Ah, the Just World Hypothesis. "Something bad happens, you must've screwed up somehow. Just look at me, I'm doing fine and I instinctively know that random good-luck had nothing to do with it."

You forgot the most important psychological part "... and if that wasn't true, then life would be terrifying".

People believe in the witchdoctor's raindance because the alternative is to believe your entire life is at the mercy of the random chance of weather and could be destroyed at any moment. Which is true, but hard to deal with mentally.

I think that effect it's called by psychologists "fundamental attribution error". It has been studied for years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

It's called the Just World Hypothesis and has indeed been studied for decades.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

They are certainly related, but not quite the same.

JWT is based on whether positive or negative outcomes were "deserved" and the extent to which randomness exists.

In contrast, FAE touches on what you believe motivated an individual to act, and whether it was innate or circumstantial.