The present results suggest that the same incident can produce very different reactions in observers depending on how mutable the event is and how likely it is that effective compensation can be provided for a victim of that event. In the present study, when compensation was likely to be effective in ameliorating the victim's injuries, participants indicated greater sympathy for the victim and rated him more positively following abnormal actions. However, when compensation was not likely to be effective in ameliorating the victim's injuries, the partipants rated the victim less positively following abnormal actions. This suggests that if the compensation given can in no way restore the victim to the way s/he was before the incident, it does little to restore justice. As a result, we may resort to derogating the victim in order to maintain a belief in a just world. This may be particularly true when it would otherwise be easy for us to imagine an alternative to the event.