The present study tested the "just world" hypothesis that a socially respectable person is more at fault in a crime in which he or she is the victim. It was assumed that the attitudinal similarity of a hypothetical juror to the victim and the defendant would make both the victim and the defendant more respectable. Employing a 2 (victim vs. defendant description) X 2 (similarity vs. dissimilarity of attitudinal information) X 2 (male vs. female respondent) design, it was found that in a rape case males attribute more guilt to a defendant who is similar to themselves, as opposed to one dissimilar; females attribute more guilt to a victim when the defendant is described as similar as opposed to dissimilar to themselves. Thus male responses confirmed the "just world" notion while female responses were in direct contradiction. (Author)