Not All Victims Matter”: Belief in a Just World, Intergroup Relations and Victim Blaming

Abstract

The present research investigated the process of victim blaming in the context of intergroup relations through the just world hypothesis. In two studies we tested the infl uence of the victim's social category in the relationship between explicit and implicit beliefs in a just world (BJW) and victim blaming. In Study 1, 102 participants answered the explicit and implicit measures of BJW and evaluated how much a stray bullet victim (ingroup X outgroup) was to blame. In Study 2, aside from the manipulation of victim social category, we included a manipulation of cognitive load. 110 participants answered the BJW measures and evaluated how much a stray bullet victim (ingroup X outgroup) was to blame in a situation of cognitive load (low X high). It was verifi ed that the victim's social category interferes in the relationship between BJW and victim blaming. When explicit or implicit BJW explained blaming, that effect was restricted to the evaluation of an ingroup victim. The fi ndings of the present research confi rm the hypothesis that ingroup victims are more threatening to individual's BJW and indicate the importance of considering the victim's social category for a more adequate understanding of the just world hypothesis.A presente pesquisa investigou o processo de responsabilização de vítimas no contexto das relações intergrupais a partir da hipótese do mundo justo. Em dois estudos testamos a infl uência da categoria social da vítima na relação entre crenças no mundo justo (CMJ) explícita\ implícita e a responsabilização de vítimas. No Estudo 1, 102 participantes responderam a medidas explícita e implícita da CMJ e avaliaram o grau de responsabilidade de uma vítima (endogrupo X exogrupo) de bala perdida. No Estudo 2, além da manipulação da categoria social da vítima, incluímos uma manipulação de carga cognitiva. Foram 110 participantes que responderam às medidas da CMJ e avaliaram a responsabilidade de uma vítima (endogrupo X exogrupo) de bala perdida em uma situação de carga cognitiva (baixa X alta). Verifi couse que a categoria social da vítima interfere na relação da CMJ com a responsabilização. Quando a CMJ explícita ou implícita explicou a responsabilização, esse efeito foi restrito para a avaliação da vítima do 1 Mailing address:

I like it because it hurts you: On the association of everyday sadism, sadistic pleasure, and victim blaming.

“…Given that we also aimed at assessing willingness to engage in effortful cognitive activity in the context of victim blaming, we slightly changed the vignette from the previous studies and added detailed information regarding the target person Sara, the perpetrator as well as the location where the assault took place (see OSF, https://osf.io/9fgv4/, for the complete scenario). To assess victim blaming, participants indicated, as in Studies 1a–1d, how much they agreed with the following statement: “While reading about what happened to Sara, I thought that what happened to her was partly also caused by how she acted.” Since we only presented one vignette (instead of presenting several instances of victimizing events as in Studies 1a–1d), we adapted items from Modesto and Pilati (2017) and also asked participants to indicate how much they agreed with the three following statements: “Sara is responsible for the situation she now finds herself in.” “Sara is to blame for the situation she now finds herself in.” and “Sara could have prevented the situation she now finds herself in.” ( M = 2.33, SD = 1.26, α = .88). These items capture perceived controllability, responsibility, and guilt attributed to the target person.…”

“…At each measurement point, victim blaming was measured as in the previous studies using the following three items:When I learned about what happened to the other person, I thought that they (1) are guilty of the situation in which they are; (2) are responsible for the situation in which they are; (3) could have avoided the situation they are in. (Modesto & Pilati, 2017; van den Bos & Maas, 2009)…”

“…We applied the same vignette as in Study 2, depicting a scenario of sexual assault, and used the same four items to measure victim blaming in this context (cf. Modesto & Pilati, 2017; M = 2.45, SD = 1.37, α = .84).…”

“…To assess victim blaming, participants indicated, as in Studies 1a-1d, how much they agreed with the following statement: "While reading about what happened to Sara, I thought that what happened to her was partly also caused by how she acted." Since we only presented one vignette (instead of presenting several instances of victimizing events as in Studies 1a-1d), we adapted items from Modesto and Pilati (2017) and also asked participants to indicate how much they agreed with the three following statements: "Sara is responsible for the situation she now finds herself in." "Sara is to blame for the situation she now finds herself in."…”

Compounding Prejudice? Investigating Canadian Mock Juror Perceptions of Victim Race and Work in the Sex Trade

“…Alternatively, their victimization could be rationalized through their actions, thereby preserving just world beliefs without blaming the victim (Haynes & Olson, 2006). Modesto and Pilati (2017) suggest that ingroup victims are more of a threat to just world beliefs than outgroup victims. Although participant engagement in sex work was not measured, only nine participants identified as First Nations, Métis or Inuit; therefore, because these victims were part of an outgroup, their victimization may not threaten participants' just world beliefs (Correia et al, 2012;Lerner & Miller, 1978).…”