Imagine this: someone wins a million in the lottery. Most of us immediately think, “Well, they probably deserved it—maybe they worked hard or they’re just a good person.” Or the opposite: someone gets into a car crash, and we hear, “Probably their own fault, wasn’t paying attention.” These aren’t just random thoughts. This is the just world fallacy at work—a psychological mechanism that convinces us the world is fair and everyone gets what they deserve.

The idea isn’t new. It was first systematically described in the 1960s by social psychologist Melvin Lerner. He noticed that people tend to justify injustice to preserve their belief that the world is a safe and predictable place. If we admit that bad things can happen to anyone, even “good” people, for no reason at all—it shatters our inner stability. And we really don’t like that.

The Experiment That Changed Everything

One of Lerner’s key studies was conducted in 1965. Participants watched another person (actually an actor) receive electric shocks for wrong answers in a test. When the “victim” was presented as a “good person,” observers felt strong discomfort. But when told the victim would be compensated or that it was a “learning experiment,” the tension eased. Most strikingly: when there was no compensation, many began thinking the victim “probably deserved it” or “wasn’t that good after all.”

This is the just world fallacy in action. We can’t handle pure randomness. We’d rather invent a reason than live in a world where things just happen.

Why Does It Work This Way?

From an evolutionary perspective, belief in a just world is a defense mechanism. If we believe bad things only happen to “bad” people, we can tell ourselves: “I’m good—so this won’t happen to me.” It reduces anxiety. Psychologists call this control through illusion.

But there’s a dark side. This belief makes us:

• Devalue victims: “She shouldn’t have walked there at night.”
• Overvalue the successful: “He’s a billionaire—so he must be a genius and a hard worker.”
• Ignore systemic issues: poverty, discrimination, sheer chance.

Real-Life Examples

Remember how, after terrorist attacks or disasters, people look for “reasons” in the victims’ behavior? “Why did he take that flight?” “Shouldn’t have gone to that neighborhood.” It’s not cruelty. It’s the brain trying to regain control.

Or take the lottery. Studies show winners are often seen as “chosen by fate,” not random lucky draws. Even though the odds are the same for everyone. But admitting that means admitting luck is blind. And that’s scary.

Can We Escape This Fallacy?

Not entirely. It’s hardwired. But we can become aware of it.

Here are a few ways:

1. Ask yourself: “What if this happened to me? Would I be to blame?”
2. Look for systemic causes: not “why did she get sick,” but “why is healthcare inaccessible in this country?”
3. Let randomness exist: the world doesn’t punish or reward. It just is.

Research from the 2000s and 2010s (e.g., Furnham, 2003; Hafer & Bègue, 2005) shows that people with a strong belief in a just world are more likely to suffer depression after traumatic events. Why? Because reality shatters their illusion. Those who accept randomness cope better.

Observations from Clinical Practice

Many therapists notice: clients who blame themselves for everything (“I got sick because I didn’t pray enough”) struggle more to recover. Those who say, “It happened. Not because I’m bad. It just happened”—move forward.

This isn’t about pessimism. It’s about realism. And paradoxically, it brings more peace than the illusion of control.

In Closing

The just world fallacy isn’t stupidity or cruelty. It’s an ancient psychological trick that helped us survive. But today, it often keeps us from seeing reality. The next time you hear “they deserved it”—pause. Ask: what if they didn’t? What if it just… happened?

The world isn’t fair. But that’s exactly why we can be kinder—not because we “have to,” but because we choose to. The world doesn’t punish or reward. It just keeps going. And so can we.

Sources for those who want to dig deeper:

• Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
• Lerner, M. J. (1980). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion.
• Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory. Psychological Bulletin.
• Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: Research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences.