Victims, Vignettes, and Videos: Meta-Analytic and Experimental Evidence That Emotional Impact Enhances the Derogation of Innocent Victims

Abstract

<jats:p> Research during the 1960s found that observers could be moved enough by an innocent victim’s suffering to derogate their character. However, recent research has produced inconsistent evidence for this effect. We conducted the first meta-analysis ( k = 55) of the experimental literature on the victim derogation effect to test the hypothesis that it varies as a function of the emotional impactfulness of the context for observers. We found that studies which employed more impactful contexts (e.g., that were real and vivid) reported larger derogation effects. Emotional impact was, however, confounded by year of appearance, such that older studies reported larger effects and were more impactful. To disentangle the role of emotional impact, in two primary experiments we found that more impactful contexts increased the derogation of an innocent victim. Overall, the findings advance our theoretical understanding of the contexts in which observers are more likely to derogate an innocent victim. </jats:p>

Communicative Blame in Online Communication of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Computational Approach of Stigmatizing Cues and Negative Sentiment Gauged With Automated Analytic Techniques

“…A precondition for blame attribution is the belief that in a just world, where people behave fairly, everyone gets what they deserve [ 10 - 12 ]. As such, three variables including attribution of blame, responsibility, and actor intention were examined to show that the accused agents are in fact the culprits [ 13 , 14 ]. Previous research on blaming attribute of health risks indicates that it leads to a range of damaging social outcomes.…”

Non-Indigenous Canadians’ and Americans’ moral expectations of Indigenous peoples in light of the negative impacts of the Indian Residential Schools

“…At the same time, the qualitative analyses suggest that when the vulnerability of Indigenous peoples was salient, non-Indigenous Canadians were more likely to acknowledge the harm done, and that the perpetration of the IRSs resulted not so much in deriving strengths, but in learning to mistrust the motives of others. While these perceptions might intuitively foster greater empathy and understanding, consistent with a just world perspective, highlighting the vulnerability of Indigenous peoples did not reduce participants’ propensity to diminish perceptions of benefits found or attribute lower moral obligations [ 10 , 11 ]. Particularly under these conditions, non-Indigenous Canadians may have diminished their responsibility for making amends by regarding the harms done as belonging in the past, and that efforts to reconcile differences are unlikely to succeed in light of Indigenous peoples’ learned mistrust.…”

“…As with Truth and Reconciliation efforts globally, unmasking the past harms perpetrated against Indigenous peoples makes it possible to hold a public discourse and dialogue that could form the foundation of healing, reconciliation, and social equality [ 9 ]. However, the salience of the victimization of Indigenous peoples in Canada might also bring to the fore motivational biases that encourage non-Indigenous Canadians to justify past actions, or at the very least, to derive ingroup-protective meaning going forward [ 10 ].…”

“…Predominant among the factors that influence responses to victims is a strong motivation to maintain a belief in a just world [ 11 ]. This motivation has been found to result in victim derogation, especially when the victimization experience was highly impactful and traumatic [ 10 , 11 ]. In order to restore just world beliefs, observers may construe victim suffering as compensated by moral virtue, and generate perceptions that the victims or their descendants, have acquired ‘benefits’ as a result of their experience [ 2 , 5 ].…”

Communicative Blame in Online Communication of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Computational Approach of Stigmatizing Cues and Negative Sentiment Gauged With Automated Analytic Techniques (Preprint)

“…A precondition for blame attribution is the belief that in a just world, where people behave fairly, everyone gets what they deserve [10][11][12]. As such, three variables including attribution of blame, responsibility, and actor intention were examined to show that the accused agents are in fact the culprits [13,14]. Previous research on blaming attribute of health risks indicates that it leads to a range of damaging social outcomes.…”