{PSOCIAL}

The concept of belief in a just world (BJW), a term conceptualized by Lerner (Lerner, 1965), refers to individuals' belief that the world is a just place where everyone gets what they deserve. This concept has an important adaptive function in the individual (Furham, 2003). BJW avoids the anguish and uncertainty of living in an unpredictable environment and has two effects that occur at different levels. On the one hand, these beliefs are salutogenic for individuals, as they provide psychological buffers against the reality of the world, personal control over one's own destiny, allow planning for the future, and are positively related to coping strategies (Barreiro et al., 2018; Furham, 2003). On the other hand, they also have negative consequences for social life, since numerous studies corroborate that BJW is positively associated with authoritarianism, by encouraging various forms of intolerance, prejudice and discrimination (Barreiro et al., 2014).

Although BJW is formed in infancy, and depends largely on parenting styles, with the increase in abstract cognition during adolescence, two types of differing beliefs emerge (Dalbert & Stoeber, 2006; Kamble & Dalbert, 2012). Personal BJW is the extent to which people believe that their world is individually just and they get what they deserve in their daily interactions (Correia et al., 2016; Dalbert, 2009). Having a strong personal BJW is protective against widespread fear of random injustices, and enables high internal control and a sense of security within family circles (Dalbert, 2009). It is formed at an early stage of development, through the consistency and impartiality of the family climate and individual experiences (Dalbert & Radant, 2004). Meanwhile, a general BJW is the extent to which people believe that the world in its abstract form, and not just in their individual case, is fair. This belief incorporates assumptions about society in general and is not necessarily the same as BJW at the personal level. In other words, people may cling to the belief that they will be treated personally fairly (strong personal BJW), but still recognize injustices in society (weak general BJW) (Nudelman, 2013). The distinction between personal and general BJW is a reflection that the former is more closely related to the individual’s well-being (Dalbert & Stoeber, 2006), reduces levels of depression and is salutogenic, whereas the general BJW is linked to more negative aspects, such as attitudes of discrimination (Dalbert, 2009).

Previous studies indicate that BJW is a relatively stable concept throughout the life cycle (Furham, 2003). However, more recent studies indicate that general and personal BJW decline but decline at different rates throughout secondary education (Adoric, 2011). Personal BJW tends to be stronger than general BJW at all ages, and the gap between them increases with age (Barreiro, 2013; Oppenheimer, 2006). A hypothesis is that personal and general BJW decrease at different rates, to help adolescents progressively adapt to the understanding that the world is not always just (Donat et al., 2018). No differences between men and women have been found for BJW (Dalbert & Stoeber, 2006; Furham, 2003; Kendra & Mucherach, 2016; Oppenheimer, 2006). As for culture, there do not seem to be differences between the BJWs in different countries (Kendra & Mucherach, 2016). This does not indicate that there are similar levels of justice in all these countries, but instead that each culture probably has its own baseline. However, adolescents' relative perception of how just the world is appeared to be fairly consistent across the different countries studied (Kendra & Mucherach, 2016).

Belief in a just world is therefore a personal, subjective disposition, which can be affected by personal experiences, family situations, etc. (Dalbert & Radant, 2004). For this reason, it has an extraordinary influence on behaviour, adapting to the aforementioned rules and therefore once again influencing people's social behaviour (Dalbert et al., 2001). The fact that it constitutes a personal resource (Furham, 2003) and a coping strategy causes it to guide and benefit social interactions, such as family relationships. A strong BJW therefore seems to function as a personal resource regardless of context (Alves et al., 2018; Peter et al., 2013). This leads us to ask how the BJW relates to other coping strategies from other contexts, such as the family.

The family context, and parents, are especially important for the foundation and maintenance of beliefs in a just world (Dalbert & Radant, 2004). In general, numerous studies indicate that different types of family functioning have a significant impact on children’s development and emotional adjustment. Good family communication positively influences adolescent development, insofar as it is related to better self-esteem, feelings of health and well-being, and more appropriate strategies for coping with difficulties. This communication within the family also helps the adolescent to clarify their ideas and feelings, and facilitates their autonomy and independence while learning to be sensitive to the perspectives of others (Parra et al., 2015; Sánchez-Quejía et al., 2016). However, in addition to family communication, variables such as the family climate and cohesion are acknowledged as basic pillars in children’s development (Ortega-Barón et al., 2016; Rodríguez-Mateo et al., 2018).

In fact, authors such as Dalbert & Radant (2004) propose a theoretical model that relates the BJW and various family aspects. The three-factor parental model (family climate, restriction, and autonomy) emphasizes that greater positive family orientation (family climate) leads to greater belief in a just world. On the other hand, belief in justice also arises from laws or norms, so an absence of norms or rules (restriction) within the family can lead to a lack of sense of justice in the world. Finally, the autonomy factor does not seem to be related to the idea of a just world. It is therefore logical that the BJW relates positively to a balanced family climate, a more rule-oriented family, and fewer conflicts (Dalbert, 2009). In this area, studies on the personal BJW have identified how the family climate is the main variable for its development (Dalajka & Ježek, 2008), and there is some disagreement about whether a rule-oriented family style (restriction) is directly related to BJW. The studies carried out to date have focused primarily on analysing the influence of family aspects in relation to the personal BJW (when the type of BJW was specified), but not so much on the relationship of the general BJW - an aspect that is considered in this study.

Research on BJW has also focused more on childhood and adolescence, traditionally from the perspective of the Piagetian cognitive model (Barreiro, 2013), while leaving aside a recent term such as emerging adulthood or late adolescence (Arnett, 2016), which is analysed in this paper. Today, young people take longer to complete their education, which means they obtain stable employment later, and with it they become independent and adopt roles characteristic of adulthood at a later stage.

Emerging adulthood is the period between 18 and 29 years of age, which has become a cultural phenomenon in industrialized societies as a result of the sociodemographic changes of recent decades, such as increased access to university education, an increase in the labour force, and the postponement of milestones such as marriage and having children (Arnett, 2016). Although it is a culturally constructed concept, some characteristic features of this stage in personal evolution have been identified both in studies in America (Arnett et al., 2011) and Latin America (Barrera-Herrera & Vinet, 2018): a) it is a period of exploration, b) it is a period for building identity, and c) it is an intermediate period, between adolescence and adulthood (Kins et al., 2014). In Spain, emerging adulthood has not been such an extensively studied concept, although some authors maintain that there is a Mediterranean model of transition to adulthood, characterised by giving great importance to family relationships and a delay in leaving the family home and in the age of paternity and maternity (Parra et al., 2015). During emerging adulthood, family relationships are therefore perceived with the same or higher quality than during adolescence (Crocetti & Meeus, 2014) with a positive impact on their well-being (Megías et al., 2019).

Another contribution of this study is its comparison between two different methodologies, namely linear regressions, and qualitative comparative analysis of diffuse sets (QCA). While regression models are based on an individual contribution and do not (a priori) account for the interaction or combination of the different variables studied, Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is an analytical technique that examines how a series of causal conditions contribute to a given outcome. Likewise, only the linear relationship between variables can be studied in linear models, but this does not account for other types of non-linear relationships as QCA models can. This type of model also considers equifinality, which is the possibility of obtaining different models or roads that give rise to the same result (Eng & Woodside, 2012; Ragin, 2008). Another advantage of QCA over linear regressions is its ability to identify combinations of multiple causes. In regression analysis, there is a limit to the number of interaction effects that can be included in an analysis, but not in the QCA. In addition, the results of QCA analysis are more detailed and allow for more horizontal complexity than regression analysis. Despite the differences between them, in general, the literature recommends the use of the two methodologies in a complementary manner (Navarro-Mateu et al., 2020; Villanueva et al., 2017).

For all these reasons, the aim of this study is to examine the relationships between the general belief in a just world and family functioning variables during emerging adulthood in the Spanish population. The hypotheses considered in this study are as follows: H1: family functioning variables will significantly predict the overall BJW; H2: QCA models will provide complementary information to linear regression models, offering different combinations of variables for the same result.

First, we present the main descriptors and calibration values for the variables studied (Table 1).

Table 1 Table 1 Main descriptions and calibration values

This study explores familiar characteristics as predictors of belief in the just world in emerging adulthood, by comparing two analytical methodologies, linear models and QCA models, as main objectives of the research. First, the results in relation to sociodemographic variables indicate that sex is a variable that influences belief in a just world, being men, in combination with other family aspects, the ones that present the strongest belief in a just world. This would not support previous studies, which argued that there were no differences between men and women in adolescence until the age of 25 (Dalbert and Stoeber 2006; Furham 2003; Kendra and Mucherach 2016; Oppenheimer 2006). Another of the variables analysed is age, as a stronger higher BJW is related to being older. This would also not support previous studies, which found that overall BJW decreased as age increased during adolescence and emerging adulthood (Adoric 2011).

The results of this study partially support the first hypothesis, i.e. family functioning variables significantly predict the general BJW, at least in the QCA qualitative analyses, which provide a greater number of combinations of variables to arrive at the same result. In specific terms, the most important aspect of family functioning for the BJW is family resources, a variable that appears significantly in both the analytical techniques used. High levels of family resources are therefore related to high general levels of belief in a just world. This result reinforces the findings of Peter et al (2013), who argue that belief in a just world functions as a coping strategy, regardless of the context.

The results of the rest of the variables of family functioning, communication and family identity are paradoxical since they are related to low levels of belief in a just world. All this is not consistent with the theoretical model of Dalbert and Radant (2004) on the importance of the family climate (variable comparable to the family identity), for belief in a just world. However, this may be because the study does not specify the type of BJW studied. In fact, subsequent studies with personal BJW did confirm the importance of the family climate variable (Dalajka and Ježek 2008). A possible explanation could be based on the results found by Dunst et al (1988), on the original scale of family functioning. These authors found that some of the dimensions of family functioning (specifically identity) were not related to well-being and positive affection and dismissed the assumption that all family dimensions contribute to cushioning negative functioning. Another possible explanation could be that some family dimensions are more closely related to a personal BJW (e.g. family identity as it contributes to security and control within family circles), and other dimensions to a general BJW (e.g. family resources as a more abstract aspect). This would be logical, since the two types of a BJW may not completely overlap (Dalbert and Radant 2004), and in fact, the gap and differentiation between them increases with age (Oppenheimer 2006). This aspect may have been reflected in the age group studied, i.e. emerging adulthood. Future studies should include both types of BJW in relation to family aspects, in order to ascertain this possible differential contribution.

When the two methodologies used were compared, the results supported the second hypothesis that QCA models will provide complementary information to linear regression models, offering different combinations of variables for the same result. Accordingly, it was found that in linear regression models, family variables are not significantly related to the overall BJW, although family resources show a positive and significant beta coefficient. However, with the same dataset, in QCA models the combination of different variables does predict the overall BJW. The results show that a high overall BJW relates to the interaction between adult, male, high personal resources, low levels of communication and low levels of identity. Likewise, QCA models were observed to increase the variance explained by allowing us to combine different conditions (sociodemographic and family variables). A 54% variance was observed in the BJW prediction of the participants when observing the QCA analyses. If regression models alone were available in this study, one might conclude that none of the variables considered significantly predicts a belief in a just world. However, the results of the QCA analysis offer more information, as there are family and sociodemographic variables involved in interaction in the prediction of high levels of BJW. It seems that QCA models are more explanatory in BJW analysis than linear regression models. Given that linear models and QCA models have different objectives, complementarity should be advocated, i.e. both techniques should be used simultaneously in future research, instead of focusing on one or the other (Navarro-Mateu et al. 2020).

Despite the contributions of this research, the study is not without limitations. The sampling procedures are neither probabilistic nor representative of the total set of emerging adulthood, and there is a greater proportion of women among the participants, which makes it difficult to generalize the results found. Probabilistic sampling should be used in future research. In addition, only general BJW was studied, and not personal BJW. In further studies, it would be interesting to make comparisons between the two in order to ascertain the differences in their relationship with family variables. Finally, this study is only based on the responses of young adults, so in the future it would be appropriate to include another source of information, such as parents. This would make it possible to determine the perception of each of the parties involved regarding the family construct studied.

Ultimately, even though BJW appears to form in infancy and tends to differentiate during adolescence, family functioning remains an important variable for BJWs even during emerging adulthood. This is possible particularly because of the positive relationship between BJW and family resources, thereby reaffirming the role of BJW as a personal strategy related to coping strategies in contexts other than the family. Future studies should examine the differential contribution of different family dimensions to types of BJW.