(In)congruence Between Justice Beliefs and Justice Experiences Predicts Adolescents' Prosocial Behaviors: Response Surface Analysis

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Literature shows that justice beliefs and justice experience (peer victimization) shape adolescent prosociality. However, how adolescents react to the (in)congruence between justice beliefs and justice experiences in peer environments remains unclear.

Methods

We utilized response surface analysis to examine how belief‐experience justice (in)congruence affects adolescents' prosocial behaviors.

Results

Study 1 with a cross‐sectional design (N = 2963, M _age = 15.86 ± 0.72, 40.0% girls) showed that, generally, adolescents with stronger justice beliefs and more justice experiences were more likely to engage in global prosocial behaviors, which increased with the belief‐experience justice fit; when adolescents encountered belief‐experience justice conflicts, their beliefs played a more crucial role than experiences in driving prosocial actions. Study 2 with two‐wave data (N = 3038, M _age = 16.83 ± 0.79, 53.6% girls) essentially replicated the cross‐sectional pattern in Study 1 and further found that adolescents' beliefs no longer dominantly promoted prosociality seven months later under belief‐experience conflicts. Moreover, boys and girls behave differently depending on prosocial contexts, especially according to situational visibility.

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate that even in unjust peer environments, adolescents' justice beliefs are resilient enough to guide them toward current prosocial actions, which yet would fade over time.

1. Introduction

During adolescence, peers become an increasingly influential component of social contexts as the significance of primary caregivers decreases (Lam et al. 2014). Adolescents may encounter or witness injustices that contrast with the sheltered growing environments of their earlier years. Meanwhile, adolescence marks the key developmental period of justice beliefs (Godfrey et al. 2019). With the transition from concrete thinking to abstract reasoning, adolescents begin to question beliefs from childhood, constructing their own moral standards and belief systems (Simpson 2001). These shifts highlight the importance of understanding the relations between the developing individuals and their changing environments (Eccles et al. 1993). Moreover, recent research has further suggested that beliefs in a just world (BJW) may not only function as stable individual differences but also reflect one's cumulative justice experiences (Bartholomaeus and Strelan 2019; Sutton et al. 2008; Thomas 2022). This “Justice Capital” perspective (Bartholomaeus 2025) emphasizes that justice beliefs are partly influenced by how individuals have been treated in their environments, rather than being entirely independent mental schemas. Accordingly, examining the interplay between adolescents' justice beliefs and their lived justice experiences provides an opportunity to understand the moral development during this sensitive stage.

Prosocial behavior, as an indicator of moral development, is defined as social behavior that benefits others in various situations and with differing motivations, such as giving, helping, and sharing (Carlo and Randall 2002). Recent scholars have proposed that prosocial behaviors are intricate and multidimensional (Padilla‐Walker and Carlo 2014). Adolescents commonly engage in six forms of situation‐specific prosocial behaviors: altruistic, compliant, emotional, public, anonymous, and dire (Carlo and Randall 2002). Despite some context‐specific exceptions, understanding the factors that shape adolescents' prosocial tendencies is of paramount importance in comprehending their social behaviors and moral development (Zhang 2022). Extensive research proved the role of justice beliefs (e.g., believing a just world) in promoting prosocial behaviors among adolescents (e.g., Chen et al. 2023; Wang et al. 2021), whereas instances of injustice could undermine these behaviors (e.g., Li et al. 2023; Marengo et al. 2018). Yet, among these findings lies an intriguing question: How do adolescents morally respond when faced with incongruence between their justice beliefs and justice experiences they encounter?

To explain how the interplay of valued and perceived justice influences behavioral outcomes, Lennard et al. (2022) drew the Person‐Environment Fit theory to establish a dynamic justice model in organizational contexts. They found that the justice misfit between person value and environmental perception contributed to fewer helping behaviors. Building on this theoretical perspective, this study investigates how the (in)congruence between adolescents' justice beliefs (P) and justice experiences (E) influences their prosocial behaviors. Specifically, we explore whether such fit or misfit predicts different prosocial outcomes and how these patterns vary over time, between genders, and across diverse prosocial contexts. By focusing on the interaction between personal beliefs and external environments, this study aims to shed light on the complex processes underlying adolescents' social and moral development, offering new insights into how they rise to psychosocial challenges.

1.1. Belief‐Experience Justice Fit and Prosocial Behaviors

Justice beliefs, namely belief in a just world (BJW) in this study, stem from an innate subconscious need (Lerner 1980). BJW pertains to the conviction that the world operates on principles of fairness, wherein every individual receives their due rewards or punishments based on their actions (Lerner and Miller 1978). Generally, individuals with strong BJW tend to maintain high expectations of life and a positive outlook on the future. Comprehensive research highlights the protective function of BJW in adolescents, including mental toughness, life meaning, and fewer emotional symptoms (e.g., Tian et al. 2022; Weinberg et al. 2021), as well as prosocial behaviors (e.g., Caroli and Sagone 2014; Weiwei et al. 2023). BJW might reinforce the generalized moral norm of reciprocity, where people feel obliged to return favors and act kindly toward others (Nudelman 2013). Those with strong BJW believe that their current help may not yield immediate rewards but will eventually be rewarded, and thus, they are more inclined to engage in prosocial behavior when someone asks for help. Consequently, when adolescents perceive the world as fair and just, they are more likely to trust individuals and communities, which enhances their willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors (Guo et al. 2022).

Justice experiences for adolescents are significantly sourced from their peers (Umlauft and Dalbert 2017). Peer victimization, common injustice experiences among adolescents, refers to the experience of being targets of aggressive behaviors by their peers, involving various forms, including physical, verbal, relational, and indirect aggression (Hawker and Boulton 2000). Peer victimization contributes to a series of negative consequences for adolescents, including physical and mental health problems (e.g., headaches, depression; Oncioiu et al. 2023; Schacter 2021), as well as more antisocial behaviors (e.g., aggression; Fisher et al. 2016) and fewer prosocial behaviors (Rappaport et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2024). According to the model outlined by Eisenberg and Fabes (1992), individuals who struggle to regulate these negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, depression, and anger) may have less capacity for empathy that drives prosocial behaviors. Victims in school bullying often suffer from negative emotions. The emotional toll of injustice experiences can thus reduce the likelihood of engaging in prosocial behaviors, as the victims are preoccupied with managing their own distress.

Person‐Environment Fit theory posits that optimal outcomes emerge when there is a match between the desires and goals expressed by the individual and the perceived supports and resources available in a setting (Calzo et al. 2018). For example, student wellbeing and resilience were enhanced when their perceived environment more closely matched the preferred environment (Aldridge et al. 2024). In the context of justice, the strong justice belief and frequent justice experience constitute a “belief‐experience fit,” which may motivate prosocial tendencies. Together with the positive association between justice beliefs (BJW) and prosocial behaviors and the negative association between injustice experiences (peer victimization) and prosocial behaviors, we expect that adolescents will present more prosociality when their justice beliefs fit their justice experiences in the peer environment. Here we propose:

Hypothesis 1

Adolescents with higher justice beliefs (i.e., BJW) and more justice experiences (i.e., less peer victimization) are more prosocial.

Hypothesis 2

Greater belief‐experience fit enhances such tendency.

1.2. Belief‐Experience Conflicts About Justice

According to the inconsistency compensation framework (Proulx et al. 2012), inconsistencies between expectations and experiences evoke a biologically aversive arousal that motivates compensatory efforts. These “expectancy violations” can trigger compensatory cognitive or behavioral responses, such as assimilation, accommodation, or affirmation, intended to reduce psychological discomfort. Worldview verification theory further specifies that when experiences confirm one's worldview, they produce psychological stability; when they disconfirm it, they generate threat and uncertainty (Kim 2024; Major et al. 2007; Townsend et al. 2010). Similarly, the dynamic justice model highlights that the justice misfit (value > perception and value < perception) did contribute to negative work behaviors, including less helping behaviors (Lennard et al. 2022). Extending this framework to adolescents, the belief‐experience justice misfit (i.e., belief > experience and belief < experience) should also be linked with fewer prosocial behaviors. However, when the two are in conflict, which one exerts a greater influence on prosocial behavior?

To answer this question, Scheffer et al. (2022) provided the robust neurocognitive evidence that beliefs can be highly resilient, and not easily abandoned in the face of counterevidence. That is, once the human mind embraces an opinion, it tends to align and interpret all things to support and confirm that belief. Consequently, in situations of justice conflicts, beliefs are expected to exert a stronger and more persistent influence than experiential cues. Moreover, Lucas et al. (2016) found that African Americans with strong justice beliefs exhibited heightened biological responses when both distributive and procedural justice were low (i.e., belief > experience). In contrast, those with weak justice beliefs reacted less strongly when facing high justice (i.e., belief < experience). These results underscore that belief‐dominated inconsistencies produce more significant motivational and affective consequences than experience‐dominated ones.

Applied to adolescents' prosocial behaviors, when adolescents with high BJW encounter injustice (i.e., belief > experience), the violation of justice beliefs is likely to elicit more aversive arousal and greater compensatory efforts. They may take action to correct the unfairness to defend their beliefs, thereby resolving cognitive dissonance. The political psychology work pointed out that those who are most disadvantaged by injustice would paradoxically continue to justify the status quo due to their internalized beliefs (Jost et al. 2019). Also, a study on Mexican American adolescents emphasized the resilient mediating mechanism of their cultural beliefs between perceived injustice and prosocial tendencies (Brittian et al. 2013). Conversely, when adolescents with low BJW frequently experience justice in their peer environments (i.e., belief < experience), the disconfirmation of an unjust worldview may be less threatening. They may attribute their circumstances to occasional fortune while maintaining a firm belief in the world's unfairness when confronted with fair treatment that contrasts with their expectations (i.e., belief < experience).

Accordingly, we propose:

Hypothesis 3

Incongruence indicated by experiencing less justice than their belief (i.e., belief > experience), rather than experiencing more justice than their belief (i.e., belief < experience), would be associated with more prosocial behaviors of adolescents.

Hypothesis 4

Greater incongruence regarding belief‐experience justice is associated with less prosocial behaviors.

1.3. Multidimensionality of Prosocial Behaviors

We have previously discussed that prosocial behaviors are generally positively related to justice beliefs, negatively to injustice (e.g., Chen et al. 2023; Li et al. 2023). However, the six common types of prosocial behaviors are motivated by distinct motivations and situational triggers. Altruistic prosocial behaviors are voluntary assistance primarily driven by concern for another's needs and well‐being, often inspired by empathy and internalized moral norms. Compliant prosocial behaviors involve helping others in response to an external request. Emotional prosocial behaviors manifest as assisting others in emotionally charged situations, usually related to other‐oriented personal tendencies (e.g., perspective‐taking). Public prosocial behaviors, performed in front of an audience, may be motivated by a desire to gain approval and respect from others. Anonymous prosocial behaviors refer to assistance without the knowledge of the recipient, such as donating. Dire prosocial behaviors involve helping others in crises or emergencies (Carlo and Randall 2002).

Consequently, the way justice beliefs and justice experiences relate to prosocial behaviors may vary depending on the specific type of behavior. For example, injustice has been observed to uniquely correlate with various forms of prosocial behaviors based on underlying motivation. An investigation on recent immigrant adolescents found that discrimination negatively predicted altruistic prosocial behaviors, as the injustice experiences depleted their cognitive and emotional resources for selfless helping. However, discrimination positively predicted public prosocial behaviors, likely because such actions could help them erase negative impressions and maintain positive reputations (Davis et al. 2021).

Therefore, we proposed:

Hypothesis 5

The (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice was differentially related to these specific forms of prosocial behaviors.

1.4. Gender Difference in Relationship Between Justice and Prosocial Behaviors

Gender differences in prosocial behaviors are well‐documented, especially during adolescence. Research consistently shows that girls tend to behave more prosocially than boys (e.g., Kamas and Preston 2021). Furthermore, gender‐specific socialization shapes girls to adopt nurturing, expressive, and caring behaviors, while boys are typically encouraged to embrace masculine traits such as heroism and competitiveness (Eagly and Crowley 1986). A meta‐analysis (Xiao et al. 2019) revealed that the type of prosocial behavior significantly moderated the gender differences in adolescents' prosocial behaviors: girls were higher than boys in altruistic, emotional, complaint, total, and dire prosocial behaviors, whereas boys were higher in public prosocial behaviors.

Besides, gender differences in justice reasoning may also contribute to distinct relationships between justice and prosocial behaviors. Adolescent girls often develop empathy, sympathetic reasoning, and role‐taking earlier than boys (Endedijk et al. 2019; Van der Graaff et al. 2014, 2018). These characteristics contribute to girls' more consideration of kinship and contextual factors in their distributive justice reasoning while boys tend to favor equity across conditions (McGillicuddy‐De Lisi et al. 2008). Van der Graaff et al. (2018) also emphasized that moral emotions play a primary role in predicting prosocial behaviors—and these emotions differ meaningfully between boys and girls. Such evidence suggests that belief–experience misfit may trigger different regulatory processes across genders: girls potentially engage in more empathetic and relationally focused actions and boys more norm‐ or justice‐restorative strategies, particularly in public contexts. We proposed:

Hypothesis 6

Associations between the (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice and (unidimensional and multidimensional) prosocial behaviors differ across genders.

1.5. Response Surface Analysis (RSA)

Recent researchers recommended response surface analysis (RSA) to test how the congruence and incongruence of two psychological constructs affect some outcome variables. This technique utilizes polynomial regression analyses in three‐dimensional space to depict relationships between two predictor variables and an outcome, addressing issues with difference score analysis (Edwards and Parry 1993). Humberg et al. (2019) suggested that RSA can more effectively and accurately verify the hypotheses about person‐environment fit (e.g., Lennard et al. 2022). In the present research, by using RSA, we can simultaneously assess and visualize different ways that adolescents' justice beliefs (i.e., BJW) and their justice experiences in peer environments (i.e., peer victimization) relate to their prosocial behaviors. This method is particularly valuable because it can reveal whether prosocial behaviors are optimized when beliefs and experiences are congruently high, congruently low, or when specific asymmetries between belief and experience yield distinct outcomes. Traditional moderation or difference‐score approaches cannot easily clarify these possibilities (Zhdanova and Lucas 2016).

This approach first conducted a polynomial regression model using the equation below:

$$Z=b_0+b_{1}X+b_{2}Y+b_3{X}^2+b_4\mathit{XY}+b_5{Y}^2+e$$ (1)

In Equation (1), X and Y are the predictors, and Z is the outcome variable. If the R ² (variation in the result variable explained by the regression equation) is significantly different from zero (Edwards 2002), a three‐dimensional response surface plot would be generated, where the slopes and curvatures of the line of congruence (LOC; X = Y) and the line of incongruence (LOIC; X = −Y) would be captured. We examined four surface coefficients that characterize the shape, direction, and magnitude of the relationship surface: (1) the slope of LOC (a ₁; a ₁ = b ₁ + b ₂); (2) the curvature of LOC (a ₂; a ₂ = b ₃ + b ₄ + b ₅); (3) the slope of LOIC (a ₃; a ₃ = b ₁ − b ₂); and (4) the curvature of LOIC (a ₄; a ₄ = b ₃ − b ₄ + b ₅). In other words, a ₁ tests whether a positive or negative additive main effect exists in the association between the congruence of two predictors and the outcome variable, and a ₂ examines whether the association is linear or curvilinear; a ₃ examines whether one direction of incongruence relates to higher outcome than the other (i.e., X > Y, or X < Y), and a ₄ tests whether the absolute amount of incongruence is relevant to higher outcome than congruence.

Therefore, this analysis approach allows us to take a nuanced and dynastic view of the relationships between (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice and adolescents' prosocial behaviors.

1.6. The Current Study

The primary aim of this study is to examine how (in)congruence of adolescents' justice beliefs (i.e., BJW) and their justice experiences in peer environments (i.e., peer victimization) are associated with their prosocial behaviors. We hypothesize that congruently high levels of BJW and experienced justice (rather than lower levels) would be associated with more prosocial behaviors of adolescents, and greater belief‐experience justice fit would amplify the association; the incongruent belief‐experience situation when adolescents' BJW is stronger than what they experienced (i.e., belief > experience) predicted more prosocial behaviors and any incongruence in either direction of belief‐experience justice related to a decrease in prosocial behaviors. Our second aim is to identify the differences in gender and multidimensional prosocial contexts. We hypothesize that the potential associations assumed above will differ across genders and prosocial situations.

To reach these objectives, we gathered two independent samples from various locations in China. Given the absence of prior insights into the relationship between belief‐experience justice (in)congruence and adolescents' prosocial behaviors, Study 1 exploratively investigated these associations across genders within a cross‐sectional framework. Building on the results of Study 1, Study 2 sought to replicate the findings in another independent sample, obtaining generalizability and robustness. Additionally, Study 2 extended the validity of these associations by incorporating a longitudinal framework and considering the multidimensional nature of prosocial behaviors. The research framework was displayed in Figure S1.

2. Study 1

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants and Procedure

We collected data from 2963 students from two high schools in Zhejiang, China. After excluding the missing value of the main variables, the final valid sample was composed of data from 2818 students (40.0% girls; 13–20 years; M _age = 15.86 ± 0.72). Among these students, 55.9% reported having siblings, and their parents mostly had education below college (father: 97.1%, n = 2737; mother: 97.5%, n = 2750). Their per capita monthly household income was rated using a 6‐point scale: 1 ≤ 2000 (1.1%); 2 = 2000–4000 (11.6%); 3 = 4000–6000 (28.0%); 4 = 6000–8000 (24.4%); 5 = 8000–10,000 (16.0%); and 6 > 3000 (15.3%; the unit was Chinese yuan).

Before the study commenced, adolescents and their parents received a thorough description of the study. Upon obtaining informed consent from participants and their parents, we invited these high school students to complete a series of paper questionnaires. The University Committee on Human Research Protection approved this study.

2.1.2. Measurements

2.1.2.1. Prosocial Behaviors (Unidimensional)

The unidimensional Prosocial Behavior was a subscale from the self‐report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman and Scott 1999). The Chinese version of this scale has been validated for reliability and validity (Du et al. 2008). Adolescents rated how accurately five items (e.g., “kind to younger children”, “caring others' feelings”) described them on a three‐point Likert scale, from 0 (not at all true) to 2 (very true). Higher total scores indicated higher levels of prosocial behaviors (Cronbach's α = 0.83 in Study 1).

2.1.2.2. BJW

The present study applied the Belief in a Just World Scale (Dalbert 1999) to measure BJW, which consisted of two dimensions: general BJW and personal BJW. Six items were used to assess general BJW, including “I think basically the world is a just place”. Seven items were utilized for evaluating personal BJW, such as “I believe that I usually get what I deserve”. Respondents were asked to express their agreement using a 6‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). In Study 1, Cronbach's α of BJW was 0.93.

2.1.2.3. Peer Victimization

The Multidimensional Peer Victimization Scale was used to assess peer victimization among adolescents, including physical victimization, verbal victimization, social manipulation, and attacks on property (Mynard and Joseph 2000). We used a Chinese version of this scale adapted by Zhang et al. (2009), which contains two subscales: physical victimization (3 items) and social manipulation (8 items). Sample items included: “Threatened to hit me” and “Made other people not talk to me”. Responses were scored on a 4‐point Likert scale (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often). In Study 1, Cronbach's α of peer victimization was 0.90.

2.1.3. Data Analysis

We used polynomial regression and RSA to assess the concurrent association between the (in)congruence of adolescents' justice beliefs and justice experiences (i.e., BJW and peer victimization) with their prosocial behaviors. All the analyses were conducted using the RSA package (Schönbrodt and Humberg 2023).

Some steps of data preparation were done before computing the model. First, in order to facilitate the understanding of the results and the presentation of graphs, peer victimization was reverse‐coded; that is, the higher the score of reverse‐coding peer victimization, the more justice an individual experiences. Second, due to the different scales of BJW and peer victimization measurements, we standardized the scales of the two predictors prior to analyses according to the previous suggestions (Rodrigues 2021; Wright and Jackson 2024), placing them on a common metric to guarantee commensurability.

Then we conducted a polynomial regression model using the equation below (control variables are not shown to simplify the equation):

$$\mathit{PB}=b_0+b_1\mathit{JB}+b_2\mathit{JE}+b_3{\mathit{JB}}^2+b_4\mathit{JB}\times \mathit{JE}+b_5{\mathit{JE}}^2+e$$ (2)

In Equation (2), PB represents the outcome, prosocial behaviors, JB indicates the adolescents' justice beliefs (i.e., BJW), and JE indicates their justice experiences (i.e., reverse‐coded peer victimization). The number of siblings, parental education, and household income were included as covariates. Four surface coefficients would be generated from the RSA. According to our hypotheses, we expect a ₁ and a ₂ to be significantly positive, indicating that adolescents with just belief and just experience are more likely to exhibit prosocial behaviors that would be maximized when their beliefs fit experiences at an extreme level. We also expect a ₃ and a ₄ to be significantly negative, indicating that experiencing justice less than they believed would undermine adolescents' prosocial behaviors, which would be lessened even more when the difference between beliefs and experiences increases.

To examine gender differences in the association between (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice and prosocial behaviors, we also conducted Z‐tests to compare the a ₁ to a ₄ coefficients from RSAs between boy and girl samples (Shubert et al. 2022).

2.2. Results

2.2.1. Preliminary Analyses

The bivariate correlations (Table 1) between all study variables of boys and girls showed significant effect sizes ranging from 0.13 to 0.32 (all ps < 0.001), except girls' peer victimization and prosocial behaviors.

TABLE 1.

Means, standard deviations, and zero‐order correlations of the study variables for boys (n = 1691) and girls (n = 1127) in Study 1.

		Mean ± SDboys	Mean ± SDgirls	1	2	3
1	BJW	52.82 ± 12.22	53.37 ± 11.20	—	−0.26***	0.32***
2	Peer victimization	7.47 ± 2.10	7.87 ± 2.10	−0.28***	—	−0.05
3	Prosocial behavior	15.53 ± 5.15	14.44 ± 4.30	0.28***	−0.13***	—

Note: Correlations below and above the diagonal represent correlations in boy and girl samples, respectively.

^*** p < 0.001.

Based on differences in standardized scores (|ΔZ| beyond or within 0.5), 34% (n = 970), 33% (n = 930), and 33% (n = 918) of adolescents experienced justice at a level lower, similar, and higher to their belief level, respectively (boys: 35%, 32%, 33%; girls: 29%, 34%, and 37%). Adequate discrepant values existing in our samples allowed for further examination of the relationship between congruence and incongruence of adolescents' justice beliefs and justice experiences and their prosocial behaviors (Shanock et al. 2010). Besides, the variance inflation factor tests in both boy and girl samples demonstrated that all coefficient values were lower than 3, suggesting multicollinearity among the predictors was sufficiently low.

2.2.2. (In)congruence Between Justice Beliefs and Justice Experiences Predicted Adolescents' Concurrent Prosocial Behaviors

2.2.2.1. Full Sample

RSA results of concurrent associations between (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice and unidimensional prosocial behaviors of the full sample were presented in Figure 1a.

FIGURE 1.

Response surface graphs of concurrent associations between (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice and unidimensional prosocial behaviors in Study 1. Panels represent data for full (a), boy (b), and girl (c) samples. The number of siblings, parental education, and household income were included as covariates. The x‐ and y‐axes represent justice beliefs and justice experiences, respectively, while the z‐axis represents the unidimensional prosocial behavior. Surface color represents the score of prosocial behaviors from low (red) to high (green). The blue lines in the surfaces represent the LOCs (X = Y) and the LOICs (X = −Y). The LOC, LOIC and the contour lines are projected on the floor of each cube. ***p < 0.001, *p < 0.05.

Regarding the congruence effect, the congruence line had a positively significant slope (a ₁ = 0.72, p < 0.001), implying that as BJW and experienced justice increased, boys' and girls' prosocial behaviors tended to increase as well. The LOC demonstrated a significant U‐shaped pattern (a ₂ = 0.18, p = 0.007), indicating that the slope of LOC initially decreased and then increased, with extreme levels of belief‐experience justice fit leading to higher prosociality. Concerning the incongruence effect, the slope of LOIC was positively significant (a ₃ = 0.54, p < 0.001), suggesting that the incongruent situation indicated by experiencing less justice than their belief (i.e., belief > experience), rather than experiencing more justice than their belief (i.e., belief < experience), would be associated with more prosocial behaviors of adolescents. In other words, adolescents' prosocial behaviors were more influenced by increases in BJW compared to increases in experienced justice. The curvature of LOIC was non‐significant (a ₄ = 0.07, p = 0.21).

2.2.2.2. Gender Difference

The concurrent associations between (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice and unidimensional prosocial behaviors of boys and girls were shown in Figure 1b,c, respectively. However, the Z‐tests didn't find any statistically significant gender differences in four surface coefficients (a ₁: Z = 0.29, p = 0.77; a ₂: Z = 1.04, p = 0.30; a ₃: Z = −1.73, p = 0.08; a ₄: Z = −1.64, p = 0.10).

2.3. Brief Discussion of Study 1

The full sample results of Study 1 showed that adolescents who both had stronger justice beliefs and more justice experiences were more likely to exhibit prosocial behaviors, which increased as the consistency of belief‐experience justice grew; when adolescents experienced justice at odds with what they believed, their beliefs played a more crucial role in driving prosocial actions. However, significant gender differences were not found in the concurrent associations between (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice and unidimensional prosocial behaviors.

While the results of Study 1 provided preliminary support to most of our research hypotheses, it's necessary to further examine the stability and generalization of these findings. First, the cross‐sectional design of Study 1 precludes the observation of how the associations evolve over time, including both changes and stability. Second, prosocial behaviors occur in different situations, and studying prosocial behaviors across various contexts could help to gain a more profound understanding of adolescent development. In sum, to reproduce the findings and verify the robustness, we conducted Study 2 in a longitudinal design by incorporating a multidimensional assessment of prosocial behavior.

3. Study 2

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants and Procedure

The valid sample comprised 3038 adolescents (M _age = 16.83 ± 0.79, 53.6% female) recruited from a high school in Shandong Province, China. At the first time point (T1, August 2023) there were 5179 participants, and after a semester (i.e., seven months) at the second time point (T2, March 2024) there were 3840 participants. Due to incorrect filling, missed values, transfer, and other reasons, the analytic sample of Study 2 consisted of 3038 participants (58.66% of the total sample) across T1 and T2 (Little's MCAR test: χ ² (8) = 14.96, χ ²/df < 2). Among these students, 95.7% (n = 2906) have siblings. The reported educational attainments of their parents are predominantly below high school (father: 90.4%, n = 2746; mother: 93.4%, n = 2837). They rated their per capita monthly household income on a 7‐point scale: 1 ≤ 300 (2.5%); 2 = 300–700 (7.9%); 3 = 700–1000 (12.1%); 4 = 1000–1500 (14.3%); 5 = 1500–2000 (14.5%); 6 = 2000–3000 (18.8%); and 7 > 3000 (29.8%; the unit was Chinese yuan).

The procedures were consistent with the description in Study 1.

3.1.2. Measurements

3.1.2.1. Prosocial Behaviors (Multi‐Dimensional, T1 and T2)

The Prosocial Tendencies Measure (Carlo and Randall 2002) was used to evaluate the possibility of prosocial behaviors in six situations (i.e., public, anonymous, altruistic, compliant, emotional, and dire). The Chinese version has been revised and applied among Chinese adolescents (Kou et al. 2007). A total of 26 items were rated on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = does not describe me at all; 5 = describes me greatly). A sample item included “When other people are around, it is easier for me to help needy others.” In Study 2, Cronbach's α for six prosocial behaviors at T1 respectively was 0.83, 0.87, 0.88, 0.85, 0.86, and 0.81, and at T2 respectively was 0.85, 0.90, 0.91, 0.89, 0.90, and 0.85.

3.1.2.2. BJW (T1)

BJW was assessed by the Belief in a Just World Scale (Dalbert 1999; see Study 1). In Study 2, Cronbach's α of BJW was 0.95.

3.1.2.3. Peer Victimization (T1)

Peer victimization was measured by the Chinese version of the Multidimensional Peer‐Victimization Scale (Mynard and Joseph 2000; Zhang et al. 2009; see Study 1). In Study 2, Cronbach's α of peer victimization was 0.96.

3.1.3. Data Analysis

In Study 2, we followed the data analysis of Study 1, using polynomial regression and RSA to assess both cross‐sectional and longitudinal associations between the (in)congruence of adolescents' justice beliefs and justice experiences (i.e., BJW and peer victimization at T1) and their prosocial behaviors (T1 and T2). A total of 24 RSAs (2 time‐points × 2 genders × 6 prosocial behaviors) were conducted, still following Equation (2), as presented in Study 1. Here, PB represents the respective outcome, referring to six types of prosocial behaviors (T1 and T2). Covariates included the number of siblings, parental education, and household income. For RSAs where PBs (T2) were the outcomes, the corresponding PBs (T1) were also controlled for respectively. Gender differences were examined using Z‐tests, as in Study 1.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Preliminary Analyses

The bivariate correlations between all study variables of two genders across two time points showed significant effect sizes ranging from 0.13 to 0.87 with all ps < 0.001, except peer victimization and public prosocial behaviors (see Figure S2). Peer victimization was negatively associated with other variables that positively related to each other.

Based on differences in standardized scores (|ΔZ| beyond or within 0.5), at T1, 35% (n = 1050), 34% (n = 1019), and 32% (n = 969) of adolescents experienced justice at a level lower, similar, and higher to their belief level, respectively (boys: 37%, 31%, 32%; girls: 28%, 36%, 37%). Adequate discrepant values existing in our samples allowed for further examination of the relationship between congruence and incongruence in adolescents' beliefs and experience of justice with their prosocial behaviors (Shanock et al. 2010). Besides, the variance inflation factor tests in both boy and girl samples demonstrated that all coefficient values were lower than 3, suggesting multicollinearity among the predictors was sufficiently low.

3.2.2. (In)congruence Between Justice Beliefs and Justice Experiences Predicted Adolescents' Multi‐Dimensional Prosocial Behaviors Concurrently (T1) and Seven Months Later (T2)

3.2.2.1. Full Sample

We analyzed how belief‐experience justice (non‐)fit predicted six types of prosocial behaviors of adolescents, from cross‐sectional and longitudinal perspectives in Study 2, and the results were presented in Table 2 and graphically displayed in Figure 2a–f.

TABLE 2.

(In)congruence between justice beliefs and justice experiences (T1) predicted six types of prosocial behaviors (T1 and T2) among the full sample (N = 3038) in Study 2.

Outcomes	T1 (cross‐sectional analysis)					T2 (longitudinal analysis)
	R 2	LOC		LOIC		R 2	LOC		LOIC
		a 1	a 2	a 3	a 4		a 1	a 2	a 3	a 4
Public PB	0.106***	1.04***	0.18	0.92***	0.00	0.196***	0.27**	0.16	0.18	−0.01
Anonymous PB	0.187***	2.06***	0.54***	0.84***	0.19	0.247***	0.67***	0.33**	0.22	0.14
Altruistic PB	0.236***	1.99***	0.51***	0.57***	0.09	0.255***	0.65***	0.30***	0.20	0.07
Compliant PB	0.176***	1.81***	0.46***	0.77***	0.16	0.234***	0.69***	0.28**	0.20	0.09
Emotional PB	0.190***	1.92***	0.50***	1.00***	0.02	0.237***	0.76***	0.28**	0.22	0.11
Dire PB	0.193***	1.26***	0.29***	0.48***	0.04	0.243***	0.49***	0.15*	0.26**	0.04

Note: The number of siblings, parental education, and household income were included as covariates; and in the RSAs where PBs (T2) were the outcomes, the corresponding PBs (T1) were controlled for respectively.

Abbreviation: PB, prosocial behavior.

^*** p < 0.001.

^** p < 0.01.

^* p < 0.05.

FIGURE 2.

Response surface graphs of (in)congruence between justice beliefs and justice experiences (T1) predicting six types of prosocial behaviors (T1 and T2) of the full sample in Study 2. Panels represent RSAs with public (a), anonymous (b), altruistic (c), compliant (d), emotional (e), and dire (f) prosocial behaviors as outcome variables. PB = prosocial behaviors. The x‐ and y‐axes represent justice beliefs and justice experiences, respectively, while the z‐axis represents the corresponding prosocial behaviors. Surface color represents the score of prosocial behaviors from low (red) to high (green). The blue lines in the surfaces represent the LOCs (X = Y) and the LOICs (X = −Y). The LOC, LOIC and the contour lines are projected on the floor of each cube. ***p < 0.001, ^† p < 0.1.

The cross‐sectional results in Study 2 mainly replicated findings obtained from Study 1, demonstrating positively significant a ₁, a ₂, and a ₃. The one exception is the RSA predicting public prosocial behaviors, where the curvature of LOC was not significant (a ₂ = 0.18, p = 0.05), indicating the belief‐experience fit was linearly related to the public prosociality without a curvilinear trend.

For the longitudinal association between belief‐justice (non‐)fit and six types of prosocial behaviors, the slopes and curvatures of LOCs were mainly consistent with the cross‐sectional results, with positively significant a ₁ and a ₂ in the other five situations, still except the public situation (a ₂ = 0.16, p = 0.09). However, the slopes of LOICs (a ₃) were not as significant as the cross‐sectional results, except for the dire prosocial behaviors (a ₃ = 0.16, p = 0.01), suggesting that even in the face of belief‐experience conflicts, adolescents' beliefs still positively affected prosocial behaviors seven months later (T2), only in the dire situation.

3.2.2.2. Gender Difference

The cross‐sectional and longitudinal results for boys and girls in Study 2 are presented in Table 3 and graphically displayed in Figure 3a–f (T1) and Figure 4a–f (T2). The results of Z‐tests for gender comparison were presented in Table S1.

TABLE 3.

(In)congruence between justice beliefs and justice experiences (T1) predicts six types of prosocial behaviors (T1 and T2) among boys and girls in Study 2.

Outcomes	Boy sample (n = 1409)					Girl sample (n = 1629)
T1	R 2	LOC		LOIC		R 2	LOC		LOIC
		a 1	a 2	a 3	a 4		a 1	a 2	a 3	a 4
Public PB (T1)	0.15***	1.27***	0.17	1.20 ***	−0.13	0.08***	0.89***	0.23	0.64 ***	−0.04
Anonymous PB (T1)	0.18***	2.08***	0.59***	0.84***	0.14	0.19***	1.95***	0.45**	0.92***	0.27
Altruistic PB (T1)	0.21***	1.96***	0.51***	0.57**	0.10	0.24***	1.82***	0.45***	0.70***	0.06
Compliant PB (T1)	0.19***	1.95***	053***	0.85***	0.19	0.16***	1.57***	0.40**	0.78***	0.10
Emotional PB (T1)	0.203***	2.09***	0.58***	1.04***	0.01	0.18***	1.70***	0.43**	1.01***	0.00
Dire PB (T1)	0.194***	1.36 ***	0.29***	0.43**	0.12	0.19***	1.05 ***	0.28***	0.60***	−0.09

T2	R 2	LOC		LOIC		R 2	LOC		LOIC
		a 1	a 2	a 3	a 4		a 1	a 2	a 3	a 4
Public PB (T2)	0.21***	0.32*	0.36**	0.35*	0.03	0.19***	0.21	0.02	0.01	−0.09
Anonymous PB (T2)	0.22***	0.61***	0.41**	0.24	0.38 *	0.27***	0.64***	0.26	0.11	−0.19
Altruistic PB (T2)	0.23***	0.53***	0.42***	0.15	0.23	0.26***	0.62***	0.19	0.23	−0.14
Compliant PB (T2)	0.23***	0.65 ***	0.46***	0.16	0.22	0.10***	1.27 ***	0.30*	0.57*	−0.07
Emotional PB (T2)	0.25***	0.68***	0.46***	0.21	0.31	0.23***	0.68***	0.13	0.22	−0.15
Dire PB (T2)	0.23***	0.42***	0.25*	0.21	0.14	0.26***	0.46***	0.05	0.25	−0.08

Note: The number of siblings, parental education, and household income were included as covariates; and in the RSAs where PBs (T2) were the outcomes, the corresponding PBs (T1) were also controlled for respectively. Bold represents statistically significant gender differences.

Abbreviation: PB, prosocial behavior.

^*** p < 0.001.

^** p < 0.01.

^* p < 0.05.

FIGURE 3.

Response surface graphs of (in)congruence between justice beliefs and justice experiences (T1) predicting six types of prosocial behaviors (T1) of boy and girl samples in Study 2. Panels represent RSAs with public (a), anonymous (b), altruistic (c), compliant (d), emotional (e), and dire (f) prosocial behaviors as outcome variables. PB = prosocial behaviors. The x‐ and y‐axes represent justice beliefs and justice experiences, respectively, while the z‐axis represents the corresponding prosocial behaviors. Surface color represents the score of prosocial behaviors from low (red) to high (green). The blue lines in the surfaces represent the LOCs (X = Y) and the LOICs (X = −Y). The LOC, LOIC and the contour lines are projected on the floor of each cube. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, ^† p < 0.1.

FIGURE 4.

Response surface graphs of (in)congruence between justice beliefs and justice experiences (T1) predicting six types of prosocial behaviors (T2) of boy and girl samples in Study 2. Panels represent RSAs with public (a), anonymous (b), altruistic (c), compliant (d), emotional (e), and dire (f) prosocial behaviors as outcome variables. PB = prosocial behaviors. The x‐ and y‐axes represent justice beliefs and justice experiences, respectively, while the z‐axis represents the corresponding prosocial behaviors. Surface color represents the score of prosocial behaviors from low (red) to high (green). The blue lines in the surfaces represent the LOCs (X = Y) and the LOICs (X = −Y). The LOC, LOIC and the contour lines are projected on the floor of each cube. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ^† p < 0.10.

For the RSAs predicting concurrent prosocial behaviors (T1; see Figure 3a–f), the cross‐sectional results of public and dire prosocial behaviors revealed significant gender differences. The slopes of LOICs of RSAs predicting public prosocial behaviors at T1 between boys (a ₃ = 1.20, p < 0.001) and girls (a ₃ = 0.64, p < 0.001) showed significant differences (Z = 2.14, p < 0.05). It implied that in the face of belief‐experience conflict, boys' beliefs dominantly positively predicted their public prosociality more than girls'. The LOCs of RSAs predicting dire prosocial behaviors at T1 between boys (a ₁ = 1.36, p < 0.001) and girls (a ₁ = 1.05, p < 0.001) showed significantly different slopes (Z = 2.09, p < 0.05), indicating boys with strong justice beliefs and frequent justice experiences tend to exhibit more prosocial behaviors in dire situations than girls.

Regarding the RSAs predicting prosocial behaviors seven months later (T2; see Figure 4a–f), the boy and girl samples manifested some subtle differences in anonymous and compliant situations. In the RSA predicting anonymous prosocial behaviors, results showed significant differences between curvatures of LOICs in the boy sample (a ₄ = 0.38, p < 0.05) and girl sample (a ₄ = −0.19, p = 0.23; Z = 2.44, p < 0.05), which meant that boys' anonymous prosociality seven months later (T2) increased as the discrepancy between their justice beliefs and justice experiences increased, but such a trend was not observed in girls. The RSA predicting compliant prosocial behaviors showed significant differences between slopes of LOCs in the boy sample (a ₁ = 0.65, p < 0.001) and the girl sample (a ₁ = 1.27, p < 0.001; Z = −2.78, p < 0.01), which suggested that girls with strong justice beliefs and frequent justice experiences tend to exhibit more in compliant situations than boys.

3.3. Brief Discussion of Study 2

Overall, the cross‐sectional results of the full sample in Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 except for public prosocial behavior. The longitudinal associations between (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice (T1) and prosocial behaviors seven months later (T2) of the full sample mainly differed in the slope of LOIC (i.e., non‐significant a ₃) from the cross‐sectional associations, with the exception in dire situations. Meanwhile, some gender differences occurred in public, dire, anonymous, and compliant situations.

4. General Discussion

Adolescents are rather sensitive to social contexts (Schriber and Guyer 2016), whose behaviors are shaped by the person‐environment interactions (Doty et al. 2024; Rioux et al. 2016), including the dynamic relationship between their beliefs and experiences (Daniel et al. 2013; Flurry et al. 2021; Zingora et al. 2019). Our research examined both concurrent and prospective associations between (in)congruence of belief‐experience justice and prosocial behaviors in two independent samples of Chinese adolescents. Notably, the cross‐sectional results from both studies suggested that the incongruent situation where believed justice was higher than experienced justice (i.e., belief > experience) predicted more prosocial behaviors. However, justice beliefs no longer had this dominant effect on prosocial behaviors seven months later. Meanwhile, subtle gender differences and prosocial multidimensional differences (especially public, anonymous, compliant, and dire types) were demonstrated in these associations.

4.1. Belief‐Experience Justice Fit and Prosocial Behaviors

In line with the person‐environment fit theory, our findings revealed an overall pattern of congruence: adolescents who had stronger justice beliefs and more justice experiences exhibited more prosocial behaviors both in the present and seven months later, and a greater belief‐experience justice fit would strengthen this trend. Leary and Baumeister (2000) suggest that individuals have systems that continually assess our fit within our environments (Rauthmann 2021). When adolescents perceive that their justice beliefs fit the continuous justice experiences, their perceived certainties and social validation are enhanced. This can result in various positive effects of intrapersonal adjustment, including authenticity and self‐esteem. Consequently, these adolescents who “feel right” are more driven to help others as a means of living out their values. Moreover, our findings based on a longitudinal design suggest that this pattern holds both immediately and over a longer period, highlighting the facilitation of the congruence between justice beliefs and justice experiences in the development of adolescents' prosociality. However, public prosocial behavior was the particular case: both the concurrent and prospective associations between congruence and prosocial behaviors in public situations were not curvilinear like in other situations. This may be because, in public situations, adolescents with increasing fear of negative evaluation (Nelemans et al. 2019) are driven more by situational norms regardless of the degree of internal congruence of justice cognitions.

Interestingly, the relationship between belief‐experience justice fit and prosocial behaviors was found to have nuanced gender differences. In specific, in dire situations, the concurrent associations between congruence and prosocial behaviors were positive for both boys and girls, but the effect was stronger in boys. In contrast, the prospective association between the congruence and compliant prosocial behaviors presented an opposite pattern: the positive effect was stronger in girls than boys. These two different results may be due to the fact that dire prosocial behaviors are more driven by internal intuition, while compliant prosocial behaviors are more motivated by a desire to conform to social norms and external expectations in nature (Carlo and Randall 2002). This result confirms the gender socialization we mentioned before: boys are more inclined to react based on internalized beliefs, such as heroism and fairness; girls are more emotionally and relationally motivated and therefore more likely to respond to requests for help, such as participating in online surveys (Wu et al. 2022).

4.2. Belief‐Experience Justice Conflicts and Prosocial Behaviors

Regarding belief‐experience justice misfit, our cross‐sectional results showed that overall, when adolescents encountered incongruence between justice beliefs and justice experiences, it was their stronger beliefs, rather than their experiences, that predominantly motivated them to engage in more prosocial behaviors. As we hypothesized, when adolescents face belief‐experience justice conflicts, their justice beliefs are resilient to overcome the debilitating effects of peer victimization on prosocial behavior. Cognitive webs in adolescents' brains require that their perceptions are logically coherent with the beliefs, and cognitive dissonance caused by the lack of coherence would motivate people to reject counterexamples and maintain beliefs (Scheffer et al. 2022). Nevertheless, this pattern did not persist after seven months, except for in the dire situation. Indeed, Scheffer et al. (2022) also proposed that the resilience of a belief can change over time, especially in the face of sufficient rebuttals. Emergencies, being exceptive, could encourage intuitive prosocial behaviors (Shi et al. 2020), and therefore, the urgency of dire situations may activate adolescents' moral intuitions (i.e., BJW), resulting in immediate prosocial behaviors, independent of belief‐experience incongruence.

Moreover, boys and girls reacted differently in the concurrent and prospective association between belief‐experience justice misfit and prosocial behaviors depending on the visibility of the behaviors (i.e., public and anonymous). Both boys and girls concurrently presented more public prosociality when their justice beliefs were stronger than what they experienced (i.e., belief > experience), compared to the opposite situation (i.e., belief < experience), but such effect was weaker in girls; the belief‐experience justice misfit promoted boys to display more anonymous prosociality after seven months, but not girls. These findings reflect boys' tendency to act to “compensate” or “express” their inner beliefs when faced with incongruence between beliefs and experiences. Social role educates boys to be a more dominant, assertive, and expressive role (Eagly and Crowley 1986), being more inclined to display their heroism and preach their beliefs, so those boys with high BJW become more prosocial in public situations when helping reflects prestige or dominance (Griskevicius et al. 2007). Similarly, boys may be inclined to solve the cognitive dissonance brought by belief‐experience conflicts through anonymity, as this can avoid their masculinity being questioned or criticized for public display (Courtenay 2011). For example, in some unjust peer environments where bullies are perceived as cool and popular and peers “advocate” violence (Hensums et al. 2023; Salmivalli 2010), prosocial behaviors may become a sign of “cowardice”, so those boys with high justice beliefs gradually learn to practice their values through anonymous channels over time.

4.3. Theoretical and Practical Implications

There are several theoretical and practical implications of this study. Theoretically, our findings offer new insights into the person‐environment fit theory (French et al. 1974) by clarifying belief (P)‐experience (E) justice fit positively links to adolescent prosociality. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no prior research has examined the adolescent developmental outcomes of incongruence between justice beliefs and justice experiences, despite extensive studies on BJW and peer victimization in the adolescent field. In the present study, the inconsistency compensation framework (Proulx et al. 2012) and worldview verification theory (Major et al. 2007) were applied to investigate the influence of belief‐experience justice (mis)fit on prosocial behaviors among adolescents, and the results demonstrated that the belief‐experience fit motivates prosociality and that justice beliefs predominantly predict adolescents' concurrent prosocial behaviors even in unjust peer environments.

Practically, educators need to recognize that justice beliefs, even during adolescence, are highly resilient and can help adolescents overcome the negative effects of experiencing injustice. However, it's noted that the positive impact of beliefs would diminish over time. Therefore, the education of cultivating justice beliefs must not be slackened, and it is equally crucial to create a just peer environment for adolescent development. Moreover, understanding various motivations behind prosocial behaviors allows educators to design targeted interventions that cater to diverse motivational pathways. Finally, the gender differences in our research contribute to the understanding of the different pathways and factors influencing the moral development of boys and girls, which can help educators better design gender‐sensitive education and promote more equitable and inclusive growth environments.

4.4. Limitations

Despite these important findings, the present study has several limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, the self‐reported measurements adopted in the study might cause social desirability and recall biases. Future researchers could collect data from diverse informants (e.g., classmates, teachers, and parents). Second, the time span of the longitudinal investigation in Study 2 was relatively short, lasting a semester (i.e., seven months). Examining the relationship between belief‐experience justice (in)congruence and prosocial behaviors over a longer period and at more intervals may provide more comprehensive and extensive insights. Third, the study sample focused on mid‐adolescence and thus it is still unclear whether the relationship between belief‐experience justice (in)congruence and prosocial behaviors would be potential differences across various developmental stages (Ahn et al. 2022). Samples with a larger age range may help to map a trajectory of moral development among adolescents. Fourth, although different justice beliefs may relate differently with social outcomes (Bartholomaeus and Strelan 2019), our study examined only the overall BJW to focus on the fit between beliefs and experiences in peer contexts. Therefore, our interpretation focuses on overall BJW as a composite construct, and the findings should be interpreted with caution. Finally, although socioeconomic indicators such as parental education, occupation, and family income were statistically controlled, we did not further examine their moderating effects. The two studies used different income categorizations, which limited comparability. Future research should systematically investigate how socioeconomic status (SES) may shape adolescents' justice beliefs, victimization experiences, and prosocial behaviors.

Author Contributions

Ruoxuan Chen: conceptualization; methodology; investigation; formal analysis (lead); visualization; writing – original draft preparation. Ningning Feng: methodology; data curation; investigation; validation; writing – original draft, reviewing, and editing. Shuang Li: methodology; investigation; writing – reviewing and editing. Wenjie Zhai: investigation; resources; writing – reviewing and editing. Lijuan Cui: data curation; investigation; supervision; funding acquisition; project administration; writing – original draft, reviewing, and editing. All authors read and approved the paper.

Funding

This research was supported by the Major Program of the National Fund of Philosophy and Social Science of China (19ZDA357).

Ethics Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent

Informed consent from all participants and their parents was obtained.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Figure S1: Research framework.

Figure S2: Bivariate correlations between all study variables of two genders across two time points in Study 2. BJW, belief in a just world; MPV, peer victimization; PTM, prosocial tendencies. The black numbers represent correlation coefficients for the male sample, while the white number is for the female sample. The gray crosses indicate that the correlation is non‐significant (i.e., p > 0.05).

Table S1: Z‐test for gender differences in associations between justice belief‐experience (mis)fit (T1) and six types of prosocial behaviors (T1 and T2) in Study 2.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting this study's findings are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.