Trs

JT

ARRA

KEDJS

1

evoasW

gapwb(

f

0h

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 450– 458

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

j ourna l ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

hrough the lens of justice: Just world beliefs mediateelationships between perceived discrimination andubjective well-being

uliette Schaafsma ∗

ilburg University, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 13 April 2012eceived in revised form 7 December 2012ccepted 9 April 2013

eywords:thnic minority membersiscrimination

ust world beliefsubjective well-being

a b s t r a c t

Previous research has found that experiences with discrimination are often associated withlower levels of well-being among ethnic minority members, but hardly any attention hasbeen given to the processes underlying this relationship. Two studies were conductedamong ethnic Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands to examine the hypothesis thatthe belief in a just world for self mediates the association between perceived discrimina-tion and subjective well-being. In both studies, negative relationships were found betweenperceived blatant and subtle discrimination and subjective well-being. These relationshipswere, however, fully mediated by people’s belief in a just world for self. The reversed pos-sibility that perceptions of discrimination mediate the relationship between the belief ina just world for self and well-being, was not supported. These findings lend support tothe idea that discrimination has a negative effect on ethnic minority members’ well-beingbecause it undermines their belief that the world is just to them.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

For ethnic minority group members across the world, prejudice and discrimination are likely to be part of their dailyxperiences. This prejudice and discrimination can take many different forms, varying from more overt behaviors such aserbal or physical harassment, to more subtle behaviors such as being ignored or excluded. Research shows that the impactf these experiences on people’s psychological well-being can be substantial. For example, laboratory and field studiesmong targets of prejudice and discrimination have found that it is associated with higher levels of anxiety and depressiveymptoms, reduced levels of life satisfaction and happiness, and lower levels of self-esteem (Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009;

illiams & Mohammed, 2009).Despite compelling evidence for the harmful effects of perceived discrimination on well-being, scant attention has been

iven to the underlying mechanisms and processes through which this relationship occurs. The present research was aimedt developing a better understanding of these pathways. More specifically, it examined whether the association between

erceived discrimination and well-being is mediated by just world beliefs. Although various reasons can be identified forhy discrimination may be psychologically stressful, the current study focused on just world beliefs because these have

een found to play an important role in how people respond to stressful events such as disadvantage and discriminatione.g., Eliezer, Townsend, Sawyer, & Major, 2011; Major, Kaiser, O’Brien, & McCoy, 2007). As will be elaborated below, the

∗ Correspondence address: Department of Humanities, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 13 466 3579;ax: +31 13 466 2892.

E-mail address: J.Schaafsma@uvt.nl

147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.002

J. Schaafsma / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 450– 458 451

main premise was that perceiving oneself to be victim of discrimination will lead people to believe that the world is unjustto them, which in turn negatively affects their well-being.

Much research has demonstrated that human beings are motivated to believe that they live in a just and fair world,where people generally get what they deserve (Furnham, 2003). This justice motive has been conceptualized as a positiveillusion, because it may help people to see the world as orderly and predictable, and this may provide them with a senseof control over their environment and enable them to plan for the future (e.g., Dalbert, 2001; Lerner, 1980; Lerner & Miller,1978). As such, just world beliefs – and in particular the belief that the world is just to self – may enhance psychologicalwell-being. For example, several studies have found that the belief in a just world for self is associated with lower levelsof depression and stress and higher levels of life satisfaction (e.g., Dalbert, 1998; Dzuka & Dalbert, 2002; Lipkus, Dalbert,& Siegler, 1996). Lipkus and colleagues (1996) also found that that the belief in a just world for self was a more powerfulpredictor of perceived life satisfaction than other factors such as personality or gender.

It seems plausible, however, that people’s justice beliefs are informed by the reality in which they live as well (Rubin& Peplau, 1975; Schmitt, 1998; Stroebe, Dovidio, Barreto, Ellemers, & John, 2011; Sutton et al., 2008). For example, formembers of ethnic minority groups who are confronted with prejudice and discrimination on a regular basis, it may bemore difficult to uphold the belief that the world is a just place. In this regard, Cubela Adoric and Kvartuc (2007) found thatindividuals who were exposed to sustained and undeserved negative acts had a weaker belief in the justness of the world.In a similar vein, Sutton and colleagues (2008) found that people’s perceptions of justice seem to be less of an illusion andmore of an objective perception of the justice that they or others actually receive. Taken together, these findings suggestthat experiencing injustice or unfair treatment such as prejudice or discrimination may have the effect that people believethat the world is unjust or unfair to them, and this may result in lower levels of subjective well-being.

To examine the possible mediating role of the belief in a just world for self in the relationship between perceived discrim-ination and well-being, two studies were conducted. Participants were first and second generation Turkish and Moroccanimmigrants in the Netherlands. They occupy a relatively low position in the Dutch ethnic hierarchy and surveys showthat, compared to other ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands, they feel discriminated against relatively often (e.g.,Andriessen, Dagevos, Nievers, & Boog, 2007). In Study 1, it was examined whether the belief in a just world for self mediatesthe relationship between perceived blatant discrimination and subjective well-being. The aim of Study 2 was to replicate thefindings from Study 1 and to examine whether a similar pattern of results would be found for more subtle forms of discrim-ination. In both studies, an alternative model was considered as well. That is, one could argue that people with a strongerbelief in a just world for self may deny or minimize incidences of prejudice or discrimination (e.g., Lipkus & Siegler, 1993),which may help them to maintain relatively high levels of well-being. Therefore, the possibility for reversed mediation wasalso tested.

2. Study 1

2.1. Method

2.1.1. ParticipantsThere were 267 participants in this study. Twenty-four participants were excluded because they did not provide their

ethnic background, because of excessive missing data or because they were outliers (three standard deviations above themean), leaving a final sample of 243 persons (110 females).1 Of these participants, 139 were of Moroccan origin and 104were of Turkish origin (i.e., they or their parents had been born in Morocco or Turkey). Their ages ranged from 17 to 75 yearsold (M = 34.7, SD = 15.1). Their mean educational level, with scores ranging from 1 (no diploma) to 4 (university degree) was2.7 (SD = 0.95). Participants were recruited through local contacts and associations, and they completed a questionnaire inDutch.

2.1.2. MeasuresSubjective well-being was assessed using a Dutch version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &

Griffin, 1985). This measure has been shown to be a valid and reliable measure of subjective well-being (e.g., Pavot & Diener,1993; Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991) and was selected because it was deemed sufficiently accessible to participantsin this study (in terms of length and item difficulty). The scale consists of 5 items (e.g., I am satisfied with my life) andparticipants rated their agreement with each item on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Cronbach’salpha was .79.

Just world beliefs were measured after participants had completed the well-being measure, using the Lipkus et al. (1996)belief in a just world for self scale. This scale contains eight items (e.g., I feel that the world treats me fairly) and participantsresponded to each item using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha

was .88.

At the end of the questionnaire, perceived blatant discrimination was measured using five items. Following Noh, Kaspar,and Wickrama (2007), items were included that assessed the occurrence of explicit negative actions such as negative

1 The overall pattern of results did not change, however, following exclusion of these participants.

452 J. Schaafsma / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 450– 458

Table 1Means and standard deviations for measures in Study 1 and Study 2.

Study 1 Study 2

M SD M SD

Subtle discrimination – – 2.32 0.92Blatant discrimination 1.78 0.68 1.63 0.56Just world beliefs 3.23 0.70 3.27 0.66Subjective well-being 3.45 0.72 3.56 0.69

Table 2Intercorrelations for measures in Study 1 and Study 2.

Subtle discrim. –Well-being

Blatant discrim. –Well-being

Just world –Well-being

Just world –Blatant discrim.

Just world –Subtle discrim.

Blatant discrim. –Subtle discrim.

Study 1 (N = 243) – −.21** .60** −.33** – –** * ** ** ** **

ch1i

2

2

og

Owwhdl

wh

2

nmrdijb

Swtas

rsp

Study 2 (N = 304) −.21 −.20 .51 −.34 −.34 .57

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

omments or rejection because of one’s ethnic background, and verbal abuse or physical harm (e.g., How often in your lifeave people threatened you because of your ethnic background?). These items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from

(never) to 5 (always), and they had been pilot tested among 20 individuals of Turkish and Moroccan origin. The full scales presented in the Appendix. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .86.2

.2. Results

.2.1. Mean scores and intercorrelationsThe mean scores and the standard deviations for the measures that were used are presented in Table 1. Given the diversity

f the sample, between-group differences in the various measures were examined using ANOVA, with ethnic background,ender, age, and educational level as factors.

For perceptions of blatant discrimination, this analysis yielded a significant effect of gender, F(1, 220) = 12.32, p = .001.n average, men reported having experienced blatant discrimination more often (M = 1.94) than females (M = 1.59). For justorld beliefs, the analysis did not reveal significant differences in gender, ethnic background, age, and educational level. Forell-being, however, there was a significant effect of educational level, F(3, 228) = 11.95, p < .001. People with a medium origh educational level reported higher levels of well-being (M = 3.64 and M = 3.77, respectively) compared to those without aiploma or with a low educational level (M = 3.01 and M = 3.09, respectively). Given these differences, gender and educational

evel were controlled for in the subsequent analyses.Table 2 presents the intercorrelations between the measures that were used in Study 1. Perceived blatant discrimination

as negatively related with just world beliefs and subjective well-being. Just-world beliefs and subjective well-being were,owever, significantly and positively related.

.2.2. Mediation analysisTo examine whether the belief in a just world for self mediates the relationship between perceived blatant discrimi-

ation and subjective well-being, a mediation analysis was conducted using a bootstrapping method for testing multipleediators (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). This method allowed to control for covariates. The analysis was performed following

ecommendations by Preacher and Hayes, with 5000 bootstrapping samples, and 95% bias-corrected and accelerated confi-ence intervals to evaluate indirect effects. Mediation was considered to have occurred if zero was not in the 95% confidence

nterval. Gender and educational level were included in the model as covariates. Experiences with blatant discrimination andust world beliefs were standardized within each ethnic group prior to the analysis to remove any potential mean differencesetween them (Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997).

The analysis revealed a significant total effect of perceived blatant discrimination on subjective well-being (b = −.10,E = .04, p = .013). The direct effect of perceived blatant discrimination on subjective well-being after controlling for justorld beliefs was, however, not significant (b = .01, SE = .04, p = .81). The total indirect effect (i.e., the difference between the

otal and the direct effect) was significant, with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval that was estimated to lie between −.171nd −.060. Thus, the belief in a just world for self mediated the relationship between perceived blatant discrimination andubjective well-being. See Fig. 1, for the complete mediational model.

2 Participants also completed a subset of items from the Singelis (1994) self-construal scale. Individual differences in self-construal did not moderate theelationship between perceived discrimination and subjective well-being, although the interaction between blatant discrimination and interdependentelf-construal reached conventional levels of significance (B = .07, p = .063). Individuals who were higher in interdependent self-construal and who alsoerceived more blatant discrimination tended to report lower levels of well-being compared to those who were lower in interdependent self-construal.

J. Schaafsma / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 450– 458 453

All variables were stan dardized within each ethnic group prior to analysis. N umbe r in

paren thes es is the relationship between discrimin ation and well -being, controlling for the belie f

in a just world for self.

*p < .05 ***p < .001.

Blatant

Discrimination

Subjective Well-

Being

-.10* (.01)

Belief in Just

Wor ld for Self

-.29*** .38***

Fig. 1. Path analysis showing that just world beliefs mediate the effect of blatant discrimination on well-being in Study 1.

In an additional mediation analysis, the possibility was examined that the relationship between the belief in a just worldfor self and subjective well-being was mediated by perceived blatant discrimination. In this analysis, gender and educationallevel were again added as covariates. The total indirect effect was, however, not significant because zero was in the 95%confidence interval (lower bound −.029 and upper bound .024). Thus, these results do not lend support for the reversedmodel.

2.3. Discussion

The findings confirmed that there was a negative relationship between perceived blatant discrimination and well-being,and that this association was mediated by ethnic minority members’ belief in a just world for self. Individuals who more oftenperceived themselves to be victim of blatant discrimination, less often believed that the world was just to them and this,in turn, was negatively related to subjective well-being. No evidence was found for the reversed possibility that perceivedblatant discrimination mediates the relationship between the belief in a just world for self and subjective well-being.

Nevertheless, it is generally recognized that blatant forms of discrimination are less common nowadays and that prejudiceis more often expressed in more subtle ways (e.g., Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002;Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Some have argued that these subtle forms of discrimination may be more difficult to deal withand have a stronger negative impact on ethnic minority members’ well-being than blatant forms of discrimination becauseit is more ambiguous and hence requires a more active and difficult cognitive appraisal (e.g., Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998;Noh et al., 2007). At the same time, however, one could argue that – when people do perceive subtle discrimination – it mayalso result in the belief that the world is unjust or unfair to them, which may negatively affect their well-being. To examinewhether the belief in a just world for self mediates the relationship between perceived subtle discrimination and well-being,and to replicate the findings of the present study as well, a second study was conducted.

3. Study 2

3.1. Method

3.1.1. ParticipantsIn this study, 320 persons participated. Sixteen participants did not complete the just world belief measure, leaving a

final sample of 304 participants (110 females). Of these participants, 149 were of Moroccan origin and 155 were of Turkish

origin. Their age ranged from 17 to 75 years (M = 29.3, SD = 12.6). Their average educational level was, with scores rangingfrom 1 (no diploma) to 4 (university degree), 2.6 (SD = 0.88). As in Study 1, participants were approached via local contactsand associations, and they completed a questionnaire in Dutch.

4

3

jii

dytaiod

OLto.m

3

3

taOwacsla

wpw

3

mcp

wpswpwwb

bh

w

54 J. Schaafsma / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 450– 458

.1.2. MeasuresBelief in just world for self and well-being were measured with the same items as in Study 1. Cronbach’s alpha for the

ust world beliefs scale was .90 and for well-being .84. Participants also completed several measures concerning their ethnicdentity. These measures were, however, not of direct relevance to the expectations in this study and were therefore notncluded in the analyses.

To measure perceived blatant discrimination, the same five items were used as in Study 1 as well. Perceived subtleiscrimination was measured with eight items that referred to the more indirect expression of prejudice (e.g., How often doou have the feeling that you have to prove yourself more than others because of your ethnic background?). The content ofhese items had been established on the basis of expert interviews (e.g., with representatives of anti-discrimination officesnd ethnic minority associations) and on the basis of a literature review. The items had also been pilot tested among 20ndividuals of Turkish and Moroccan origin. See the Appendix for an overview of the items. Participants rated each itemn a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). As in Study 1, participants completed the blatant and subtleiscrimination measures after they had completed the well-being en just-world belief measures.

To examine the distinctiveness of the blatant and subtle discrimination scales, a principal components analysis (withblimin rotation) was conducted. Prior to this analysis, items were standardized within each ethnic group (Van de Vijver &eung, 1997). The items that were intended to measure perceived subtle discrimination loaded on the first factor (>.74) andhis factor explained 53.1% of the variance. The items that were intended to measure perceived blatant discrimination loadedn the second factor (>.53), which explained 12.3% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha for the blatant discrimination scale was

79 and for the subtle discrimination scale .94. Although the correlation between the blatant and subtle discriminationeasure was relatively high (r = .57), the amount of unshared variance is considerable (68%)

.2. Results

.2.1. Means and intercorrelationsThe means and standard deviations for the various measures are presented in Table 1. Between-group differences in

hese measures were again examined with a series of ANOVAs, with ethnic background, gender, age, and educational levels factors. For perceived blatant discrimination, the analysis revealed a significant effect of gender, F(1, 287) = 8.48, p = .004.n average, men reported having experienced blatant discrimination more often (M = 1.74) than women (M = 1.52). For justorld beliefs, a significant effect was found for educational level, F(3, 285) = 5.71, p = .018. Participants without a diploma

nd those with a low educational level believed that the world was less just for them (M = 2.93 and M = 3.17, respectively)ompared to those with a medium and a high educational level (M = 3.33 and M = 3.59, respectively). For well-being, aignificant effect was found for educational level as well, F(3, 290) = 17.60, p < .001. Participants without a diploma reportedower levels of well-being (M = 3.01) than those with a low, medium, and high educational level (Ms > 3.36). Therefore, gendernd educational level were controlled for in the subsequent analyses.

Table 2 presents the intercorrelations between the different measures. Both perceived subtle and blatant discriminationere significantly and negatively related to subjective well-being.3 Moreover, there were negative relationships betweenerceived subtle and blatant discrimination and just world beliefs. There was, however, a positive relationship between justorld beliefs and subjective well-being.

.2.2. Mediation analysisSeparate mediation analyses were conducted for each discrimination measure, using a bootstrapping procedure for

ultiple mediators (with n = 5000 bootstrap resamples). As in Study 1, gender and educational level were included asovariates in the model, and the discrimination measures and just world beliefs were standardized within each ethnic grouprior to the analysis.

Fig. 2 displays the results of the two mediation analyses. For perceived blatant discrimination, a significant total effectas found (b = −.13, SE = .04, p < .001). When controlling for the belief in a just world for self, however, the direct effect oferceived blatant discrimination on well-being was not significant (b = −.02, SE = .04, p = .62). The total indirect effect wasignificant (b = .30, SE = .04, p < .001, lower and upper confidence intervals −.175 and −.070 respectively). A similar patternas found for perceived subtle discrimination. The total direct effect for this measure was significant (b = −.12, SE = .04,

= .013) and the direct effect of perceived subtle discrimination on well-being was non-significant when just world beliefsere included in the model (b = −.02, SE = .04, p = .61). Moreover, the analyses revealed a significant total indirect effect,ith a 95% bootstrap confidence interval of −.159 to −.051. Thus, the belief in a just world for self mediated the association

etween perceived blatant and subtle discrimination and subjective well-being.

The possibility for reversed mediation (i.e., that perceived subtle or blatant discrimination mediates the relationship

etween just world beliefs and subjective well-being) was examined in an additional set of analyses. No evidence was,owever, found for this alternative model. When perceived blatant discrimination was added as a mediator to the model,

3 It should be noted that when the analyses were conducted on the full dataset (320 participants), the relationship between discrimination and subjectiveell-being did not reach conventional levels of significance (r = −.10, p = .09).

J. Schaafsma / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 450– 458 455

Blatan t

Discrimin ation

Subjective Well-

Being

-.14**(-.0 2)

Belief in Just

Wor ld for Self

-.39*** .30***

Subtle

Discrimin ation

Subjective Well-

Being

-.12**(-.0 2)

Belief in Just

Wor ld for Self

-.36*** .28***

(a) Mod el: Blatan t D iscrimin ation

(b) Model: Subtle Discrimin ation

Note: All variables were st andardized within each ethnic group pr ior to analysis. Numbe r in

paren theses is the relationship between discrimin ation and well -being, controlling for the belie f

in a just world for self.

**p < .01 ***p < .001.

Fig. 2. Path analyses showing that just world beliefs mediate the effect of blatant and subtle discrimination on well-being in Study 2.

the total indirect effect was not significant, with a 95% confidence interval that was estimated to lie between −.021 and .035.A similar pattern was found for perceived subtle discrimination, with a confidence interval of −.024 to .037.

3.3. Discussion

These results replicate and extend the findings of Study 1 by showing that both blatant and subtle discrimination wereassociated with lower levels of well-being, and by showing that these relationships were mediated by the extent to whichethnic minority members’ believed in a just world for self. Moreover, as in Study 1, no evidence was found for the possibilitythat perceived discrimination mediated the relationship between just world beliefs and well-being. Taken together, thesefindings lend support to the idea that perceiving oneself to be a victim of discrimination has a negative effect on ethnicminority members’ well-being because it undermines their belief that the world is just to them.

4. General discussion

Two studies were conducted to examine the pathways through which perceived discrimination affects ethnic minoritymembers’ well-being. It was expected that ethnic minority members who perceived more discrimination would come tothink of the world as more unjust or unfair to them, which in turn would negatively affect their well-being. The results

4

optfa

p&ablMmstD

sjngpg(ubaAbb

fAmahsi

breosttd

mimnr

A

NAi

56 J. Schaafsma / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 450– 458

f the two studies confirm this expectation. Consistent with previous research, a negative association was found betweenerceptions of blatant and subtle discrimination and subjective well-being. In both studies, however, it was also found thathese relationships were mediated by the extent to which people believed in a just world for self. Moreover, no evidence wasound for the reversed possibility that perceptions of discrimination mediated the association between just world beliefsnd subjective well-being.

These findings are important because, even though the negative impact of discrimination on well-being is widely sup-orted, little has been done to understand the mechanisms underlying this effect (Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Williams

Mohammed, 2009). The present results suggest that, even though people may generally be motivated to see the worlds just, their justice beliefs do seem to be informed by the reality in which they live. Perceiving discrimination, whetherlatant or more subtle, may lead people to see or expect less justice for themselves. As a result, they may see the world as

ess orderly and predictable and they may experience less control, which may result in poorer psychological functioning.oreover, although some studies have found that individuals with a stronger belief in a just world may be motivated toinimize incidences of injustice or discrimination (e.g., Hafer & Olson, 1989; Lipkus & Siegler, 1993), the current findings

uggest that they may not be able protect their justice beliefs when such experiences occur on a more regular basis. As such,hey lend support to the idea that the belief in a just world for self is a partly experiential construct (e.g., Dalbert, 2009;albert & Stoeber, 2006).

These findings run somewhat counter, however, to the general idea that it may be adaptive for persons in difficult circum-tances to deny instances of injustice (e.g., Olson & Hafer, 2001). Nevertheless, most studies in this regard have examinedustice beliefs and experiences among members of relatively privileged groups (e.g., students and professionals in wealthyations). They may be more motivated to see the world as just and fair compared to members from more disadvantagedroups such as the ethnic minority participants in this study, both to explain their own position and the position of lessrivileged groups (e.g., Hunt, 2000). Furthermore, it is possible that just world beliefs are less stable among ethnic minorityroup members, particularly when they occupy a low status position in society and are confronted with discriminationeither at a personal or a group level) on a regular basis. It has also been suggested (e.g., Williams & Mohammed, 2009) thatnfair treatment based on one’s ethnic group membership may have different effects than other forms of unfair treatment,ecause it is particularly threatening to a person’s sense of rights and opportunities. In addition, there is evidence that therere cross-cultural differences in terms of what people consider to be just or unjust (e.g., Lee, Ottati, Bornman, & Yang, 2011).s such, future research should examine more carefully how justice beliefs are shaped among ethnic minority group mem-ers, and how stable they are over time and across different situations. Such studies should also explicitly compare justiceeliefs among ethnic minority members with those of majority group members.

The present research has its limitations as well, however. For example, it only focused on the belief in a just worldor self whereas just world beliefs consist of a more general component as well (i.e., the belief in a just world for others).lthough it has been found that the extent to which people believe that the world is just to them affects their well-beingore than their belief that the world is just to others (e.g., Lipkus et al., 1996), the belief in a just world for others may

lso vary as a function of the extent to which they perceive discrimination directed against their ingroup. Given that peopleave been found to report more group discrimination than personal discrimination (e.g., Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997), futuretudies should also examine how the belief in a just world for others affects how they respond to discrimination against thengroup.

Furthermore, the present data are cross-sectional and so they need to be replicated using methods that provide a strongerasis for causal inference. It is important to note, however, that the results are consistent with recent insights from labo-atory and field studies in the experiential nature of the belief in a just world (e.g., Cubela Adoric & Kvartuc, 2007; Stroebet al., 2011; Sutton et al., 2008). That being said, it is still unclear why discrimination leads to perceptions of unfairnessr injustice: is it for example because ethnic minority members resist being treated in terms of their group member-hip rather than their personal characteristics, is it because they are being denied full membership of a group they wanto belong to (e.g., Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999), or is it perhaps a combination of these or other fac-ors? Thus, more research is needed to examine in more detail what drives the feeling of injustice following perceivediscrimination.

Despite these limitations, the current findings are an important first step in understanding how and why discriminationay affect subjective well-being among ethnic minority group members. They suggest that it is the unfairness that is implied

n discrimination that results in lower levels of well-being, and they also show that this process is similar for blatant andore subtle forms of discrimination. As such, the findings add to our understanding of the mechanisms that lie beneath the

egative effect of different types of discrimination on well-being, and they provide an important stepping stone for furtheresearch in this area.

cknowledgements

This research was supported by two Grants (# 1314116 and # 1419612) from the Province Noord-Brabant, theetherlands. I express my gratitude to Paul Mutsaers, Fatima Aynaou, and several anti-discrimination offices (Radar,dviespunt Discriminatie, and Basta!) for their help in collecting the data. Different analyses of some of the data presented

n this paper appear in Schaafsma (2011).

J. Schaafsma / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 450– 458 457

Appendix A. Items used to measure blatant and subtle discrimination

Blatant discrimination

1. How often in your life have people threatened you because of your ethnic background?2. How often in your life have people been rude or offensive to you because of your ethnic background?3. How often in your life have you been teased or made fun of because of your ethnic background?4. How often in your life have people hit or pushed you because of your ethnic background?5. How often in your life have you been rejected because of your ethnic background?

Subtle discrimination

How often do you have the feeling that:

1. You have to prove yourself more than others because of your ethnic background?2. People judge you negatively or look at you in an unusual way because of your ethnic background?3. People distrust you because of your ethnic background?4. You are not being accepted because of your ethnic background?5. People do not take you seriously because of your ethnic background?6. You are being ignored because of your ethnic background?7. People look down on you because of your ethnic background?8. You are not welcome because of your ethnic background?

Appendix B. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.002.

References

Andriessen, I., Dagevos, J., Nievers, E., & Boog, I. (2007). Discriminatiemonitor niet-westerse allochtonen op de arbeidsmarkt 2007 [Labor market discriminationmonitor non-western minorities 2007]. The Hague, The Netherlands: SCP/Art. 1.

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.),Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Oxford: Blackwell.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. M. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 504–553).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cubela Adoric, V., & Kvartuc, T. (2007). Effects of mobbing on justice beliefs and adjustment. European Psychologist, 12, 261–271.Dalbert, C. (1998). Belief in a just world, well-being and coping with an unjust fate. In L. Montada, & M. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief

in the just world (pp. 87–105). New York: Plenum.Dalbert, C. (2001). The justice motive as a personal resource: Dealing with challenges and critical life events. New York: Plenum Press.Dalbert, C. (2009). Belief in a just world. In M. R. Leary, & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 288–297). New York:

Guilford Publications.Dalbert, C., & Stoeber, J. (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, 200–207.Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

82, 62–68.Dzuka, J., & Dalbert, C. (2002). Mental health and personality of Slovak unemployed adolescents: The impact of belief in a just world. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 32, 732–757.Eliezer, D., Townsend, S. M., Sawyer, P. J., & Major, B. (2011). System-justifying beliefs moderate the relationship between perceived discrimination and

resting blood pressure. Social Cognition, 3, 303–321.Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 795–817.Hafer, C. L., & Olson, J. M. (1989). Beliefs in a just world and reactions to personal deprivation. Journal of Personality, 57, 799–823.Hunt, M. O. (2000). Status, religion, and the belief in a just world: Comparing African Americans, Latinos, and Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 325–343.Lee, Y.-T., Ottati, V., Bornman, E., & Yang, S. (2011). A cross-cultural investigation of beliefs of justice in China, USA and South-Africa. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 35, 511–521.Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030–1051.Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & 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, 666–677.Lipkus, I. M., & Siegler, I. C. (1993). The belief in a just world and perceptions of discrimination. The Journal of Psychology, 127, 465–474.Major, B., Kaiser, C. R., O’Brien, L. T., & McCoy, S. K. (2007). Perceived discrimination as worldview threat or worldview confirmation: Implications for

self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1068–1086.Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In M.

P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 251–300). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Noh, S., Kaspar, V., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2007). Overt and subtle racial discrimination and mental health: Preliminary findings for Korean immigrants.

American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1269–1274.Olson, J. M., & Hafer, C. L. (2001). Tolerance of personal deprivation. In J. T. Jost, & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on

ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 157–175). New York: Cambridge University Press.Pascoe, E., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531–554.

4

P

PPP

RR

S

S

SS

S

VW

58 J. Schaafsma / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 37 (2013) 450– 458

avot, W. G., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction with life scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergenceof well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149–161.

avot, W. G., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.ettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–76.reacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.

Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.ubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65–90.uggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do not perceive the discrimination that confronts them: The role of

self-esteem and perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 373–389.chaafsma, J. (2011). Discrimination and subjective well-being: The moderating roles of identification with the heritage group and the host majority group.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 786–795.chmitt, M. J. (1998). Methodological strategies in research to validate measures of belief in a just world. In L. Montada, & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to

victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 187–216). New York: Plenum.ingelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.troebe, K., Dovidio, J. F., Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., & John, M.-S. (2011). Is the world a just place? Countering the negative consequences of pervasive

discrimination by affirming the world as just. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 484–500.

utton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., Wilkin, K. J., Elder, T. J., Cole, J. M., & Stathi, S. (2008). Justice for whom, exactly? Beliefs in justice for the self and various

others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 528–541.an de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.illiams, D. R., & Mohammed, S. A. (2009). Discrimination and racial disparities in health: Evidence and needed research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,

32, 20–47.