Justice Perceptions and Demographics of Privilege Among Brazilian Adolescents

Abstract

Drawing from just world theory and system justification theory, this study explores how privileged status influences perceptions of justice. Data from 475 Brazilian adolescents across three schools shed light on how adolescents’ social demographics (ethnicity, education, and income) influence their perceptions of fairness. Adolescents from higher income or educational privilege backgrounds had higher personal belief in a just world (BJW), and better perceptions of legal authorities, but lower general BJW. The opposite was true for less privileged adolescents, indicating that those from lower income homes are less likely to differentiate between personal and general BJW. Contrary to the hypothesis, ethnicity was not a significant variable, but the results were in the expected direction. This research is discussed under the framework of system justification theory and just world theory and provides insight into how the theories complement each other in socially unequal contexts.

Keywords

Just world ethnicity sociocultural topics sociocultural issues in psychology privilege socioeconomic status legal authorities

Introduction

Perception of a fair environment enables people to establish a sense of agency and commitment to future goals because they believe they can control their environment because it is predictable and just (Hafer, Bègue, Choma, & Dempsey, 2005). Social inequality puts many Brazilian citizens in immobile situations regardless of personal effort or abilities. Brazilian adolescents are growing up in a complex society and grappling with inequalities across ethnic and economic lines. This study seeks to understand how adolescents’ demographics of privilege influence their perceptions of justice.

This study assesses adolescents’ perceptions of fairness in four different domains (personal life, school, legal authorities, and general world) and seeks to understand the differences across school, ethnicity, and income groups. Lerner (1980) first described the belief in a just world (BJW) as the belief that the world is a fair place where people get what they deserve and determine their own fate. Research has shown important differences between BJW groups based on their level of privilege in experimental studies (Laurin, Fitzsimons, & Kay, 2011; Thomas & Mucherah, 2016), yet no studies of this nature have been conducted in Latin American, the global region with the most inequality (Barcena & Byanyima, 2016). In addition, little work seeking to understand justice beliefs across status groups has been conducted on adolescent samples. This study incorporates both system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994) and just world theory (Lerner, 1980) to understand how adolescents’ perceptions of justice in their personal lives, in their schools, with legal authorities, and in the world, in general, are differentiated across three markers of privilege (education, income, and ethnicity). The location and sample of this study can reveal important nuances to the application of prior research on just world theory and system justification theory (SJT).

Perceptions of justice

The BJW is a coping mechanism to diminish the threat of prevalent injustice in society. People are motivated to believe the world is a just place where people get what they deserve and determine their own fate (Lerner, 1980). Since its initial conceptualization, BJW has been differentiated into various constructs such as General BJW (or “justice for others”) and Personal BJW (or “justice for self”) (Lipkus, Dalbert, & Siegler, 1996). For other differentiations, see Furnham (2003) and Hafer and Bègue (2005). Personal BJW refers to the belief that one’s personal life is fair, while General BJW is the belief that the world in general is fair (Dalbert, 1999).

Personal BJW in Western samples is positively related to indices of healthy adaptive behaviors because it provides a confidence that one will be treated fairly and safe from random injustices (Dalbert, 2009). When people have a high Personal BJW, they are more likely to believe that their hard work will be compensated, a precondition for establishing long-term goals (Dalbert, 2004). Students with a high Personal BJW are more confident that they can achieve personal long-term goals (Hafer et al., 2005; Sutton & Winnard, 2007) and academic success (Correia & Dalbert, 2007; Dalbert & Stöeber, 2006).

General BJW incorporates assumptions about society and is not necessarily activated within personal contexts. People can hold on to the positive belief that they will be treated fairly, while still acknowledging that injustices exist in society. General BJW is connected to people’s opinions of societal institutions such as the health care system, major companies, and local and global political institutions (Correia & Vala, 2004). A high General BJW is also more predictive of harsh social attitudes, such as victim blaming (Dalbert, 2009), because it endorses the fairness of systems and others’ experiences. When people believe the world is generally fair, yet cannot restore justice tangibly (by helping the victim or witnessing restoration), they tend to restore justice psychologically by blaming the victim in order to diminish cognitive dissonance with their BJW (Lerner & Simmons, 1966). Personal BJW and General BJW appear to have similar origins but have distinct trajectories and purposes across human development (Dalbert & Sallay, 2004). Adolescence is a sensitive period for BJW differentiation with the development of abstract reasoning and critical evaluation of authorities (Dalbert & Sallay, 2004).

Perception of school fairness

Although there are multiple facets of school climate, this study focuses on students’ perceptions of the fairness within their school environment. Research findings consistently indicate students’ interactions with teachers and their perceptions of school as fair are vital for daily life coping. Perceived fairness of school climate allows for greater group cohesion and adherence to common rules. Perceived fairness of authority treatment is vital for the perception of social inclusion (Dalbert, 2004; Donat, Umlauft, Dalbert, & Kamble, 2012; Emler & Reicher, 2005; Lind & Tyler, 1988). The perception of being treated fairly by authorities provides feedback of one’s value to the group (Emler & Reicher, 2005; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1997), thus influencing their identification and social contract with the group (Tyler, 1997). Similarly, students who perceive fair treatment in school feel more included and are more motivated to behave fairly toward others in school (Donat et al., 2012). When students feel unfairly singled out, they will be less likely to buy in to group rules because they do not feel adequately included (Emler & Reicher, 2005). This sense of exclusion can reinforce rule-violating behavior because students no longer feel an obligation to defer to group authorities and group rules. Over time, those who feel rejected by authorities may begin to reject authorities (Emler & Reicher, 2005). Perception of fairness of the school climate can help students attribute their grades to their effort and assimilate negative consequences to negative behaviors, thus establishing an internal locus of control.

Perceived fairness of legal authorities

Perceptions of the fairness and legitimacy of public agencies are central to the adolescent legal socialization process (Cohn, Trinkner, Rebellon, Van Gundy, & Cole, 2012; Piquero, Fagan, Mulvey, Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005). Perceiving legal authorities as fair and unbiased allows people to attribute legitimacy to power (Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero et al., 2005; Sanches, Gouveia-Pereira, & Carugati, 2012) and is an important precondition for motivation to comply with collective rules (Cohn et al., 2012; Correia & Vala, 2004; Dalbert & Sallay, 2004). Authorities need group members to defer voluntarily to rules and enforcers by acknowledging legitimacy (Piquero et al., 2005; Tyler, 1997). Adolescents’ personal and vicarious perceptions of fair treatment by legal, judicial, and law enforcement authorities influence their buy in to societal rules and their interactions with authorities (Fagan & Tyler, 2005). Research in the United States has shown that ethnic minorities are less likely to perceive legal authorities to be fair and more likely to have a negative attitude compared to those of White-European descent (Piquero et al., 2005; Tyler, Goff, & MacCoun, 2016).

System justification

SJT posits that humans are motivated to justify the existing social order (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004). Those in disadvantaged groups have a greater motivation to justify the system because of the dissonance between self/group motivations and system motivations. This justification occurs at the nonconscious level and helps people rationalize the status quo and attribute meaning to their situation. Perceptions of fairness can be moderated by system justification beliefs, such as BJW and social standing. SJT is compatible with just world theory in that both help people justify the existing realities (Jost & Banaji, 1994). However, Jost and Banaji (1994) argue that BJW is most relevant in exploitive systems where people are motivated to justify existing inequality. Since the publication of SJT, research on BJW has further emphasized the importance of separating the Personal and General BJW. This distinction separates the personal coping resource (Personal BJW) from a system-justifying ideology (General BJW) embedded in just world theory. People are particularly prone to engage in system justifying thoughts in situations of system dependency and inescapability (Kay & Friesen, 2011). If this is true, Brazilian adolescents in less advantaged demographic groups will have higher General BJW, but a lower Personal BJW than those in the more privileged demographics.

Economic, ethnic, and educational inequalities

Brazil is a society of great economic inequality. It has many poor and vulnerable groups, yet it is not a poor country. Compared internationally, Brazil has a medium per capita income and plenty of natural resources (Honorato da Silva & Sampaio, 2010). However, the unequal distribution of resources indicates that societal economic distribution may influence BJW development. Past studies have linked higher economic inequality with higher General BJW (Correia, Kamble, & Dalbert, 2009; Furnham, 1993; Malahy, Rubinlicht, & Kaiser, 2009). Researchers have attributed this correlation to the desire to legitimize social status (Furnham, 1993; Malahy et al., 2009). In a more recent study, Laurin et al. (2011) found that the well-being and motivation of those in disadvantaged groups was more tied to their General BJW than among more privileged groups. This could be because the privileged groups have the advantage of learning about inequalities from a safer distance and thus can afford to have a lower General BJW without it threatening their motivation and well-being. Meanwhile, those in less privileged groups who are greater targets of injustice, discrimination, and lack of opportunities are more likely to see their fate tied to the fairness of the society.

Ethnic background and social inequality are confounded in Brazil, and it is impossible to separate racial discrimination from economic discrimination and educational inequality (Bailey, 2009; Gonzalez, 2008; Telles, 2004). Brazilians with lighter skin have a disproportionate share of wealth and power, and the less affluent are likely to have darker skin tones (Marcus, 2013; Telles, 2004). This study was carried out in Southern Brazil, where the majority of the population (70%–86%) self-identifies as White (IBGE, 2008). The results from this study must be understood within the racial context of Southern Brazil.

The divide between private and public schools sustains the income disparity cycle because students who come from lower income situations tend to attend public schools (Gamboa & Waltenberg, 2012; Honorato da Silva & Sampaio, 2010). A qualitative study among high school students reported that students were intensely aware of this educational disparity and described it as “a poor education for the poor” (Leão, Dayrell, & dos Reis, 2011). The gap between public and private is readily seen in the academic quality and performance among students (Oliveira, Belluzzo, & Pazello, 2013; Program for International Student Assessment, 2012). Students in public schools tend to perform consistently lower compared to those in private schools. In the 2009 PISA data, public students averaged 373–398 in the areas of math, science, and reading, while students from private schools averaged 485–516 in the three subject areas (Gamboa & Waltenberg, 2012). To put these numbers in context, the average score among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD; 2010) countries is 500 points, and the standard deviation is 100 points. Students in private schools performed comparably to the average of the OECD countries, while those in public schools performed on average 111 points lower, making the gap the largest divide among Latin American countries (Gamboa & Waltenberg, 2012). Adolescents from private schools significantly outperform public school students in tasks of memory, writing, sustained attention, and constructional and reflective abilities even after controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) and age (Casarin, Wong, Parent, de Salles, & Fonseca, 2012).

The unequal access to resources (economic and educational) puts many Brazilian citizens in immobile situations regardless of personal effort or abilities. Lerner (1980) first described BJW as the belief that the world is a just place where people get what they deserve and determine their own fate. Being the victim of discrimination and systemic immobility likely influences adolescents’ perception of justice. Brazilian adolescents are grappling with inequalities in education, race, and economic status, and this study seeks to understand how their inclusion in different demographic groups influences their perceptions of justice.

This study incorporates samples from private, public, and military schools into its design in order to explore the differences between student experiences and perceptions in different educational settings. The nuances of the military school are detailed in the Method section. For the purpose of this literature overview, the military school has many similarities to the private schools. It is selective in nature and generally considered a prestigious and preparatory environment for higher education.

Hypotheses

This study hypothesizes that lower status groups (lower income, public schools, and minorities) will have a higher General BJW, but lower Personal BJW and lower perceptions of legal authorities than those in higher status groups.

Method

Translation

All of the scales used in this study were published in the English language. For the purpose of this study, they were translated into Portuguese by a native Portuguese speaker, and then two Brazilian psychologists back-translated the items for authenticity. In addition, two Brazilian teachers analyzed and critiqued the instruments to ensure that all items were at students’ reading levels. All items maintained their original meaning after back-translation.

Instruments

Demographics

The questionnaire was anonymous, but students were asked to report their sex, race, family income, age, school, and grade level in school. All of these, with the exception of age, were presented as categorical variables, and the students chose a preexisting option. Family income was measured according to the equivalent number of minimum wages the family brings in every month. This is a customary way to calculate family economic status in Brazil, and students selected among three income brackets. Ethnicity was measured based on students’ self-identification of the same categories used in the Brazilian census.

Belief in a just world

This was measured through Dalbert’s (1999) Personal BJW (e.g., “I am usually treated fairly”) and General BJW questionnaire (e.g., “I am confident that justice always prevails over injustice”). General BJW had been previously validated in Brazil (Pimentel et al., 2010). A reliability analysis revealed both constructs had adequate internal consistency: General BJW (α = .65) and Personal BJW (α = .76). These results are consistent with prior research studies in European samples (Dalbert, 1999; Oppenheimer, 2006).

Fairness of school climate

Five items from the Delaware School Climate (Bear, Gaskins, Blank, & Chen, 2011) (e.g., “The consequences of breaking school rules are fair”) and two items from the shortened version of the California School Climate and Safety Survey (Furlong et al., 2005) (e.g., “Adults in this school treat students fairly”) were used. Many studies with high school students have used both instruments (Bear, Yang, Pell, & Gaskins, 2014; Gendron, Williams, & Guerra, 2011; Yang et al., 2013). Items were selected based on their conceptual relationship with fairness in school. Two of the items from the Delaware School Climate survey were modified slightly to better fit the Brazilian society. The original items read “of all cultures and races” and the modified version read “of all races and social classes” due to the literature regarding the relevancy of social class in Brazil. After back-translation, all of the items maintained their original meaning. The reliability coefficient for this subscale was α = .82.

Perceptions of legal authorities

This was measured through a compilation of items from scales of evaluation of authorities constructed based on the work of Emler and Reicher (1987), Rubini and Palmonari (1995), and Tyler (1997). Gouveia-Pereira, Vala, Rubini, and Palmonari (2003) compiled these items to evaluate the perceptions of public authorities including the police, the legal system, and the judicial system (e.g., “In general, the decisions of the courts/judges are fair”). The reliability coefficient for this subscale was α = .67. All items were assessed on a six-point Likert scale ranging from “completely disagree” to “completely agree.”

Procedure

Three schools participated in the study: a private school, a public school, and a military school. These three were selected in order to get a diverse sample of the city and recruit students from various socioeconomic backgrounds. The private school is located in a middle-class residential neighborhood, and most of its students expect to attend college. The public school is located in the outskirts of the city in a low-income neighborhood.

The military school is a publicly funded school; however, it holds many demographic and academic similarities to a private school. It is a prestigious school known for academic rigor. Although it is official policy that students must pass an examination to enter the school, many community members mentioned that those who have strong social, political, or law enforcement connections are admitted in the school. The school can serve as a preparatory setting for both civilian and military postsecondary institutions.

All of the school’s administrations formally granted access to the classrooms to request student participation. Students enrolled in the eighth grade through senior year in high school were invited to participate by voluntarily completing surveys during class time. Students were informed of the voluntary and anonymous nature of the study and asked to complete an informed consent form with their parents prior to the data collection. This study was approved by the institutional review board and the school administration. Completion of the surveys took approximately 10–15 minutes.

Participants

Four-hundred seventy-five students participated in the study. Of these, 218 (46.1%) were male. There were 137 from the public school, 133 from the private school, and 205 from the military school. Students ranged from 12 to 19 years old with most being 15 (30.6%) or 16 (23.3%). All participants were between the eighth and the twelfth grade. The majority of the students self-identified as White (70.1%). Eighteen participants (3.8%) left this question blank. There were not sufficient participants in the four minority categories; this variable was dichotomized as majority/minority. Students were asked to self-identify their family’s income bracket out of three options; 26.7% reported being in the lowest bracket (1–3 times the minimum wage), 35.4% reported being in the middle bracket (4–6 times the minimum wage), and 25.3% reported being in the highest bracket (7 or more times the minimum wage). This is a common way for Brazilians to quantify wealth within the household. Students did not raise any questions about this variable during the pilot study. However, a total of 60 participants (12.6%) left this variable blank. See Results section for details about how missing values were handled.

Results

A three-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the four latent constructs of justice (Personal BJW, General BJW, school climate, and legal authorities) was conducted to test for differences and interactions among family income (low, medium, and high), school (public, private, and military), and ethnicity (majority and minority). MANOVA is appropriate when dependent variables are related conceptually and are at least moderately correlated (Finch & French, 2013). Prior research has revealed Personal and General BJW to be correlated (Dalbert & Sallay, 2004; Dette, Stöeber, & Dalbert, 2004; Sallay, 2004). BJW has also been positively correlated with perceptions of fairness at school (Dalbert & Stöeber, 2005; Donat et al., 2012), and perceptions of school authorities are correlated with those of legal authorities (Gouveia-Pereira et al., 2003; Sanches et al., 2012).

Analysis of missing data

Preliminary assessment of missing data revealed a small amount of missing data in the variables for ethnicity (n = 18, 3.8%) and family income (n = 60, 12.6%). Although this is not a large proportion of missing data, it was taken into careful consideration during the analysis process. Those missing data were considered to be missing at random because the missing value is likely dependent on some measured characteristic of the individual but not on the missing value itself (Finch, 2010). Since the data might not be missing completely at random, and ignoring the missing data can lead to biased results (Finch, 2010), multiple imputation (MI) was used to account for the missing cases. The MI method creates multiple imputed values for each missing data piece based on variables across the whole data set. This analysis used the MI using chained equations (MICE) method, combined with the classification and regression trees (CART) equation. This methodology makes very few assumptions about the distribution of the variables, the relationships between them, and has been shown to reveal the most accurate imputations (Finch, 2016). Means and standard deviations were obtained by averaging the analysis across all five imputed data sets. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics of each latent construct across all levels of analysis.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics across groups: mean (SD).

	Low	Medium	High	Majority	Minority	Public	Private	Military
Personal BJW	3.83 (0.75)	3.99 (0.73)	4.12 (0.84)	4.03 (0.77)	3.82 (0.81)	3.82 (0.85)	4.11 (0.74)	3.99 (0.77)
General BJW	3.47 (0.83)	3.26 (0.80)	3.21 (0.81)	3.31 (0.81)	3.33 (0.84)	3.52 (0.88)	3.36 (0.74)	3.14 (0.78)
School climate	4.03 (0.99)	4.27 (0.89)	4.21 (0.94)	4.26 (0.91)	3.96 (0.98)	3.97 (0.94)	4.33 (0.83)	4.22 (0.98)
Legal authorities	2.84 (0.74)	3.18 (0.89)	3.36 (0.73)	3.17 (0.84)	2.99 (0.77)	2.70 (0.72)	2.92 (0.67)	3.54 (0.79)

Note. All variables are on a six-point Likert scale. BJW: belief in a just world; SD: standard deviation.

The data were analyzed in R, utilizing the MICE package and CART method, creating five independently imputed data sets, each with 40 iterations. Upon the imputation process, a MANOVA was subsequently conducted on all five imputed data sets, and the results were pooled for the most accurate interpretation of the findings. The analysis below is a combination of the results from the five imputed data sets.

Multivariate analysis of variance

Homogeneity of covariance matrices was assessed through Box’s M test and did not violate the assumption of equality (p > .05). Multivariate normality was assessed using Mardia’s test and found to be significantly different from normal parameters (p > .05). However, MANOVA is robust to nonnormal data, and since the other assumptions were met, MANOVA was still the most appropriate analysis. None of the interactions between the three independent variables were significant (p > .05). There were significant main effects in the area of income, F(2, 84.2) = 8.962, p = .01, η²= .05, and school, F(2, 79.8) = 16.15, p = .01, η²= .05, but no significant differences between ethnic groups, F(1, 207.6) = 2.24, p = .15, η²= .02. Discriminant analyses were conducted as a follow-up procedure on school and family income. The coefficients reported are centered, but not standardized, since it was run utilizing the lda function in R. All variables were on the same scale (1–6); therefore, the strength of the variables can be interpreted by comparison.

Family income

Students from different levels of family income had significantly different perceptions of justice. A follow-up discriminant analysis revealed that Personal BJW (r = −.58), General BJW (r = .82), and legal authorities (r = −.94) all contributed in ascending order to the difference between income levels. School climate did not meaningfully contribute to the difference between groups (r = −.014). As seen in Figure 1, those in higher family income brackets had higher perceptions of Personal BJW (d = .36) and legal authorities (d = .71) compared to the lowest income bracket. However, students in the lowest income bracket had higher General BJW compared to those in the highest income bracket (d = −.32).

Figure 1.

Means across family income levels. BJW: belief in a just world.

School

The follow-up discriminant analysis indicated that General BJW (r = −.73) and perceptions of legal authorities (r = 1.33) were the variables which most meaningfully contributed to the difference between schools. General BJW was highest among students in the public school and lowest among students in the military school (d = .46). The most notable difference between the schools was in their perceptions of legal authorities. Students in the military school had the most positive perceptions of legal authorities compared to students in the private (d = .84) and public schools (d = 1.11). Cohen’s d values were calculated on General BJW and legal authorities between schools (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Means across schools. BJW: belief in a just world.

Ethnicity

Although ethnicity did not have a significant main effect in the MANOVA, descriptive statistics revealed that those in the majority ethnic group had higher perceptions of justice compared to those in minority groups in the areas of Personal BJW, school climate, and evaluations of legal authorities, but very similar evaluations of General BJW. Ethnicity was not significantly different; therefore, no follow-up discriminant analyses were conducted. However, Cohen’s d calculations revealed that Personal BJW (d = .26), school climate (d = .32), and legal authorities (d = .21) all had small effect sizes. See Figure 3 for a visual representation of each group’s perceptions.

Figure 3.

Means across ethnicity groups. BJW: belief in a just world.

Discussion

Students’ perceptions of justice significantly differed across different income levels and schools but not between those in the majority ethnic group compared to minorities. Differences between ethnic groups were anticipated but not significant. Effect sizes revealed that minorities tended to have a lower Personal BJW, school climate, and perception of legal authorities compared to self-identified White students. However, General BJW values were very similar across all groups. Although there are many social disparities between majority and minority group members, compared to American samples, Brazilians seem to share a more homogenous perspective on justice across ethnicities (Bailey, 2009). This similarity helps explain why different groups had similar perceptions of justice. Additionally, Brazilian educational and financial disadvantages are more pronounced compared to racial differences (Bailey, 2009), which is consistent with the results of this study showing significant main effects for school and family income.

Differences between family income levels and school type reveal a pattern between students from privileged and less advantaged backgrounds. Students in public schools and in the lowest family income level are more socially disadvantaged due to low social capital and poor school funding. Those in more disadvantaged groups showed lower Personal BJW compared to those in more privileged groups, but higher General BJW. This difference may be because BJW can act as a coping mechanism (Dalbert, 2004, 2009; Furnham, 2005; Lerner, 1980). Students in privileged contexts have a high Personal BJW and are less dependent upon the general fairness of the world (General BJW); therefore, they rate it lower. However, students in more vulnerable contexts may see the status quo as less escapable due to their disadvantaged status and be more prone to report higher General BJW.

Higher General BJW among lower status groups is consistent with some research from the United States where African Americans and low SES participants had a higher BJW about the world in general compared to Whites and affluent participants (Hunt, 2000; Umberson, 1993). In a separate study conducted with university students revealed that European Americans had Personal BJW higher than General BJW values. However, members of minority groups had no reasonable difference between Personal and General BJW (Calhoun & Cann, 1994). The current study revealed that those from more advantaged groups (schools and income) had higher Personal than General BJW, while those in less privileged groups had Personal BJW perceptions at similar levels to their General BJW levels.

SJT helps shed light on these findings by positing that humans are motivated to justify the existing social order (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost et al., 2004). Those in disadvantaged groups have a greater motivation to justify the system because of the dissonance between self/group motivations and system motivations. This justification occurs at the nonconscious level and helps people rationalize the status quo and attribute meaning to their status. Jost and Banaji (1994) explain that SJT is compatible with the just world theory in that both help people justify the existing realities. However, they argue that BJW is not a natural, universal motivation (as posited by Lerner, 1980) but is most relevant in exploitive systems where people are motivated to justify existing inequality. Since the publication of SJT, research on BJW has further emphasized the importance of separating the Personal and the General BJW. This distinction separates the personal coping resource (Personal BJW) from a system-justifying ideology (General BJW) embedded in the just world theory. People are particularly prone to engage in system-justifying thoughts in situations of system dependency and inescapability (Kay & Friesen, 2011). This helps explain why Brazilian adolescents in the lowest family income bracket and those in the public schools tended to have higher General BJW than those in the more privileged demographics. Underprivileged participants had more similar Personal and General BJW to diminish the dissonance between their status and the world at large. This balance helps justify the system in which they live and attribute meaning to their surroundings. In contrast, students in more advantaged groups have access to greater resources and are more protected from system injustice. This privilege enables them to develop a strong Personal BJW and acknowledge a lower General BJW.

Perceptions of legal authorities

The most influential variable differentiating between income levels and schools was students’ perceptions of legal authorities. The higher the income level, the more fairly students rated legal authorities. This difference could be because public authorities tend to be present in situations of greater vulnerability and instability. Those less educated tend to be perceived as cooperating less with the law and have fewer resources to speak up in court (Peachey & Lerner, 1981). Laws and public authorities may unintentionally perpetuate and institutionalize societal biases and inequalities and contribute to the perception of unfair treatment to socially disadvantaged groups.

The largest difference between demographic groups was between the military school and the other schools’ perceptions of legal authorities. Perhaps not surprisingly, students in the military school had significantly higher perceptions of legal authorities compared to the students in the private (d = .84) and public schools (d = 1.11). The military school is under the authority of the Brazilian military and the Education Department, and many students have familial ties to law enforcement officials. Students’ proximity to and interactions with legal authorities on a regular basis gives them a broader base from which to draw their opinion. In contrast, adolescents from other schools likely have little interaction with legal authorities which can lead them to rely on public stereotypes. Students from the private and public schools who have interactions with legal authorities, likely interact with them in negative and emotional situations (i.e., car accident, lawsuit, legal fees, courts, etc.). The high exposure that students from the military school have to legal authorities in more neutral situations likely accounts for their more positive perceptions. In addition, students in the military school are much more dependent upon the fairness of legal authorities and, therefore, more likely to justify the system and legitimize their authority (Kay & Friesen, 2011). Students in other schools are less immediately dependent upon the fairness of legal authorities and, therefore, less motivated to justify the legitimacy of legal authorities. Although students in the military school had significantly higher perceptions of legal authorities compared to the other schools, the mean values were still relatively low. Students in the private school and in the public school had even lower evaluations of legal authorities. These low mean values are concerning and should be addressed both within the school and at a broader societal level. These low perceptions of justice of legal authorities are likely influenced by the widespread perceived corruption among Brazilian officials. Brazilians perceive high levels of corruption among legal authorities (Transparency International, 2013). As students age and increase their engagement in national conversations, they form their opinions about the trustworthiness of legal authorities. Positive opinions of legal authorities are not only important for attributing legitimacy to authorities but also to establish a greater connection to group membership. When authorities are perceived to be fair, people are more likely to buy in to group rules because they perceive themselves as active participants in a common group (Emler & Reicher, 2005). In contrast, when adolescents grow up perceiving legal authorities to be biased and unfair, they are more likely to violate rules. However, these findings do not suggest that educators should simply teach adolescents to believe that all legal authorities are fair. Leaders should first strive for authority justice and build a reality where adolescents have a minimal vulnerability to authority bias.

Limitations

The sample is diverse and resembles the ethnic composition of the region, but not the country. Brazil is a large, diverse country with deeply rooted regional differences. Scholars should be cautious not to generalize these findings to the whole country, and researchers within Brazil should seek to reproduce these findings and highlight sociocultural nuances. This study did not have sufficient ethnic diversity to differentiate between ethnic groups, and the findings may be different in Brazilian regions with greater ethnic diversity.

Conclusion

Students in different schools and different income brackets have significantly different perceptions of justice. Students in lower income brackets and public schools tend to have higher General BJW, but lower Personal BJW. Students in the higher income brackets tended to have higher Personal BJW levels and endorsed more strongly the justice of legal authorities. The greatest variable that contributed the most to the differences between income levels and school was perceptions of legal authorities. Students from more affluent families and students from the military school had more positive perceptions of legal authorities. However, these perceptions were still not very high. Identification in the majority group or one of the minority groups did not reveal a significant difference, indicating that income level and educational context are stronger influencers than ethnicity. However, there is a slight trend of students in the majority group to have higher perceptions of justice in the areas of Personal BJW, school climate, and legal authorities with a small effect size difference.

This research captured a snapshot of Brazilian adolescents’ justice beliefs and their relationships with educational and societal constructs. Adolescents are the working and voting force of the near future and are at a sensitive developmental level to solidify their assumptions about fairness and justice in their world. Further exploration in this area may empower secondary education to lead the discussion of justice and fairness as adolescents grapple with these complex themes in their current contexts and into adulthood.

Footnotes

Article Notes

References

Bailey

S. R.

(2009) Legacies of race: Identities, attitudes, and politics in Brazil, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Barcena, A., & Byanyima, W. (2016, January). Latin America is the world’s most unequal region. Here’s how to fix it. Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean. Retrieved from https://www.cepal.org/en/articles/2016-latin-america-worlds-most-unequal-region-heres-how-fix-it.

Bear

G. G.

Gaskins

Blank

Chen

F. F.

(2011) Delaware School Climate Survey-Student: Its factor structure, concurrent validity, and reliability. Journal of School Psychology 49(2): 157–174. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.01.001.

Bear

G. G.

Yang

Pell

Gaskins

(2014) Validation of a brief measure of teachers’ perceptions of school climate: Relations to student achievement and suspensions. Learning Environments Research 17(3): 339–354. doi:10.1007/s10984-014-9162-1.

Calhoun

L. G.

Cann

(1994) Differences in assumptions about a just world: Ethnicity and point of view. Journal of Social Psychology 134(6): 765–770. doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9923011.

Casarin

F. S.

Wong

C. E.

Parent

M. A.

de Salles

J. F.

Fonseca

R. P.

(2012) Comparison of neuropsychological performance between students from public and private Brazilian schools. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 15(3): 942–951. doi:10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n3.39386.

Cohn

E. S.

Trinkner

R. J.

Rebellon

C. J.

Van Gundy

K. T.

Cole

L. M.

(2012) Legal attitudes and legitimacy: Extending the integrated legal socialization model. Victims and Offenders 7(4): 385–406. doi:10.1080/15564886.2012.713902.

Correia

Dalbert

(2007) Belief in a just world, justice concerns, and well-being in Portuguese schools. European Journal of Psychology of Education 23(4): 421–437. doi:10.1007/BF03173464.

Correia

Kamble

S. V.

Dalbert

(2009) Belief in a just world and well-being of bullies, victims and defenders: A study with Portuguese and Indian students. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping 22(5): 497–508. doi:10.1080/10615800902729242.

10.

Correia

Vala

(2004) Belief in a just world, subjective well-being and trust of young adults . In: Dalbert

Sallay

(eds) The justice motive in adolescence and young adulthood: Origins and consequences, London, England: Routledge, pp. 85–100.

11.

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(2): 79–98. doi:10.1023/A:1022091609047.

12.

Dalbert

(2004) The implications and functions of just and unjust experiences in school. In: Dalbert

Sallay

(eds) The justice motive in adolescence and young adulthood: Origins and consequences, London, England: Routledge, pp. 117–134.

13.

Dalbert

(2009) Belief in a just world. In: Leary

M. R.

Hoyle

R. H.

(eds) Handbook of individual differences in social behavior, New York, NY: Guilford Publications, pp. 288–297.

14.

Dalbert

Sallay

(2004) The justice motive in adolescence and young adulthood: Origins and consequences, New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Dalbert

Stöeber

(2005) The belief in a just world and distress at school. Social Psychology of Education 8(2): 123–135. doi:10.1007/s11218-005-1835-2.

16.

Dalbert

Stöeber

(2006) The personal belief in a just world and domain-specific beliefs about justice at school and in the family: A longitudinal study with adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development 30(3): 200–207. doi:10.1177/0165025406063638.

17.

Dette

D. E.

Stöeber

Dalbert

(2004) Belief in a just world and adolescents’ vocational and social goals. In: Dalbert

Sallay

(eds) The justice motive in adolescence and young adulthood: Origins and consequences, London, England: Routledge, pp. 231–247.

18.

Donat

Umlauft

Dalbert

Kamble

S. V.

(2012) Belief in a just world, teacher injustice, and bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior 38(3): 185–193. doi:10.1002/ab.21421.

19.

Emler

Reicher

(2005) Delinquency: Cause or consequence of social exclusion. In: Abrams

Hogge

Marques

(eds) Social psychology of inclusion and exclusion, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, pp. 211–241.

20.

Fagan

Tyler

T. R.

(2005) Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research 1(3): 217–242. doi:10.1007/s11211-00506823-3.

21.

Finch

W. H.

(2010) Imputation methods for missing categorical questionnaire data: A comparison of approaches. Journal of Data Science 8: 361–378.

22.

Finch

W. H.

(2016) Data imputation algorithms for mixed variable types in large scale educational assessment: A comparison of random forest, multivariate imputation using chained equations, and MICE with recursive partitioning. International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education 3(3): 129–153. doi:10.1504/IJQRE.2016.077803.

23.

Finch

W. H.

French

(2013) A Monte Carlo comparison of robust MANOVA test statistics. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 12(2): 35–81. doi:10.22237/jmasm/1383278580.

24.

Furlong

M. J.

Greif

J. L.

Bates

M. P.

Whipple

A. D.

Jimenez

T. C.

Morrison

(2005) Development of the California school climate and safety survey – Short form. Psychology in the Schools 42(2): 137–149. doi:10.1002/pits.20053.

25.

Furnham

(1993) Just world beliefs in twelve societies. The Journal of Social Psychology 133(3): 317–329. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9712149.

26.

Furnham

(2003) Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences 34(5): 795–817. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00072-7.

27.

Furnham

(2005) The justice motive in adolescence and young people: Origins and consequences. Social Justice Research 18(2): 203–210. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-7369-0.

28.

Gamboa

L. F.

Waltenberg

F. D.

(2012) Inequality of opportunity for educational achievement in Latin America: Evidence from PISA 2006-2009. Economics of Education Review 31(5): 694–708. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.05.002.

29.

Gendron

B. P.

Williams

K. R.

Guerra

N. G.

(2011) An analysis of bullying among students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. Journal of School Violence 10(2): 150–164. doi:10.1080/15388220.2010.539166.

30.

Gonzalez

M. T.

(2008) Race, gender and ethnicity in contemporary Brazil. Latin American Research Review 43(1): 219–224.

31.

Gouveia-Pereira

Vala

Rubini

Palmonari

(2003) School experience, relational justice, and legitimation of institutions. European Journal of Psychology of Education 18(3): 309–325. doi:10.1007/BF03173251.

32.

Hafer

C. L.

Bègue

(2005) Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin 131(1): 128–167. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128.

33.

Hafer

C. L.

Bègue

Choma

B. L.

Dempsey

J. L.

(2005) Belief in a just world and commitment to long-term deserved outcomes. Social Justice Research 18(4): 429–444. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-8569-3.

34.

Honorato da Silva

Sampaio

(2010) Notas sobre pobreza e educação no Brasil [Notes about poverty and education in Brazil]. Revista Problemas del Desarrollo 163(41): 75–97.

35.

Hunt

M. O.

(2000) Status, religion, and the “Belief in a Just World”: Comparing African Americans, Latinos, and Whites. Social Science Quarterly 81(1): 325–343.

36.

IBGE. (2008). Histórico da investigação sobre cor ou raça nas pesquisas domiciliares do IBGE[History of the color and race investigation in the national IBGE surveys]. Retrieved from https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv49891.pdf.

37.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(1994) The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology 33: 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.

38.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

(2004) A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology 25(6): 881–919. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.

39.

Kay

A. C.

Friesen

(2011) On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(6): 360–364. doi:10.1177/0963721411422059.

40.

Laurin

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Kay

A. C.

(2011) Social disadvantage and the self-regulatory function of justice beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100(1): 149–171. doi:10.1037/a0021343.

41.

Leão

Dayrell

J. T.

dos Reis

J. B.

(2011) Jovens olhares sobre a escola do ensino medio [Fresh looks on high school]. Caderno Cedes, Campinas 31(84): 253–273.

42.

Lerner

M. J.

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

43.

Lerner

M. J.

Simmons

C. H.

(1966) Observer’s reaction to the innocent victim: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4(2): 203–210.

44.

Lind

Tyler

(1988) The social psychology of procedural justice, New York, NY: Plenum Press.

45.

Lipkus

I. M.

Dalbert

Siegler

I. C.

(1996) The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self versus for others: Implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22(7): 666–677. doi:10.1177/0146167296227002.

46.

Malahy

L. W.

Rubinlicht

M. A.

Kaiser

C. R.

(2009) Justifying inequality: A cross-temporal investigation of U.S. income disparities and just-world beliefs from 1973 to 2006. Social Justice Research 22(4): 369–383. doi:10.1007/s11211-009-0103-6.

47.

Marcus

A. P.

(2013) Sex, color, and geography: Racialized relations in Brazil and its predicaments. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103(5): 1282–1299. doi:10.1080/00045608.2012.700605.

48.

Oliveira

P. R.

Belluzzo

Pazello

E. T.

(2013) The public-private test score gap in Brazil. Economics of Education Review 35: 120–133. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.04.003.

49.

Oppenheimer

(2006) The belief in a just world and subjective perceptions of society: A developmental perspective. Journal of Adolescence 29(4): 655–669. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.014.

50.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Position paper: Tackling Inequalities in Brazil, China, India and South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/46459969.pdf.

51.

Peachey

D. E.

Lerner

M. J.

(1981) Law as a social trap: Problems and possibilities for the future. In: Lerner

M. J.

Lerner

S. C.

(eds) The justice motive in social behavior: Adapting to times of scarcity and change, New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp. 493–561. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0429-4_19.

52.

Pimentel

C. E.

Gouveia

V. V.

Diniz

P. K.

Saenz

D. P.

Santos

A. V.

Vieira

I. S.

(2010) Evidências de validade de construto e precisão da Escala Geral do Mundo Justo [Evidence of construct validity and reliability of the General Just World Scale]. Boletin de Psicologia 60: 133.

53.

Piquero

A. R.

Fagan

Mulvey

E. P.

Steinberg

Odgers

(2005) Criminology: Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offenders. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 96(1): 267–298.

54.

Program for International Student Assessment. (2012). Country note: Brazil. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-brazil.pdf.

55.

Rubini

Palmonari

(1995) Orientamenti verso le autorita formali e partecipazione politica degli adolescenti [Guidelines to the formal authority and political participation of adolescents]. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia 5: 757–775.

56.

Sallay

(2004) Entering the job market: Belief in a just world, fairness and well-being of graduating students. In: Dalbert

Sallay

(eds) The justice motive in adolescence and young adulthood: Origins and consequences, London, England: Routledge, pp. 189–214.

57.

Sanches

Gouveia-Pereira

Carugati

(2012) Justice judgements, school failure, and adolescent deviant behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology 82(4): 606–621. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02048.x.

58.

Sutton

R. M.

Winnard

E. J.

(2007) Looking ahead through lenses of justice: The relevance of just-world beliefs to intentions and confidence in the future. British Journal of Social Psychology 46(3): 649–666. doi:10.1348/01466606x166220.

59.

Telles

E. E.

(2004) Race in another America: The significance of skin color in Brazil, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

60.

Thomas

K. J.

Mucherah

W. M.

(2016) How fair is my world? Development of just world beliefs among Kenyan students. Journal of Adolescence 49: 244–253. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.03.011.

61.

Transparency International. (2013). National results: Brazil. Retrieved from http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/country/?country=brazil.

62.

Tyler

T. R.

(1997) The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1(4): 323–345. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_4.

63.

Tyler

T. R.

Goff

P. A.

MacCoun

R. J.

(2016) The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16(3): 75–109. doi:10.1177/1529100615617791.

64.

Umberson

(1993) Sociodemographic position, worldviews, and psychological distress. Social Science Quarterly 74(3): 575–589.

65.

Yang

Bear

G. G.

Chen

F. F.

Zhang

Blank

J. C.

Huang

(2013) Students’ perceptions of school climate in the US and China. School Psychology Quarterly 28(1): 7–24. doi:10.1037/spq0000002.