Opfer von Schicksalsschlägen (wie Arbeitslosigkeit, Verkehrsunfällen, schweren Krankheiten), leiden oft zusätzlich darunter, daß sie von Mitmenschen herabgesetzt und ausgegrenzt werden, daß ihnen Vorwürfe gemacht und Selbstverschuldung unterstellt wird ("blaming the victim"-Phänomen). Was bewegt Menschen dazu, Opfer zu belasten, statt zu helfen? Zwei Motive wurden diskutiert. (1) Beobachter wollen mit ihren Vorwürfen Kontrolle und die Illusion aufrechterhalten, ihnen selbst könne ähnliches nicht passieren (Defensivattributionshypothese). (2) Beobachter wollen die Illusion einer gerechten Welt aufrechterhalten, in der jeder bekommt, was er verdient (Gerechte-Welt-Theorie). Beide Annahmen wurden bisher nie vergleichend getestet, zudem sind der Glaube an Gerechtigkeit und der Glaube an Kontrolle verwandt und die Instrumente zu ihrer Erfassung oft ähnlich. In einer Fragebogenuntersuchung über Einstellungen zu Krebskrankheiten an 326 Probanden zeigte sich, daß der Glaube an eine gerechte Welt tatsächlich mit Vorwürfen an Kranke einherging, was aber nicht zu einem Gefühl der Sicherheit führte. Der Glaube an Kontrolle ging dagegen mit Invulnerabilitätsillusionen einher, ohne den Umweg über Verantwortlichmachungen der Opfer zu nehmen. In dieser Arbeit ließ sich auch zeigen, daß der Glaube an Gerechtigkeit und an Kontrolle trotz ihrer Gemeinsamkeiten sinnvoll zu unterscheiden sind. Außerdem konnten verschiedene Spielarten des Glaubens an Gerechtigkeit und an Kontrolle mit unterschiedlichen Wirkungen demonstriert werden.
Cancer diagnosis prototypically represents a critical life event and, thus, requires extensive coping efforts by the patients which may be promoted by support received from their social network members. Quantity and quality of received support can be determined by the patients' self-presentation of their coping behavior ("coping-portrayal") and by their attempts at mobilizing support. Until now, research has indicated that a depressive and ruminative coping-portrayal may especially evoke negative emotional reactions in others. The quasi-experimental study presented here focused on the effects of a ruminative coping-portrayal on willingness of others in providing social support and investigated, in particular, if these effects may be counteracted by more or less direct attempts at support mobilization. A sample of 189 middle-aged subjects received fictitious descriptions of an encounter with a "former schoolmate" (protagonist) who discloses that he has recently been diagnosed with cancer. The protagonist's directness of support mobilization (explicit vs. implicit vs. no request of support) as well as his coping-portrayal (with vs. without rumination) were systematically manipulated. Action tendencies with regard to sustained support (e.g., high time-investment) and short-term encouragement as well as the intensity of specific emotions (e.g., sympathy; fear of one's own distress; joy at the other's trustfulness) were considered as dependent variables. Results showed that a ruminative coping-portrayal evoked less sympathy than a coping-portrayal without rumination; moreover, a ruminative way of presenting one's coping behavior induced action tendencies which were described by momentary encouragement rather than by sustained support endeavors. Explicit requests of support reduced subjects' fear of their own distress and mostly increased joy at the protagonist's trustfulness compared to implicit requests. Furthermore, the negative effects of a ruminative coping-portrayal on the subjects' willingness to provide sustained support were compensated by explicit requests for support provision. In general, these results quite convincingly show that the way of activating supportive actions from others can be crucial for support received when facing a critical life event.