**Participants** We plan to recruit 400 participants for a set of studies conducted on a computer in a lab. Participants will be recruited using a laboratory participant pool which consists mainly of students of Czech universities, but is open to other people as well. The study will be conducted with groups of up to 17 participants, so the final sample size may differ slightly from the planned 400. The set of studies includes an instructional manipulation check (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009) and three items in scales that instruct participants to pick a certain response. We will exclude from analysis participants who fail to answer correctly the instructional manipulation check or at least two of the items in the scales. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867-872. **Design** The study has a 2x4 design with each participant answering 8 scenarios differing in their valence (positive x negative) and instructions regarding perspective taking (none x victim’s perspective x perpetrator’s perspective x observer’s perspective). The valences will be fixed between scenarios and the instructions will be randomized for each participant, such that each participant gets each instruction for exactly one positively valenced scenario and each instruction for exactly one negatively valenced scenario. **Procedure** The study will be conducted as a part of a set of unrelated studies on computers in a lab. After reading instructions related to the present study, participants will complete 8 study trials. During each trial, they will read a short work-related scenario presenting a case of a person who obtained some benefit (4 trials) or was harmed (4 trials). The four scenarios presenting a harm as well as the four scenarios presenting a benefit will be divided in four conditions. In the control condition, no extra instructions will be given. In the other three conditions, participants will be asked to take a perspective of one of the persons in the scenario – the victim (or benefactor), the perpetrator, or an observer – and write down feelings they believe that the person had during the situation. Afterwards, they will be asked to what degree was the benefit or harm deserved on a 7-point scale. The answer will be submitted by a button, which will lead to the next trial. Later in the study, we will give participants the perspective taking and empathic concern parts of Davis' Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) and the General Belief in a Just World Scale (Dalbert, Montada, & Schmitt, 1987). Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. Dalbert, C., Montada, L. & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube an eine gerechte Welt als Motiv: Validierungskorrelate zweier Skalen (Belief in a just world as motive: Validity correlates of two scales). Psychologische Beiträge, 29, 596-615. **Materials overview** The study will use 8 scenarios, which all describe a work-related situation where a person received certain benefit (received a bonus, got a promotion, got a salary raise, was hired for a job) or is harmed (was demoted, was let go, was targeted by bossing, received a public reprimand and had responsibilities removed). In all the cases, the scenarios described the situation in a way that there was no clear reason why the person should have received the benefit or should have been harmed. We will ask the participants about their belief whether the benefit or the harm was deserved. Before that, in three conditions, they will be given an instruction to take a perspective of someone in the scenario and write down their thoughts about feelings of the person. One example scenario with these instructions and the question measuring the dependent variable is translated below. The full materials in Czech are in the Materials node. *Scenario* Thomas has been a bureaucrat at a small town city hall for 15 years. During the first 15 years under a previous major, his career was without significant problems and due to his experience, Thomas gained trust of the major and was charged with leadership of several important projects. The last year, a new major took office after elections. The major brought with him a couple of new employees to the city hall and he did not communicate with Thomas much. Thomas therefore felt left out of decision making and out of work on interesting projects. When the new major was giving Thomas work to do, he was reserved and contemptuous. He also often checked Thomas during work and disrupted him during his meetings with citizens. When Thomas was administering finances from European funds, the new major unfairly accused Thomas from corruption and even threatened him with a legal action, which he did not pursue at the end. A couple of colleagues told Thomas that the new major criticizes him behind his back and makes fun of him. The last month, the new major ordered Thomas to go to a medical checkup which would evaluate his ability to perform his job in the future. *Victim*: Try to take the perspective of **Thomas** and imagine how he feels in the situation. *Perpetrator*: Try to take the perspective of **the new major** and imagine how he feels in the situation. *Observer*: Try to take the perspective of **Thomas’s colleagues** and imagine how they feel in the situation. To what degree are Thomas’s problems in work his fault **according to you**? 1 (not at all his fault) - 2 - 3 - 4 -5 - 6 - 7 (completely his fault)