There are also associations between the JS facets and behavioral as well as mental health outcomes that are not yet well understood, contradicted expectations, and/or that cannot be well explained within the existing theoretical framework of JS and associated approaches. In these cases, a more thorough overview of the affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses associated with the JS facets may help to better understand and explain these associations. For example, first, victim JS was reliably related to anger, revenge, and antisocial behavior (Schmitt, 1996; Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004; Baumert et al., 2014; Bondü and Richter, 2016). It, however, also showed positive relations with social skills, such as empathy and/or Theory of Mind (Edele et al., 2013; Baumert et al., 2014; Strauß et al., 2021), which are generally thought to protect from antisocial conduct. Results from the present study may, therefore, help to further explain these differential relations. As a second example, although observer and beneficiary JS were generally positively related to prosocial behavior, both were also positively related to perpetrator punishment that may not only be considered an altruistic but also an aggressive act (Lotz et al., 2011; Baumert et al., 2014). In addition, beneficiary JS unexpectedly was positively related to the appreciation of own advantages (that should rather be particularly aversive for individuals high in beneficiary JS) (Pretsch et al., 2016). Furthermore, observer JS was repeatedly positively related to reactive aggression (Bondü and Krahé, 2015; Bondü and Richter, 2016). Finally, research related all JS facets to a broad range of internalizing problems (Bondü et al., 2017, 2020; Bondü and Inerle, 2020; Bilgin et al., 2021), but empirical evidence for the mechanisms potentially explaining these links is sparse.

Therefore, getting deeper insights into typical responses of individuals high in JS may help to explain why they are prone to responding in the observed ways. For example, if individuals high in victim JS not only had a strong tendency to experience anger, but also sadness and disappointment, this finding would help to explain its relations with internalizing symptoms (Bondü et al., 2017; Bilgin et al., 2021); if individuals high in observer JS were found to be prone to helplessness in the present study, this would help to explain its relations with eating disorder pathology (Bondü et al., 2020); if individuals high in beneficiary JS were not as prone to guilt as previously thought, but prone to justifying inequalities, these findings would help to explain why they were found to appreciate rather than dislike own advantages (Pretsch et al., 2016).

In addition, although the three altruistic JS facets often have similar effects, they were frequently differentially related to outcome measures, including altruistic punishment (Lotz et al., 2011; Baumert et al., 2014), reactive aggression (Bondü and Krahé, 2015; Bondü and Richter, 2016), and moral courage (Niesta Kayser et al., 2010; Baumert et al., 2013). Therefore, it seems important to increase the understanding of how these three JS facets differ in order to explain their diverging effects. For example, it has been assumed that the primary affect associated with both beneficiary and perpetrator JS is guilt. If the present study showed differences in the level of guilt or in the levels of other emotions associated with beneficiary and perpetrator JS, this would help to better carve out the differences between these JS facets. Similarly, victim and observer JS have often shown moderate to high correlations between 0.4 and 0.6 in previous research (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010; Baumert et al., 2014; Bondü and Elsner, 2015). It has, therefore, been argued that observers may tend to identify with the victims of injustice which would also explain positive relations between observer JS and reactive aggression (Bondü and Krahé, 2015). Similar association patterns of victim and observer JS with the affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses examined in the present study would help to underpin or contradict this notion. In addition, should our analyses indicate influences of victim JS in situations from the observer perspective beyond observer JS, this would also indicate the tendency of observer-sensitive individuals to identify with the victim of the situation.

Whereas research on JS systematically captured the disposition to sensitively react to injustice from different perspectives (that is, the JS facets), it did not yet systematically consider the potential role of the perspective from which injustice is presented. Most research presented unjust scenarios from the victim’s or observer’s perspective (Gollwitzer et al., 2005, 2009; Baumert and Schmitt, 2009; Lotz et al., 2013), and some considered the beneficiary’s and perpetrator’s perspectives (Schmitt, 1998; Maes and Schmitt, 1999; Schmitt et al., 2000; Gollwitzer et al., 2005). According to trait activation theory (Tett and Burnett, 2003), however, the different JS facets should be specifically activated by, and particularly impactful in, situations that correspond with these traits. Correspondence means that a situation contains cues of (in)justice and is presented from the perspective that matches one of the JS facets (but not the other three). Consequently, the JS facets should be specifically related to affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses in unjust situations that are perceived from the corresponding perspective. Put differently, interpersonal differences should become particularly relevant in situations that correspond with the given trait. The present study, therefore, systematically crossed situational perspectives and JS facets to close this gap in research.

Previous research linked experiences of injustice to an array of negative emotions (Mikula et al., 1998; Krehbiel and Cropanzano, 2000). Anger is considered the primary affective response to injustice by victims that may warn the perpetrator of future unjust behavior (Averill, 1983; Schmitt and Mohiyeddini, 1996). But anger may not be limited to victims: Observers of injustice are thought to be prone to indignation, an emotion close to anger; also, beneficiaries and perpetrators may experience anger/indignation at the situation and/or the perpetrator/themselves.

Particularly victims of injustice can also experience sadness and/or self-pity when a deserved or desired outcome was not received or when feeling negatively treated by others (Mikula et al., 1998; Stöber, 2003). If others observe, benefit from, or cause injustice and witness the victim’s negative responses, they should be prone to empathize with the victim and, thus, also feel sad and pity the victim. Although particularly beneficiaries and perpetrators should be prone to guilt, observers may also feel guilty if they cannot help the victim or when they themselves are better off. Even victims may feel guilty if they blame themselves for the situation (Mikula et al., 1998). Because individuals are generally motivated to avoid injustice, they may experience helplessness if they fail to do so. Observers may feel helpless if they cannot prevent injustice or help the victim. If it is difficult or impossible to restore justice, beneficiaries and perpetrators of injustice should feel helpless as well. Finally, all parties should be prone to disappointment, for example when promises were broken, positive expectations were not met, or if the perpetrator behaved adversely in another, unexpected way (Schmitt et al., 1995; De Cremer, 2006).

Individuals may be prone to experiencing numerous and diverse negative emotions, for example, if they are high in neuroticism. They may also be prone to experience certain emotions in particular: some individuals may tend to respond with anger, whereas others may be particularly prone to guilt (e.g., Cohen et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2019). The situation may influence the tendency to show specific affective responses as well, for example by promoting different emotions depending on the perspective from which the situation is perceived. Finally, the same situation may trigger different affective responses and different individuals may be more or less prone to some of these responses. For example, the construct of rejection sensitivity distinguishes two facets of angry and anxious rejection sensitivity that may be differentially pronounced in children and adolescents (Downey et al., 1998) and that differentially relate to social behavior and mental health problems (Marston et al., 2010). It is, therefore, important to further disentangle potential personal and situational effects on affective responses associated with JS and unjust situations.

Cognitive strategies are powerful means to alter the perception of situations in order to minimize their negative effects and to regulate negative affect in the face of injustice. Cognitive coping or emotion-regulation strategies, however, were hardly examined with regard to JS. In line with general strategies of cognitive emotion regulation (Garnefski et al., 2001) or moral disengagement (Bandura et al., 1996) and irrespective of the perspective from which injustice is perceived, witnesses of injustice may, therefore, revert to justify the perpetrator’s behavior, blame the victim or minimize the resulting harm, in order to relieve the strain caused by perceptions of injustice (Lerner, 1980). Adverse experiences, such as injustice, may also result in rumination as a maladaptive emotion-regulation strategy (Olatunji et al., 2013, for a meta-analysis) and difficulties to suppress thoughts of the situation. Finally, experiences of injustice may result in the anticipation of future injustice (Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004) that can be associated with worry and fear of own or repeated victimization.

The relations between these responses were hardly examined in previous research (Yang et al., 2021, for a study on the relationship between anger rumination and moral disengagement). For example, it is, therefore, yet unknown, whether individuals who tend to ruminate about injustice should be hampered to reduce the strain associated with experiencing unjust events by employing strategies of moral disengagement or whether these individuals should be particularly in need of and, therefore, prone to use these strategies. Similarly, it has been argued that the anticipation of future injustice may explain adverse behavior among individuals high in victim JS in terms of dysfunctional thoughts (Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004; Bondü and Elsner, 2015), but this assumption has not been tested. Therefore, more thoroughly examining diverse potential cognitive responses toward injustice may add to a better understanding of the effects of JS.

Injustice often urges to restore justice. Perpetrator punishment is considered the primary behavioral response particularly of victims of injustice, but also by observers or (involuntary) profiteers. Even perpetrators may revert to self-punishment if victim compensation is impossible (Nelissen and Zeelenberg, 2009). Although particularly observers, beneficiaries, or perpetrators of injustice should strive to compensate the victim, victims may also try to do so themselves. Further possibilities to restore justice that were not yet considered with regard to JS include trying to resolve the conflict (e.g., by mediating between conflicting parties, excusing, or promising change) or to forgive the perpetrator (Deutsch and Coleman, 2000). Finally, individuals may revert to social withdrawal in order to prevent themselves from becoming a victim of, witnessing, profiting from, or causing injustice.

Although primary behavioral responses have been attributed to each of the four JS facets, it is not well known how they relate to the other potential responses. For example, individuals high in victim JS should be prone to perpetrator punishment and less prone to forgive (Gerlach et al., 2012). It is, however, not well known whether they should nonetheless be inclined to resolve the conflict at the same time, as may be suggested by higher levels of social skills even among children high in victim JS (Strauß et al., 2021). It is, therefore, important, to more thoroughly investigate these relation patterns to better understand the JS perspectives as well as potential differences between them and how they may affect behavior in different ways.

The present research was guided by three main goals. First, we wanted to explore the effects of the situational perspective on a large number of potential affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to injustice. We wanted to reveal which of these responses are general responses to injustice and which responses are more perspective specific, that is, vary in intensity depending on the perspective from which injustice is experienced (i.e., the main effects of the situational perspective).

Second, we wanted to explore more systematically than before how victim, observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator JS predispose to cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to injustice, in particular those that have not been linked with JS in previous research (i.e., the main effects of the four JS facets).

Third, inspired by trait activation theory, we intended to reveal how situational characteristics and characteristics of the person jointly affect responses to injustice. Trait activation theory predicts that JS will impact responses to injustice most forcefully if the perspective from which injustice is experienced (situation) matches the JS facet (person) (i.e., the interaction effect of situation × person; Figure 1).

We recruited a sample of German adults who rated their agreement to 17 potential affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses toward three unjust situations from the victim’s, observer’s, beneficiary’s, and perpetrator’s perspectives, respectively. In doing so, we collected data that allowed us to examine (1) which are the most relevant affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses toward unjust situations in general and from the victim’s, observer’s, beneficiary’s, and perpetrator’s perspectives (situation main effects), (2) how these responses are associated with the JS facets regardless of the situation (personality main effects), (3) and whether the effects of the JS facets are stronger in unjust situations from the corresponding perspective than in unjust situations from perspectives that do not correspond with the JS facet at issue (person × situation interaction effects).

In order to estimate the unique contribution of JS to emotional, cognitive, and behavioral reactions to unjust situations, we controlled for numerous other variables that may also account for differences in these responses and/or that show conceptual overlaps with JS. By way of example, we controlled for trait anger, spite, narcissism, and a tendency toward vengeance, because they may also explain why individuals should be prone to experiencing anger or to seek perpetrator punishment; we controlled for extraversion, self-esteem, and locus of control, because they may influence whether individuals should be prone to socially withdraw or actively engage in social problem solving; we controlled for empathy, because it may explain why individuals high in the altruistic JS facets should be prone to prosocial responses toward the victims of injustice; we controlled for the general tendency toward moral disengagement, because this may also explain the engagement in similar cognitive strategies specifically in unjust situations.

We expected (1) unjust situations to be associated with a broad range of adverse affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses (irrespective of the individual expression of JS), (2) victim, observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator JS to be related to these affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to injustice (irrespective of the perspective from which the unjust situations are perceived), and (3) the relations of JS with these responses to be more pronounced in situations that were presented from the perspective that corresponds with the respective JS facet (Table 1 shows detailed Hypotheses based on previous research findings and theoretical considerations for the expected situation × person interaction effects; given that unjust situations from a specific perspective and the sensitivity toward injustice from the corresponding JS facet should elicit similar responses as their interaction, we assumed that the situation and person main effects should be equivalent to their interaction effects and only present a single table for the hypotheses). We also explored whether the potential interaction effects held stable when the control variables and the respective other three JS facets were entered into the analyses.

We measured each JS facet via five items from the short version of the Justice Sensitivity Inventory (Schmitt et al., 2005; Bondü and Elsner, 2015; e.g., victim JS: “It makes me angry when I am treated worse than others”; perpetrator JS: “I feel guilty when I treat someone worse than others.”). Response options ranged from 0 (not applicable at all) to 5 (perfectly applicable). The original and the short scale have been shown to be reliable and valid (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010; Bondü and Elsner, 2015).

Participants were presented with three unjust scenarios per perspective (i.e., the victim, observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator perspective; Appendix A for vignette examples), that is, with 12 scenarios in total. Scenario descriptions were adapted to the sex of the participant. We had pre-tested and pre-selected these scenarios in two pre-tests: First, we collected and thought of descriptions of potentially unjust scenarios and decided from which of the four perspectives these scenarios seemed most realistic. We then presented N = 20 individuals between 21 and 75 years of age (M = 32.05, SD = 13.39; 50% women) with 28 scenarios (seven scenarios from the victim and perpetrator perspectives, respectively; eight scenarios from the observer perspective; six scenarios from the beneficiary perspective) and asked them to rate how unjust, realistic, upsetting, and interesting they found each scenario on 5-point scales, respectively (0—not at all to 4—very). In a second pre-test with N = 18 individuals between 23 and 52 years (M = 29.78, SD = 8.84; 50% women) we pre-tested nine additional scenarios (one from the victim perspective and four from the beneficiary and perpetrator perspectives, respectively). Out of the 37 scenarios, two of the present authors selected the three scenarios per perspective that were rated as most unjust (main decision criterion) and were at the same time considered realistic.

After each of the 12 scenarios, participants rated how much they agreed that they would show six affective (anger/indignation, guilt, sadness, disappointment, [self-]pity, helplessness), six cognitive (rumination, justification, victim-blaming, trivialization, suppression, anticipation of future injustice), and five behavioral responses (perpetrator punishment, victim compensation, conflict solution, forgiveness, social withdrawal; Appendix B for item wordings) in this situation on a six-point Likert-scale from 0—not agree at all to 5—totally agree. We computed mean scores for each response across scenarios separately for each perspective.

We assessed various control variables to examine whether JS would predict the responses toward injustice beyond these variables. We computed mean scores for all variables.

Trait anger was assessed by eight items of the corresponding subscale of the German State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI; Rohrmann et al., 2013; “I get angry easily”; response options: 1—almost never to 4—almost always).

Narcissism was assessed by five items (“I wish someone would write my biography one day”; response options: 1—does not apply at all to 5—completely applies) of a German short version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-d5; Collani, 2014).

Moral disengagement was assessed via eight items (“Repulsive persons do not have the right to be treated as human beings”; response options: 1—not agree to 5—totally agree) of the Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement Questionnaire (Bandura et al., 1996).

Motivation for vengeance was assessed via eight items (“Vengeance is sweet”; response options: 1—not agree to 6—totally agree) of the Vengeance Scale (Stuckless and Goranson, 1992).

Spite was assessed via six items (“I often reject things on principle”; Case and Fitness, personal information; response options: 1—not at all agree to 7—totally agree).

External/internal locus of control was assessed via four items each (external: “Much of what happens in my life depends on chance”; internal: “Often I do not know how to fulfill my wishes”; Richter et al., 2013; 1—very wrong to 6—very right).

Self-esteem was assessed via 10 items (“I am content with me”) from the Frankfurt Self-Concept Scales (Deusinger, 1986; response options: 1—not agree to 6—fully agree).

Empathy was assessed via eight items (“Before I criticize someone, I try to imagine how it looks from his point of view”; response options: 1—almost never to 5—almost always) from the Saarbruecker Personality Questionnaire on Empathy (Paulus, 2011).

Extraversion was assessed via three items (“I am someone who is communicative, talkative”; 1—not agree to 7—totally agree) of the German Socio-Economic Panel (Richter et al., 2013).

In line with a core assumption of justice theory and previous research (Schmitt, 1996; Mikula et al., 1998), injustice is generally aversive and causes responses that aim to level out injustice. Consequently, the unjust experiences described in the 12 vignettes in the present study elicited a broad range of (partly adverse) affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses, regardless of the perspective from which injustice was perceived and regardless of the individual JS level. Anger, pity, and disappointment were the strongest affective responses across perspectives, rumination and anticipation of future injustice were the strongest cognitive responses, and conflict resolution, victim compensation, and forgiveness were the strongest behavioral responses. These findings are important for future JS research because several of these strong reactions to injustice were not considered in previous studies. They also point to the probability that there are further responses that may be relevant and should be examined. Finally, these findings indicate that the already negative effects of unjust experiences are further exaggerated in individuals high in JS, so that this trait likely places an additional constant burden and strain on these individuals.

As expected, the unjust scenarios tended to differentially elicit some of the affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses in the present study, depending on the perspective from which these scenarios were described. Other responses, however, were similar in strength across perspectives. For example, affective responses, particularly scenarios from the victim and observer perspective elicited strong responses of anger or indignation; almost no guilt was reported in victim situations, whereas it was a strong affective response in perpetrator situations. In contrast, the average level of helplessness was similar across perspectives. All perspectives were characterized by specific combinations of relevant adverse affective responses, indicating that experiences of injustice require coping irrespective of the perspective from which they are perceived, but may require different coping strategies and result in differential behavioral tendencies. Of note, scenarios from the beneficiary’s perspective were associated with the least pronounced affective responses, indicating that injustice from the beneficiary’s perspective may be less burdensome than that from other perspectives.

Cognitive and behavioral responses showed similar but less pronounced perspective effects than affective responses. Regarding cognitive responses, for example, the average level of reported suppression varied less than that of anticipation of future injustice which was most pronounced in victim situations. Rumination was also similar across perspectives, but also less pronounced for the beneficiary perspective, again indicating that this perspective may be dealt with for example by suppressing too many thoughts about it. Again, all perspectives were characterized by differential patterns of cognitive responses, thereby also indicating different approaches to coping with these situations.

Finally, regarding behavioral responses, forgiveness, and social withdrawal were similar across perspectives, whereas victim compensation more strongly depended on the perspective and was strongest from the perpetrator’s perspective. The pattern of strong behavioral impulses differed between these perspectives as well (Table 3). That is, future research on JS needs to take into consideration the situation from which unjust scenarios are presented, because these perspectives apparently account for parts of the variance.

The pattern of some of the situation effects may not seem surprising to readers familiar with justice research. Nevertheless, it is valuable for at least three reasons. First, its agreement with theoretical expectations and previous research speaks for the construct validity of our scenarios and the utility of our research design. Second, several findings are novel because the responses at issue have not been considered in previous JS research. For instance, sadness, (self-)pity, disappointment, and helplessness are known reactions to injustice but were not included in previous JS research. Similarly, not all cognitive and behavioral responses had been considered in this research but turned out to be relevant in justice-related situations and to create differential patterns depending on the perspective from which injustice was perceived. Thus, future research could take these additional responses into account. Third, some of the present empirical results challenge previous justice theorizing. For instance, for decades, victim-blaming has been claimed to be a preferred strategy to cope with both observed and committed injustice (Sykes and Matza, 1957; Ryan, 1971; Lerner, 1980). Our results do not support this claim. Unexpectedly, victim-blaming was most pronounced in victim situations. Hence, victims are not only harmed by third parties but may even intensify these adverse effects by self-blame. The mean level patterns for social withdrawal also seem important. Beneficiaries and perpetrators who experienced or committed injustice to their advantage and should fear social disapproval reported less social withdrawal than victims and observers who could have been expected to seek social support for their case (observers) or fate (victims) (see below).

Affective responses associated with JS include externally directed emotions (anger/indignation, pity) that are more likely to promote behavior to restore justice, and internally directed emotions (sadness, disappointment, helplessness) that are likely to promote social withdrawal (Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004; Gollwitzer et al., 2015; Bondü, 2018). In line with the theoretical assumptions (Schmitt, 1996), victim JS was most closely related to anger, but also closely associated with disappointment, self-pity, and sadness. Hence, anger may be the first externalizing response to unjust treatment that explains close associations between victim JS and antisocial behavior, particularly when combined with low levels of guilt. There, however, may be a second, internalizing affective response (Downey et al., 1998) that may motivate social withdrawal and explain the relations between victim JS and internalizing problems (Bondü et al., 2017, 2020; Bilgin et al., 2021). Thus, these affective responses should be taken into account by future research when investigating and explaining the relations between victim JS and different outcome measures.

Contrasting previous assumptions, instead of indignation (Schmitt et al., 2005), sadness was the most common affective response among participants high in observer JS, indicating the strong identification with the victim and explaining its consistent correlations with internalizing problems, particularly with eating behavior pathology when combined with feelings of helplessness (Bondü et al., 2020). Similarly, beneficiary JS showed the closest relations with guilt across all unjust situations but was more closely related to anger, sadness, and disappointment in situations from the beneficiary’s perspective. These affective responses are similar to those of the victim, indicating empathy with the victim in highly beneficiary-justice sensitive individuals. This may explain its positive links with perpetrator punishment (Baumert et al., 2014). These findings, therefore, also indicate important differences between beneficiary and perpetrator JS and may help to explain differences between the two facets in behavioral responses. In line with theoretical assumptions (Schmitt et al., 2010), guilt was the strongest affective response toward injustice among participants high in perpetrator JS regardless of the perspective from which injustice was presented, but also pity and disappointment were relevant. Taken together, the broad range of negative affective responses associated with higher levels of JS may explain the links of all JS facets with internalizing problems (Bondü et al., 2017; 2020; Bondü and Inerle, 2020).

In line with theoretical assumptions, rumination was the most consistent cognitive response toward injustice (Schmitt et al., 1995) across all JS facets and regardless of the perspective from which injustice was perceived. Rumination is an inadequate cognitive coping strategy (Garnefski et al., 2001) that is frequently associated with depressive symptoms (Hasegawa et al., 2017) and may explain links between JS and internalizing problems (Bondü et al., 2017). Low levels of other cognitive responses that may otherwise help to cope with adverse social experiences, such as justification, victim-blaming, or suppression of thought, among individuals high in altruistic JS also add to explaining their links with internalizing problems.

Taken together, the present findings indicate that high levels of JS increase thoughts about injustice and at the same time hamper the use of cognitive strategies that may help to cope with experiences of injustice, particularly in individuals who would be most in need of these strategies, because they suffer most from the violations of the justice principle. That way, high levels of JS may put extra strain on these individuals. These findings also suggest that particularly individuals high in beneficiary and perpetrator JS may tend to anticipate intense negative affect after unjust situations and, therefore, refrain from antisocial behavior and revert to prosocial behavior (Strauß and Bondü, 2022).

Across JS facets and unjust situations, victim compensation was the most common behavioral response (Schmitt et al., 2005, 2010). This may indicate that victim compensation is the mean considered most adequate to restore justice, but also that it best helps to cope with the experience of injustice. It allows to help the victim and counteract injustice, thereby regaining control over the situation. In addition, conflict solution (i.e., pointing out or confessing misbehavior) was a highly relevant behavioral response. Hence, particularly individuals high in observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator JS do not primarily seek perpetrator punishment but tend to give the perpetrator the opportunity to make up for misbehavior. Thus, future research should further investigate this additional behavioral response with regard to JS, for example by shedding light on the ways in which perpetrators can make up for their unjust behavior and which are the prerequisites for forgiveness (e.g., regret).

In contrast, victim JS showed positive associations with perpetrator punishment and negative associations with forgiveness (in situations from the victim’s perspective), supporting previous research that showed positive links between victim JS and antisocial behavior (Schmitt et al., 1995; Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004; Gollwitzer et al., 2005; Bondü and Krahé, 2015) and negative links with forgiveness (Gerlach et al., 2012). Consequently, it may be particularly important to understand what highly victim-sensitive participants need in order to be able to forgive injustice. Participants high in victim JS, however, were also prone to social withdrawal, suggesting that they may refrain from social interactions to avoid future victimization. Hence, uncooperative and even proactive aggressive behavior by individuals high in victim JS (Gollwitzer et al., 2005, 2009) may be a self-protective strategy in the face of a learned generalized anticipation of further injustice (Fetchenhauer and Huang, 2004; Bondü, 2018), rather than an expression of aggression or a general unwillingness for cooperation.