process of counseling but also the power and privilege inherent in relationships that influence the attitudes, beliefs, and interactions in society (Anderson & Collins, 2007). One such belief is that of a fair and just world (e.g., myth of meritocracy) where people get what they deserve. The inherent notion here is that a person’s actions will have predictable consequences in meeting the person’s goals (Lerner & Miller, 1978). These assumptions and experiences shape what we know and how we understand our experience (Anderson & Collins, 2007), and have important implications for mental health and advocacy.

Because counselors promote social change with, and on behalf of, their clients, counseling psychologists have focused on person-level variables that influence counselor outcomes. Within the counseling psychology literature, variables such as personal moral imperative (e.g., Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011), spirituality (e.g., Caldwell & Vera, 2010), and inner strength and courage (Beer et al., 2012; Vera & Speight, 2003) have been shown to connect directly to social justice commitment. Yet, the social justice literature has scarcely researched the relationship between belief in a just and an unjust world (Dalbert, Lipkus, Sallay, & Goch, 2001; Lench & Chang, 2007) and a commitment to social advocacy. Just world beliefs refer to the belief that we live in a world where people get what they deserve and deserve what they get (Dalbert et al., 2001; Lerner, 1980). Belief in an unjust world refers to the belief that people often get what they do not deserve, or do not get what they deserve (Lench & Chang, 2007).

The belief in a just or an unjust world is a worldview that is dynamic, subject to contextual factors, and influences one’s attitudes and behaviors. As such, these beliefs capture a broader response outcome and analysis than proposed by Lent and Brown (2006). Although Lent and Brown’s conceptualization focuses on perceived positive outcomes through engagement in social, material, and self-evaluative activities or choice-content goals that influence engagement in social justice advocacy, Lent et al. (1994) highlighted outcome expectations as incorporating the concept of values. Specifically, beliefs in a just and unjust world have personal valence because they are based on one’s personal affective experiences and perceived assumptions about the likely effects of certain actions (Bandura, 1986). Given the value-laden nature of social justice commitment (Helms, 2003), social advocacy must begin with understanding a counselor trainee’s own identity and beliefs (Caldwell & Vera, 2010). Thus, it becomes important to examine how such larger belief systems may relate to advocacy. In particular, prior research has revealed that personal relevance of a situation (i.e., proximal effects), and the resultant positive or negative affective states, have been known to influence social justice judgments (i.e., Ham & van den Bos, 2008; van den Bos, 2003). These studies suggest that feelings associated with being justly or unjustly treated can dictate how individuals make inferences about social justice issues and act on these ideas (van den Bos, 2003). Thus, our interest in this study was to understand if perceptions of just or unjust treatments in general would influence an individual’s interest and/or commitment to social justice advocacy.

Although belief in a just world has been noted to serve protective functions (e.g., higher sense of control and competence, and higher life satisfaction, Dalbert, 1999; Hafer & Olson, 1998), such beliefs create an illusion of order and equity in the world (Dalbert, 2001) and have been noted to relate to social dominance orientation (Oldmeadow & Fiske, 2007). Moreover, the literature on social advocacy and just world beliefs has revealed that belief in a just world negatively influences social justice advocacy because it implies that victims of oppression or injustice are responsible for their fate (Van Soest, 1996). In a study on school counselors’ social justice advocacy, Parikh, Post, and Flowers (2011) found that just world beliefs were a significant negative predictor of school counselor’s likelihood to engage in social justice advocacy, suggesting that school counselors with a lower belief in a just world were more likely to engage in advocacy work. Although these studies provide information on the role of just world beliefs and advocacy, little attention has been given to how one’s unjust world beliefs may relate to interest in, or commitment to, social justice advocacy.

Interestingly, belief in an unjust world has been associated with lower levels of optimism, passive coping strategies (Lench & Chang, 2007), and greater cynicism (Dalbert et al., 2001). A recent study (Liang & Borders, 2012) found that stronger unjust world beliefs mediated the relationship between greater perceived ethnic discrimination and higher anxiety, aggression, and low social connectedness. Thus, when faced with discrimination, individuals with higher unjust beliefs may experience greater anxiety due to a lowered sense of hope (Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams, 1999). Just world beliefs have been found to be negatively correlated with counselors’ social justice advocacy attitudes; thus, we believed it would be worthwhile to examine how unjust world beliefs may relate to graduate trainees’ social justice interest and commitment. Because beliefs influence a person’s social justice judgments (Ham & van den Bos, 2008) and intentionality (van den Bos, 2003), we proposed a direct path from just and unjust world beliefs to social justice interest. Moreover, because a person’s interests influence choices and decisions (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2005), we hypothesized that just world and unjust world beliefs would have direct effects on social justice commitment as well as indirect effects through social justice interest.

Social Justice Social Supports, Training Supports, and Social Justice Interest and Commitment

When studying the role of contextual factors in the development of trainees’ social justice advocacy, research has revealed the importance of both perceived social (i.e., nontraining specific) and training supports (Beer et al., 2012; Caldwell & Vera, 2010; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Miller et al., 2009). Social justice social supports refer to “perceived anticipated proximal social supports (which serve to facilitate goal attainment) . . . inherent in the pursuit of social justice engagement” (Miller et al., 2009, p. 497). However, social justice training supports refer to one’s perception of training program-specific supports (e.g., training environment, faculty) for one’s pursuit of social justice work. Caldwell and Vera (2010) found that social support from family members and peers was significantly related to individuals’ development of a social justice orientation. Specifically, social support that included a wide range of activities such as instilling social justice advocacy as a core value at a younger age; sharing stories about oppression, social injustice, and justice; modeling social justice behaviors; and providing opportunities to engage in social justice advocacy were found to be salient in developing positive attitudes toward social justice work. Similarly, Miller et al. (2009) found that perceived social justice social support reinforced a commitment to activism.

Although limited evidence exists, the training environment also plays an important role in social justice advocacy efforts. Results from a qualitative study by Caldwell and Vera (2010) and a quantitative study by Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) revealed that, for graduate trainees, social-justice-focused readings and scholarship, as well as encouragement from training programs to engage in social justice advocacy, were associated with interest and commitment to social justice advocacy. In addition, Beer et al. (2012) found that the perceived multicultural and social justice emphasis of the training program climate enhanced commitment to social justice over and above trainees’ activism orientation.

The importance of contextual variables on the development of one’s social justice orientation and commitment is clear. Yet, to date, the few studies that have examined the joint influence of both social supports and training supports on social justice interest and commitment provide mixed findings regarding the nature of the relationship between contextual variables and social justice advocacy. For instance, although SCCT has emphasized a direct relationship between contextual variables and goals and actions, Bandura (2000) proposed an indirect relationship between contextual factors and commitments through self-efficacy. Relatedly, supporting Bandura’s assertion, Miller et al. (2009) and Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) found that social justice social supports and social justice training supports were indirectly linked to social justice commitment by strengthening social justice self-efficacy beliefs. Given the contradictory assumptions and research findings (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011), we were interested in examining the direct and indirect relationships between contextual supports (i.e., perceived social and training supports) and graduate trainees’ social justice self-efficacy and commitment. In addition, indirect paths from social justice social supports and social justice training supports to trainees’ social justice interest through self-efficacy were also examined.

The Present Study

To validate the social cognitive model of social justice (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011) across multiple counseling disciplines, and to extend the current research on social justice advocacy, we hypothesized the model shown in Figure 1. We hypothesized that social justice self-efficacy would have a direct effect on social justice interest (Path a), a direct effect on social justice commitment (Path b), and an indirect effect on social justice commitment through social justice interest (Path Aa), and that social justice interest would have a direct effect on social justice commitment (Path c). In addition, we hypothesized that just world beliefs and unjust world beliefs would have direct effects on social justice interest (Paths d and e) and social justice commitment (Paths f and g); in addition, we hypothesized that just world beliefs (Path Bb) as well as unjust world beliefs (Path Cc) would have an indirect effect on social justice commitment through social justice interest. Finally, we hypothesized a direct effect of social justice training supports to both social justice self-efficacy (Path h) and social justice commitment (Path i), and an indirect effect of social justice training support to social justice interest through social justice self-efficacy (Path Dd), and to social justice commitment through social justice self-efficacy and social justice interest (Path Ee). We also hypothesized a direct effect of social justice social support on social justice self-efficacy (Path j) and social justice commitment (Path k), and an indirect effect of social justice social support on social justice interest through social justice self-efficacy (Path Ff), and on social justice commitment through social justice self-efficacy and social justice interest (Path Hh).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Method

Procedure

The present study surveyed a sample of counselors in training via Internet-distributed questionnaires. Lists of master’s and doctoral training programs affiliated with the American Psychological Association (APA), Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), Marriage and Family Therapy Programs, and Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) internship sites were attained from each of the websites. In addition, participants were recruited through listservs (e.g., Counselor Education and Supervision Network Listserv, Asian American Psychological Association, Association for Women in Psychology). Participants included students who identified with the following disciplines: counseling psychology, clinical psychology, school psychology, school counseling, mental health counseling, counselor education, college counseling, addictions counseling, and marriage and family therapy. Eligible participants were directed to a secure online survey created on surveymonkey.com. The online survey included a consent form that described the purpose of the research, procedure, risks associated with the study, confidentiality, anonymity, and voluntary nature of the study along with the questionnaire consisting of multiple measures. Completion of the survey implied informed consent. No incentives were offered to participants for participating in the study.

Participants

In total, 274 counselors in training completed the survey, of whom 81% were female (n = 222), 14% were male (n = 38); approximately 5% did not report. Participants’ age ranged from 22 to 62 years (M = 28.9, SD = 6.5). A majority of the participants (73%) self-reported their race/ethnicity as European American/non-Latino White (n = 200). Other race/ethnicity reports included African American (3.3%; n = 9), Asian American (5.5%; n = 16), Hispanic/Latino (5.1%; n = 14), multiracial (6.6%; n = 18), Native American (1%; n = 2), and Other (5.5%; n = 15). With regard to sexual orientation, 75.2% of the participants (n = 206) self-identified as heterosexual, 5.1% (n = 14) as gay/lesbian, 10.9% (n = 30) as bisexual, 1.8% (n = 5) as queer, and 7% (n = 19) as Other (e.g., pansexual, asexual, etc.). Nearly half (48.5%) of the participants (n = 133) reported their socioeconomic status as middle class. Other socioeconomic statuses that were reported included lower class (8%; n = 22), working class (24.1%; n = 66), upper-middle class (19%; n = 52), and upper class (0.4%; n = 1). Participants were enrolled in counseling psychology programs (42%; n = 115), clinical psychology programs (24.8%; n = 68), school psychology programs (9.2%; n = 25), marital and family therapy programs (8.4%; n = 23), mental health counseling programs (6.2%; n = 17), school counseling programs (3.6%; n = 10), counselor education and supervision programs (1.4%; n = 4), college counseling programs (1.1%; n = 3), addiction counseling programs (1.1%; n = 3), clinical counseling programs (0.7%; n = 2), educational psychology and consultation programs (0.7%; n = 2), and sports and performance counseling (0.7%; n = 2). Ninety-six participants (35%) were in the first year of their graduate program, 59 were second-year students (21.5%), 39 were third-year students (14.3%), 34 were fourth-year students (12.4%), 31 participants were in their fifth year or higher (11.4%), and 15 participants reported other (5.4%). Sixty-two percent of the participants (n = 170) indicated that they had engaged in social justice activities. Seventy-six percent of the participants (n = 209) reported having formal training, such as coursework or workshops or both on social justice advocacy.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire

A short demographic questionnaire was used to asssess participants’ gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Participants also provided information about their education and training, such as degree-seeking status, professional field, what year they were in their program, and whether they had taken any coursework or attended workshops in advocacy.

Social justice training supports

Measured by the Social Justice Training Environment Supports and Barriers instrument (TESB; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011), the TESB has four items measured on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). High TESB scores indicate higher levels of perceived training supports. Examples of TESB items include “In my program, student involvement in social justice work is strongly encouraged” and “In my program, I am given the time, resources, and guidance necessary for engaging in social justice work.” Validity for the TESB was established in Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) via significant correlations with social justice self-efficacy (r = .30, p < .05) and social justice commitment (r = .21, p < .05). Internal consistencies of the TESB were α = .81 and .87 in a previous study (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). In the current study, the internal consistency estimate of the TESB was .87.

Social justice social supports

The Social Justice Social Supports measure (Miller et al., 2009) consists of five items measured on a 10-point scale (0 = not at all likely, 10 = extremely likely). Participants were asked if they were to pursue some type of social justice activity, how likely they believed it was that they would experience various types of support, such as “have access to a role model” and “feel that family members support this decision.” Higher scores indicate higher levels of perceived support for social justice advocacy. Social justice social support was found to have significant and positive relations with social justice self-efficacy (r = .40, p < .01), social justice outcome expectations (r = .42, p < .01), social justice interest (r = .46, p < .01), and social justice commitment (r = .40, p < .01; Miller et al., 2009). Previous studies have found that the internal consistency of the social justice social supports scale ranged from .75 to .89 (Miller et al., 2009). In the current study, the internal consistency estimate was .89.

Just world belief

To measure beliefs that the world is a just place, we used two measures: the General Just World Scale (GJWS; Dalbert et al., 2001) and the Global Belief in Just World Scale (GBJWS; Lipkus, 1991). The GJWS is comprised of six items measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Higher scores reflect greater agreement with the belief that the world is a just place and people get what they deserve (e.g., “I am confident that justice always prevails over injustice,” “I firmly believe that injustices in all areas of life—for example, professional, family, and politics—are the exception rather than the rule”). Construct validity was evidenced by the theory–consistent relationship between belief in just world and religiosity (r = .24, p < .05; Dalbert et al., 2001). Estimates of internal consistency of the GJWS in previous studies ranged from .74 to .91 (Dalbert et al., 2001) and was .81 for the current study.

The GBJWS (Lipkus, 1991) is composed of seven items on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Higher scores reflect greater agreement with the belief that the world is a just place and people get what they deserve (e.g., “I feel that people get what they are entitled to have”). Validity evidence for the GBJWS was established by significant associations with high internal locus of control (Lipkus, 1991) and conservative political ideology (Dalbert et al., 2001). An estimate of internal consistency in a previous study was .65 (Lipkus, 1991). In the current study, the GBJWS yielded an internal consistency estimate of .91.

Unjust world belief

Unjust world belief was measured using two scales: the Unjust World Scale (UWS; Dalbert et al., 2001) and the Unjust World View Scale (UJVS; Lench & Chang, 2007). The UWS (Dalbert et al., 2001) includes four items measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Higher scores reflect greater agreement with the belief that the world is an unjust place (e.g., “A lot of people suffer an unjust fate”). Evidence of the measure’s validity includes a significant and negative correlation with belief in a just world (r = −.59, p < .001; Dalbert et al., 2001). In addition, Dalbert et al. also found that beliefs in a just or an unjust world differed as a function of political ideology. Internal consistency of the measure in previous studies was .66 (Dalbert et al., 2001). For the current study, the internal consistency estimate was .85.

The UJVS (Lench & Chang, 2007) is a five-item measure that uses a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree). Higher scores reflect greater agreement with the belief that the world is an unjust place. Examples of the scale items include “I should have more than what I get” and “People who do evil things get away with it.” Internal consistency estimated in previous studies ranged from .72 to .80 (Lench & Chang, 2007; Liang & Borders, 2012). For the current study, the internal consistency estimate of the UJVS was .62. Construct validity of the UJVS was evidenced by the theory–consistent relationship between unjust world belief and optimism (r = −.34, p < .001; Lench & Chang, 2007).

Social justice self-efficacy

The Social Justice Self-Efficacy scale (Miller et al., 2009) consists of 20 items, measuring an individual’s perceived ability to engage in social justice advocacy behaviors across several domains, including the intrapersonal (e.g., “examine your own worldviews, biases, and prejudicial attitudes after witnessing or hearing about social injustice”), interpersonal (e.g., “challenge an individual who displays racial, ethnic, and/or religious intolerance”), community (e.g., “support efforts to reduce social injustice through your own local fundraising efforts”), and institutional/political (e.g., “leading a group of coworkers in an effort to eliminate workplace discrimination in your place of employment”) domains. Participants were asked to rate their confidence in completing each task on a 10-point scale (0 = no confidence, 9 = complete confidence). High scores represent higher confidence in performing social justice advocacy behaviors (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Construct validity was evidenced by theory–consistent relationships between social justice self-efficacy scores and social justice outcome expectations (r = .56, p < .01), social justice interest (r = .63, p < .01), and social justice commitment (r =.67, p < .01) scores (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). Estimates of the internal consistency of the scale in previous studies ranged from .94 to .96 (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Miller et al., 2009). The internal consistency estimate for this study was .95.

Social justice interest

The Social Justice Interest scale (Miller et al., 2009) has nine items representing a number of social justice activities (e.g., “selecting a career or job that deals with social issues,” “reading about social issues,” “talking to others about social issues”). Participants were asked to rate their interest in each activity on a 10-point scale (0 = very low interest, 9 = very high interest). Criterion-related evidence for social justice interest scores was established with theory–consistent relations with social justice self-efficacy, outcome expectations, commitment, and color-blind racial attitudes scores (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Miller et al., 2009). Prior social justice interest internal consistency estimates ranged from .81 to .90 (Miller et al., 2009), with an alpha coefficient of .83 for a sample of counseling psychology graduate trainees (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). In the current study, the internal consistency estimate of social justice interest was .91.

Social justice commitment

The Social Justice Commitment scale (Miller et al., 2009) consists of four items representing individuals’ goals or intentions to engage in social justice action (e.g., “I have a plan of action for ways I will remain or become involved in social justice activities over the next year”). Participants rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 10-point scale (0 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). Evidence of construct validity was supported by theory–consistent relationships between social justice commitment scores and scores on well established measures of color blindness and universality-diversity orientation (as cited in Miller et al., 2009). Social justice commitment internal consistency estimates in previous studies ranged from .90 to .94 (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011), and was .96 for the present study.

Statistical Analysis

The model shown in Figure 1 depicting the hypothesized relationships between variables was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM); all analyses were conducted with the Amos 22.0 software package using maximum likelihood estimation. Social justice efficacy, interests, and commitment were parameterized as endogenous variables; social justice training support, social justice social support, just world beliefs, and unjust world beliefs were considered exogenous. Following the method used by Miller and Sendrowitz (2011) and Miller et al. (2009), both item parcels and individual items were used as observed indicators of the latent constructs. Specifically, item parcels were used for social justice self-efficacy and social justice interest to reduce the number of estimated parameters. To evaluate model fit, several model fit indices were examined, including the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR), in addition to the chi-square test value. Good model fit was defined a priori as close to .95 or higher on the CFI and TLI, as .06 or lower on the RMSEA, and .08 or lower on the SRMR (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition, given that the original SCCT suggests a direct path from self-efficacy to outcome expectation (Lent et al., 1994), we proposed an alternative model a priori, in which we added a direct path from social justice self-efficacy to just world belief and a direct path from social justice self-efficacy to unjust world belief. In this alternative model, just world belief and unjust world belief were reparameterized as endogenous latent variables to allow the paths from social justice self-efficacy to these variables. The difference in fit between the hypothesized and alternative models was assessed with a chi-square difference test. To test the statistical significance of the indirect effects hypothesized in Figure 1, a bootstrap test with 10,000 samples and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

The correlations among all study variables as well as the descriptive statistics for variables included in the SEM model are shown in Table 1. Preceding data analyses, the data were examined for univariate and multivariate normality. The skewness and kurtosis values for the variables of interest, as well as an examination of normal probability plots, indicated that the data were univariate normal. Bivariate normality evidence was also obtained. Residual statistics were examined to identify outliers (Field, 2009), and no problematic cases were found.

Table 1.

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (N = 274).

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. SJ self-efficacy	–
2. UWS	.01	–
3. UJVS	.01	.30**	–
4. GJWS	−.13*	−.28**	−.29**	–
5. GBJWS	−.17**	−.17**	−.17**	.67**	–
6. TESB	.24**	.06	.07	−.04	−.15*	–
7. SJ social support	.30**	−.03	−.03	.01	−.11	.55**	–
8. SJ interest	.46**	.08	.08	−.24**	−.40**	.32**	.54**	–
9. SJ commitment	.57**	.11	.11	−.31**	−.42**	.36**	.46**	.78**	–
M	121.26	11.79	11.80	16.41	16.99	10.62	30.63	53.48	22.44
SD	29.37	2.73	2.74	4.95	5.74	5.12	10.42	17.82	9.82
Skewness	−0.18	−0.24	−0.25	0.16	0.28	−0.18	−1.07	−1.04	−0.46
Kurtosis	−0.53	0.12	1.09	−0.32	−0.38	−0.82	0.91	1.19	−0.63

Note. UWS = Unjust World Scale; UJVS = Unjust World View Scale; GJWS = General Just World Scale; GBJWS = Global Belief in Just World Scale; TESB = Training Environments Supports and Barriers; SJ = Social Justice.

p < .05. **p < .01.

A MANOVA was conducted to examine potential differences in responses by type of training programs (i.e., counseling psychology, clinical psychology, school psychology, marital and family therapy, mental health counseling, and school counseling; other program types were not included because of their small sample size) for the primary variables of interest (i.e., just world beliefs, unjust world beliefs, social justice social supports, social justice training support, and social justice self-efficacy, interest, and commitment). Results indicated a significant multivariate difference among participant responses from different training programs, Wilks’s Λ = .39, F(63, 1459.17) = 4.26, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .12, p < .001. Post hoc tests revealed training supports to be the only variable on which participants differed by program, F(7, 266) = 6.59, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .15, p < .001. Specifically, participants from counseling psychology programs (M = 12.52, SD = 4.96) reported significantly higher perceived social justice training supports compared with trainees from clinical psychology programs (M = 8.46, SD = 5.22; p < .001) and trainees from school psychology programs (M = 8.52, SD = 3.95; p = .006). The differences between counseling psychology programs and marital and family therapy programs, mental health counseling programs, and school counseling programs were not statistically significant.

Another MANOVA was used to examine potential differences in responses of participants of different races for the variables of interest (i.e., just world beliefs, unjust world beliefs, social justice social supports, social justice training support, and social justice self-efficacy, interest, and commitment). Given that the majority of the participants in this study self-identified as White (73%), we recoded race into a dichotomous variable: White and non-White. Results indicated that White and non-White participants differed significantly on the variables of interest, Wilks’s Λ = .91, F(9, 249) = 2.63, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .09, p = .006. Univariate follow-up tests showed that UJVS (Lench & Chang, 2007) was the only variable on which White and non-White participants differed significantly, F(1, 33.96) = 4.59, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02, p = .03. Specifically, non-White participants (M = 12.518, SD = 3.04) scored significantly higher on the belief that the world is an unjust place compared with their White counterparts (M = 11.64, SD = 2.61).

A third MANOVA was calculated to examine potential gender differences on the variables of interest. Results indicated that female and male participants differed significantly on these variables, Wilks’s Λ = .91, F(9, 250) = 2.56, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .08, p = .008. Specifically, female participants (M = 56.45, SD = 14.24) scored significantly higher than male participants (M = 49.60, SD = 19.06) on the social justice interest measure, F(1, 258) = 6.75, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03, p = .01. In addition, on the social justice commitment measure, F(1, 258) = 7.04, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .03, p = .008, the female participants (M = 23.91, SD = 8.67) also had significantly higher scores than their male counterparts (M = 19.71, SD = 10.85). The female participants (M = 32.17, SD = 8.57) also reported more social justice social support than their male counterparts (M = 28.86, SD = 11.12), F(1, 258) = 4.38, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02, p = .037. However, given that only 14% of this study’s participants were male, these findings on gender differences should be interpreted with caution.

Model Testing

The measurement model exhibited a good fit to the data, χ²(188) = 391.03, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .06 (90% CI = [0.05, 0.07]), SRMR = .05. The hypothesized full model (see Figure 1) also had good fit to the data, χ²(195) = 558.92, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .06 (90% CI = [0.06, 0.07]), SRMR = .07. The variance explained was 13.8% for self-efficacy, 47.0% for interest, and 77.6% for commitment. All factor loadings were statistically significant (see Table 2). In contrast, the alternative model, with an addition of a direct path from social justice self-efficacy to just world belief, and a direct path from social justice self-efficacy to unjust world belief, showed inadequate fit, χ²(193) = 572.85, p < .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .89, RMSEA = .08 (90% CI = [0.08, 0.09]), SRMR = .12, and exhibited significantly poorer fit compared with the hypothesized model, Δχ²(2) = 13.93, p = .001. The variance explained was 11.8% for self-efficacy, 38.3% for interest, and 75.2% for commitment. Therefore, the alternative model was rejected, and the hypothesized model shown in Figure 1 was retained.

Table 2.

Standardized Factor Loadings.

Construct and observed indicators	Factor loadings	SE
Social Justice Self-Efficacy (SJSE)
SJSE Parcel 1	.85	.09
SJSE Parcel 2	.76	.07
SJSE Parcel 3	.88	.07
Social Justice Interest (SJI)
SJI Parcel 1	.89	.12
SJI Parcel 2	.61	.11
Social Justice Commitment (SJC)
SJC Item 1	.90	.09
SJC Item 2	.86	.10
SJC Item 3	.94	.09
SJC Item 4	.95	.10
Social Justice Training Support (TESB)
TESB Item 1	.79	.07
TESB Item 2	.82	.08
TESB Item 3	.87	.08
TESB Item 4	.70	.08
Social Justice Social Supports (SJSS)
SJSS Item 1	.93	.11
SJSS Item 2	.69	.12
SJSS Item 3	.74	.12
SJSS Item 4	.43	.15
SJSS Item 5	.92	.12
Unjust World Belief
Unjust World Scale	.88	.38
Unjust World View Scale	.35	.18
Just World Belief
General Just World Scale	.78	.05
Global Belief in Just World	.84	.05

Note. All factor loadings were significant at p < .001.

The regression weights for all direct paths are shown in Table 3 and Figure 1. Of the 11 estimated structural parameters, seven were statistically significant. Specifically, the model revealed significant direct paths from social justice self-efficacy to social justice interest (Path a) and to social justice commitment (Path b), and a direct path from social justice interest to social justice commitment (Path c). Significant direct paths were also found from just world beliefs to social justice interest (Path d) and social justice commitment (Path f). However, our hypotheses of direct paths from unjust world beliefs to social justice interest (Path e) and social justice commitment (Path g) were not supported. In addition, the path from social justice training supports to social justice self-efficacy (Path h) was not significant. However, the direct path from social justice training supports to social justice commitment (Path i) was significant. Furthermore, the model path estimating the direct effect of domain-specific social justice social support to social justice self-efficacy (Path j) was significant. However, the direct path social justice social support to social justice commitment (Path k) was not significant.

Table 3.

Regression Weights for Direct Paths.

Path	β	SE	p
(a) SJ efficacy → SJ interest	.52	.10	<.001
(b) SJ efficacy → SJ commitment	.26	.12	<.001
(c) SJ interest → SJ commitment	.62	.16	<.001
(d) Just world beliefs → SJ interest	−.49	.21	.003
(e) Unjust world beliefs → SJ interest	−.10	.19	.67
(f) Just world beliefs → SJ commitment	−.21	.23	.04
(g) Unjust world beliefs → SJ commitment	−.13	.19	.22
(h) SJ training supports → SJ efficacy	.15	.10	.07
(i) SJ training supports → SJ commitment	.09	.09	.04
(j) SJ social supports → SJ efficacy	.25	.10	.01
(k) SJ social supports → SJ commitment	.04	.12	.72

Note. SJ = social justice.

A bootstrap test with 10,000 samples and bias-corrected 95% CIs was used to test the statistical significance of the seven indirect effects. Social justice self-efficacy had a significant indirect effect on social justice commitment through social justice interest (Path Aa). Just world belief had a significant indirect effect on social justice commitment through social justice interest (Path Bb). The indirect path from unjust world belief to social justice commitment (Path Cc) was not significant, given the nonsignificant direct path from unjust world beliefs to social justice interest. Social justice training supports did not have a significant indirect effect on either social justice interest (Path Dd) or commitment (Path Ee). Social justice social supports showed an indirect effect on social justice interest through social justice self-efficacy (Path Ff). In addition, social justice social supports had a significant indirect effect on social justice commitment through self-efficacy and interest (Path Hh; see Table 4).

Table 4.

Regression Weights for Indirect Paths.

Path	β	p	95% CI
(Aa) SJ efficacy → SJ interest → SJ commitment	.32	.04	[0.02, 0.55]
(Bb) Just world belief → SJ interest → SJ commitment	−.30	.03	[−5.78, −0.04]
(Cc) Unjust world belief → SJ interest → SJ commitment	−.06	.42	[−6.32, −0.17]
(Dd) SJ training → SJ efficacy → SJ interest	.08	.10	[−0.02, 0.21]
(Ee) SJ training → SJ efficacy → SJ interest → SJ commitment	.09	.12	[−0.03, 2.20]
(Ff) Social support → SJ efficacy → SJ interest	.13	.01	[0.03, 0.28]
(Hh) Social support → SJ efficacy → SJ interest → SJ commitment	.15	.01	[0.03, 0.28]

Note. CI = confidence interval; SJ = social justice.

Discussion

In this study, we examined the direct and indirect relationships between belief in a just world, belief in an unjust world, social justice social supports, social justice training supports, and counseling trainees’ social justice self-efficacy, interest, and commitment, from an established social cognitive social justice model (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011) across multiple counseling disciplines. Findings revealed that our hypothesized model showed an adequate fit to our collected data. Our model explained a considerable amount of variance in social justice self-efficacy, social justice interest, and commitment, providing further validity to our application of the SCCT model to social justice outcomes for trainees.

Consistent with prior research (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Miller et al., 2009), our study revealed that social justice self-efficacy beliefs had a significant direct relation not only to social justice interest but also to social justice commitment. These results continue to highlight the important role of self-efficacy in one’s expressed interest in, and commitment to, social justice advocacy. A second set of variables that we examined was the role of just and unjust world beliefs in the development of social justice interest and commitment. Results indicated significant direct negative associations between belief in a just world and trainees’ social justice interest and commitment. This suggests that the more one believes that the world is a just place in general, and that people get what they deserve, the less interest one has in social justice advocacy and the less likely one is to commit to social justice work. Although consistent with prior research (Parikh et al., 2011), these findings are concerning. In their eagerness to justify their belief, trainees may misperceive the reality of a situation through ignorance, distortions, justifications, or a minimization of the information that threatens their perspective (e.g., Montada, 1998), especially when it may pertain to others. Such rationalizations and denials can result in a lack of a nuanced appreciation of the complexity of social injustice leading to increased prejudice, justification of their own privilege, condoning discrimination, and being indifferent to inequities at both a personal and systemic level (Begue & Bastounis, 2003; Dalbert, 1999; Montada, 1998; Neville, Coleman, Falconer, & Holmes, 2005). These results have important implications for clinical practice.

Conversely, we did not find a significant relationship between belief in an unjust world and trainees’ social justice interest and commitment. Various factors might contribute to this finding. Although belief in an unjust world is considered a stable trait, there has been some speculation regarding the state versus trait characteristic of this variable (Lench & Chang, 2007). Understandably, if an unjust world belief were to be characterized as a state variable, as was the case in our study, it would require greater internal motivation that goes beyond self-efficacy for one to be interested in, and committed to, social justice advocacy. Relatedly, the personal relevance of the situation may also dictate the affective state and motivation to act on the situation (Ham & van den Bos, 2008). As such, the findings may also be a function of the measures used. Although we used measures that focused on both a personal and a global perspective, the lower internal consistency on the personally focused measure (UJVS α = .62) may limit our findings. It is possible that participants were not able to see the personal relevance in the items. Moreover, as Ham and van den Bos (2008) noted, when individuals encounter a situation that is “not fair for me” (p. 705), they are likely to draw stronger inferences about social justice than when such situations involve others. As such, it is important to consider both the proximal or self-serving versus distal effects on one’s interest and commitment to social justice.

We also examined the role of contextual factors in explaining graduate trainees’ social justice self-efficacy, interest, and commitment. Our findings showed that the two contextual factors (i.e., perceived social justice social supports and social justice training supports) functioned dissimilarly. Consistent with SCCT, our findings revealed a direct path from social supports to social justice self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, the greater social supports counselors-in-training perceived they had, the greater self-efficacy they reported for doing social justice work. However, the direct path from social supports to social justice commitment was not significant. In addition, social support was indirectly related to trainees’ social justice interest and commitment by bolstering their self-efficacy in doing social justice work, further supporting the SCCT model and previous research (e.g., Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011). These findings are reassuring in that, although perceiving peer and familial support for advocacy may not directly associate with counselor trainees’ commitment to social justice advocacy, this type of support can increase confidence in engaging in social justice advocacy.

Conversely, perceived social justice training supports did not have a direct relationship with trainees’ social justice self-efficacy but had a significant direct relationship with their commitment to doing social justice work. This is consistent with previous research (Beer, Spanierman, Greene, & Todd, 2012; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Singh et al., 2010). However, contrary to previous findings (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011), it appeared that social justice training supports did not have an indirect effect on either social justice interest or commitment. Findings from our select group of participants across diverse disciplines suggest that, although being in programs that value social justice and having faculty who serve as advocacy role models may not be predictive of greater self-efficacy, these factors may be sufficient for trainees to develop a commitment to social justice advocacy (Beer et al., 2012). Interestingly, our preliminary analyses also revealed that participants across different disciplines differed on the salience of training supports. Specifically, trainees from counseling psychology programs perceived greater social justice training supports when compared with their counterparts in clinical psychology and school psychology. This is not surprising, given the major role that counseling psychology programs have played in incorporating social justice into their curriculum.

Limitations

First, although the demographic characteristics of our sample are consistent with most counseling disciplines and applied psychology programs (APA, 2011), the predominantly homogeneous White female sample is not fully representative of trainee diversity across programs. Similarly, although gender differences in reports on social justice interest, commitment, and social supports provide us with important data on our female participants’ experience, expanding the sample to include more males as well as other diverse participants may provide a more holistic picture. We also attempted to cast a wide net by sending the survey to multiple programs across disciplines. However, we had a limited response from several disciplines (e.g., counselor education). The predominance of trainees from counseling and clinical psychology programs limits the generalizability of our findings to these other disciplines. A second limitation is related to the methodology of data collection. Although the use of an online survey and snowball sampling method is most effective in reaching a wider audience, it also limits our ability to calculate a response rate and poses a self-selection bias threat. It is also possible that the measures used may not have fully captured the construct being studied, resulting in the lack of statistical significance for some of our findings. For instance, the lower reliability coefficient for the UJVS (Lench & Chang, 2007) suggests that the construct may not have been fully assessed for this sample. Similarly, the social justice social supports and training supports measures may be limited by the number of items, and thus the issues being addressed in the measure may not be comprehensive. Finally, we asked our participants to indicate if they had taken courses or received training in diversity. However, we did not gather data related to the number of courses or trainings received, limiting our understanding of the effects of this variable on our sample. Despite these limitations, our findings have important implications for theory, research, and training.

Implications and Future Directions

The findings from our study provide strong support for the social cognitive social justice framework (Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011) in conceptualizing social justice advocacy outcomes for graduate trainees in multiple counseling-related disciplines. In confirming the direct and indirect relationships proposed in the original SCCT model, the study not only supports the role of self-efficacy but also extends the model by finding a significant direct relationship between beliefs in a just world and social justice interest. In emphasizing just world beliefs, the current research makes a unique contribution by highlighting the importance of exploring trainees’ personal values and beliefs (as outcome expectations) that may lessen social justice interest and commitment in their professional lives (Beer et al., 2012). Because the experience of oppression or injustice may result in “costly life decisions” (Lent et al., 1994, p. 84), considering larger worldviews that impact efforts toward advocacy is important in extending the original model on social justice advocacy.

The role of just world beliefs in our findings also has significant empirical implications. Specifically, if trainees have stronger beliefs in a just world, they may believe that victims of oppression are responsible for their experiences and hence get what they deserve. Such beliefs suggest a narrow and less nuanced understanding of issues pertinent to structural and systemic barriers, and of the need to address social justice at a broader sociocultural level. It also perhaps highlights a less mature stage of identity development. Caldwell and Vera (2010) noted that one’s social identity can be an important influential factor in the formation of one’s social justice commitment. As such, it would be worthwhile to examine the relationship between trainees’ identity development (e.g., racial identity, feminist identity) and their commitment to social justice advocacy. Understanding trainees’ levels of awareness regarding oppression and discrimination would have important implications for training.

Moreover, because trainee bias can influence attitude, empathy, and the ability to conceptualize client cases in a culturally sensitive manner (Brooks, Inman, Klinger, Malouf, & Kaduvettoor, 2010), it would be helpful to make connections between personal beliefs, isms, and the therapeutic process. Trainees may benefit from structured courses that explore the development of personal beliefs or worldviews (e.g., just world) through different activities (e.g., racial-cultural counseling laboratory; Carter, 2003). Specifically, attention can be placed on understanding the relationship between privilege and oppression (e.g., how personal privilege may mask one’s ability to see oppression in others) so that trainees can help navigate the different systems of oppression that can exist for clients within and across systems (Parikh et al., 2011). Moreover, appreciating how worldviews and beliefs are dynamic and can be influenced by personal and contextual experiences are important lessons to be imparted to trainees. Such lessons can allow for a deeper understanding of the complexities inherent in social inequities. Furthermore, such explorations may not only increase cultural competence but also promote interest and positive response outcomes in social justice work (Bandura, 2000). Similarly, having intentional courageous conversations in classes regarding different forms of isms, discrimination, and oppression will allow less experienced trainees to increase their awareness through social persuasion and vicarious learning (Lent et al., 1994).

Finally, consistent with previous research (Beer et al., 2012; Miller & Sendrowitz, 2011; Singh et al., 2010), receiving social justice social support and having a social justice affirming training environment can play a crucial role in shaping trainees’ commitment to social justice advocacy. Merely having attitudes that are congruent with the goals of social justice is insufficient for social justice advocacy. Isolating and recognizing personal social supports and having an intentional training environmental structure (e.g., receiving programmatic support, faculty guidance and mentor, community partnerships) within which social justice work occurs can empower trainees and lead to a greater commitment to social justice advocacy (Caldwell & Vera, 2010).

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Both the first author and the second author contributed equally to the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Arpana G. Inman received her PhD in counseling psychology from Temple University. Currently, she is chairperson of the Department of Education and Human Services and professor in Counseling Psychology at Lehigh University. Her scholarly interests include multicultural and social justice competencies in supervision and training, South Asian-Asian American immigrant identity coping and mental health, and international psychology.

Linh P. Luu is a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology at Lehigh University. She received her Master’s of Science in Counseling Psychology from Chatham University. Her scholarly interests include social justice advocacy and multicultural competency, counselor supervision and training, and racial and gender issues.

Asmita C. Pendse, MA, is a PhD student in counseling psychology at Lehigh University. Her research interests are in the areas of international students’ adjustment issues and multicultural and diversity issues in supervision and training.

Grace I. L. Caskie, PhD, is currently an associate professor in the Department of Education and Human Services, Counseling Psychology program, at Lehigh University. Her research focuses on quantitative methods and links between the areas of cognition, health, and functional outcomes across the lifespan.

References

American Psychological Association. (2011). Commission on accreditation 2011 annual report online—Summary data: Doctoral programs. Retrieved from http://apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/research/2011-doctoral-summary.pdf

Anderson

M. L.

Collins

P. H.

(2007). Race, class, & gender: An anthology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Arredondo

Tovar-Blank

Z. G.

Parham

T. H.

(2008). Challenges and promises of becoming a culturally competent counselor in a sociopolitical era of change and empowerment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 261-268. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00508.x

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00064

Beer

A. M.

Spanierman

L. B.

Greene

J. C.

Todd

N. R.

(2012). Counseling psychology trainees’ perceptions of training and commitments to social justice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 120-133. doi:10.1037/a0026325

Begue

Bastounis

(2003). Two spheres of belief in justice: Extensive support for the bidimensional model of belief in a just world. Journal of Personality, 71, 435-463. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7103007

Brooks

Inman

A. G.

Klinger

Malouf

Kaduvettoor

(2010). In her own words: Ethnic minority bisexual women’s self reported counseling needs. Journal of Bisexuality, 10, 253-267. doi:10.1080/15299716.2010.500959

Caldwell

J. C.

Vera

E. M.

(2010). Critical incidents in counseling psychology professionals’ and trainees’ social justice orientation development. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 163-176. doi:10.1037/a0019093

10.

Carter

R. T.

(2003). Becoming racially and culturally competent: The racial-cultural counseling laboratory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 20-30. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003.tb00527.x

11.

Clark

Anderson

Clark

V. R.

Williams

D. R.

(1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54, 805-816. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.805

12.

Dalbert

(1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 12, 79-98. doi:10.1023/A:1022091609047

13.

Dalbert

(2001). The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. New York, NY: Plenum.

14.

Dalbert

Lipkus

I. M.

Sallay

Goch

(2001). A just and unjust world: Structure and validity of different world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 561-577. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00055-6

15.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

16.

Hafer

Olson

(1998). Individual differences in beliefs in a just world and responses to personal misfortune. In Montada

Lerner

(Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in the just world (pp. 87-105). New York, NY: Plenum.

17.

Ham

van den Bos

(2008). Not fair for me! The influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 699-705. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.009

18.

Helms

J. E.

(2003). A pragmatic view of social justice. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 305-313. doi:10.1177/0011000003031003006

19.

Bentler

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

20.

Lench

H. C.

Chang

E. S.

(2007). Belief in an unjust world: When beliefs in a just world fail. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 126-135. doi:10.1080/00223890701468477

21.

Lent

R. W.

(2005). A social cognitive view of career development and counseling. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory to work (pp. 101-127). New York, NY: John Wiley.

22.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

(2006). On conceptualizing and assessing social cognitive constructs in career research: A measurement guide. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 12-35. doi:10.1177/1069072705281364

23.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Brenner

Chopra

S. B.

Davis

Talleyrand

Suthakaran

(2001). The role of contextual supports and barriers in the choice of math/science educational options: A test of social cognitive hypotheses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 474-483. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.474

24.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79-122. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027

25.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Schmidt

Brenner

Lyons

Treistman

(2003). Relation of contextual supports and barriers to choice behavior in engineering majors: Tests of alternative social cognitive models. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 458-465. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.4.458

26.

Lent

R. W.

Hackett

Brown

S. D.

(1998). Extending social cognitive theory to counselor training: Problems and prospects. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 295-306. doi:10.1177/0011000098262005

27.

Lerner

M. J.

(1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

28.

Lerner

M. J.

Miller

(1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1050. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.5.1030

29.

Liang

C. T. H.

Borders

(2012). Beliefs in an unjust world mediate the associations between perceived ethnic discrimination and psychological functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 528-533. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.022

30.

Lipkus

(1991). The construction and preliminary validation of a global belief in a just world scale and the exploratory analysis of the multidimensional belief in a just world scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1171-1178. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90081-L

31.

Luszczynska

Schwarzer

(2005). Social cognitive theory. In Conner

Norman

(Eds.), Predicting health behaviour (pp. 127-169). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

32.

Miller

M. J.

Sendrowitz

(2011). Counseling psychology trainees’ social justice interest and commitment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 159-169. doi:10.1037/a0022663

33.

Miller

M. J.

Sendrowitz

Connacher

Blanco

Muniz de la Pena

Bernardi

Morere

(2009). College students’ social justice interest and commitment: A social cognitive approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 495-507. doi:10.1037/a0017220

34.

Montada

(1998). Belief in a just world: A hybrid of justice motive and self-interest. In Montada

Lerner

(Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in the just world (pp. 87-105). New York, NY: Plenum.

35.

Neville

Coleman

Falconer

Holmes

(2005). Color-blind racial ideology and psychological false consciousness among African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 31, 27-45. doi:10.1177/0095798404268287

36.

Nilsson

J. E.

Schmidt

C. K.

(2005). Social justice advocacy among graduate students in counseling: An initial exploration. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 267-279. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0030

37.

Oldmeadow

Fiske

(2007). System-justifying ideologies moderate status competence stereotypes: Roles for belief in a just world and social dominance orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1135-1148. doi:10.1002/ejsp.428

38.

Ollif

C. E.

(2001). Can 28 days make a difference? A case study of Community Aid Abroad’s Community Leadership Program. Australian Geographical Studies, 39, 353-364. doi:10.1111/1467-8470.00151

39.

Parikh

S. B.

Post

Flowers

(2011). Relationship between a belief in a just world and social justice advocacy attitudes of school counselors. Counseling and Values, 56, 57-72. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2011.tb01031.x

40.

Shriberg

Bonner

Sarr

B. J.

Walker

A. M.

Hyland

Chester

(2008). Social justice through a school psychology lens: Definition and application. School Psychology Review, 37, 453-468.

41.

Singh

A. A.

Hofsess

C. D.

Boyer

E. M.

Kwong

Lau

A. S.

McLain

Haggins

K. L.

(2010). Social justice and counseling psychology: Listening to the voices of doctoral trainees. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 766-795. doi:10.1177/0011000010362559

42.

Speight

S. L.

Vera

E. M.

(2008). Social justice and counseling psychology: A challenge to the profession. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

(Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 54-68). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

43.

Sue

D. W.

Arredondo

McDavis

R. J.

(1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70, 477-486. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.1992.tb00563.x

44.

Toporek

R. L.

Gerstein

L. H.

Fouad

N. A.

Roysircar

Israel

(Eds.). (2006). Handbook for social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and action. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

45.

van den Bos

(2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 482-498. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.482

46.

Van Soest

(1996). Impact of social work education on student attitudes and behavior concerning oppression. Journal of Social Work Education, 32, 191-202. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23043191?uid=3739864&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104744240777

47.

Van Voorhis

R. M.

Hostetter

(2006). The impact of MSW education on social worker empowerment and commitment to client empowerment through social justice advocacy. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 105-121. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23044081?uid=3739864&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104744240777

48.

Vera

E. M.

Speight

S. L.

(2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 253-272. doi:10.1177/0011000003031003001

49.

Vroom

V. H.

(1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.