Why do victims sometimes receive sympathy for their suffering and at other times scorn and blame? Here we show a powerful role for moral values in attitudes toward victims. We measured moral values associated with unconditionally prohibiting harm (“individualizing values”) versus moral values associated with prohibiting behavior that destabilizes groups and relationships (“binding values”: loyalty, obedience to authority, and purity). Increased endorsement of binding values predicted increased ratings of victims as contaminated (Studies 1-4); increased blame and responsibility attributed to victims, increased perceptions of victims’ (versus perpetrators’) behaviors as contributing to the outcome, and decreased focus on perpetrators (Studies 2-3). Patterns persisted controlling for politics, just world beliefs, and right-wing authoritarianism. Experimentally manipulating linguistic focus off of victims and onto perpetrators reduced victim blame. Both binding values and focus modulated victim blame through victim responsibility attributions. Findings indicate the important role of ideology in attitudes toward victims via effects on responsibility attribution.
AlickeM. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 368-378.
2.
AlickeM. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556-574.
3.
AlickeM. D.MandelD. R.HiltonD. J.GerstenbergT.LagnadoD. A. (2015). Causal conceptions in social explanation and moral evaluation: A historical tour. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 106, 790-812.
4.
AltemeyerB. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-92.
5.
AndersonK. B.CooperH.OkamuraL. (1997). Individual differences and attitudes toward rape: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 295-315.
6.
BadourC. L.FeldnerM. T.BlumenthalH.BujarskiS. J. (2013). Examination of increased mental contamination as a potential mechanism in the association between disgust sensitivity and sexual assault-related posttraumatic stress. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37, 697-703.
7.
BanajiM. R.HeiphetzL. (2010). Attitudes. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 348-388). New York, NY: John Wiley.
8.
Ben-DavidS. (2000). Needed: Victim’s victimology. In FridayP. C.KirchoffG. F. (Eds.), Victimology at the transition from the 20th to the 21st century (pp. 55-72). Monchengladbach, Germany: Shaker Verlag & WSVP.
9.
BohnerG. (2001). Writing about rape: Use of the passive voice and other distancing features as an expression of perceived responsibility of the victim. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 515-529.
10.
BranscombeN. R.OwenS.GarstkaT.ColemanJ. (1996). Rape and accident counterfactuals: Who might have done otherwise and would it have changed the outcome?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1042-1067.
CushmanF. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353-380.
13.
DalbertC. (2009). Belief in a just world. In LearyM. R.HoyleR. H. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 288-297). New York, NY: Guilford.
14.
DalbertC.MontadaL.SchmittM. (1987). Belief in a just world: Validation correlates of two scales. Psychologische Beitrage, 29, 596-615.
15.
DuarteJ.CrawfordJ. T.SternC.HaidtJ.JussimL.TetlockP. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 38, e130.
16.
FairbrotherN.NewthS. J.RachmanS. (2005). Mental pollution: Feelings of dirtiness without physical contact. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 121-130.
17.
FazioR. H.OlsonM. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327.
FraniukR.SeefeltJ. L.VandelloJ. A. (2008). Prevalence of rape myths in headlines and their effects on attitudes toward rape. Sex Roles, 58, 790-801.
20.
GoffmanE. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
21.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046.
22.
GrahamJ.MooijmanM. (2015, December). On self-control moralization: Applying moral pluralism to the study of self-control. Presentation at the Philosophy and Science of Self-Control Conference, Tallahassee, FL.
23.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385.
24.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505-520.
25.
GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2011). To escape blame, don’t be a hero—Be a victim. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 516-519.
26.
GrayK.YoungL.WaytzA. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101-124.
27.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R.RudmanL. A.FarnhamS. D.NosekB. A.MellottD. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.1.3
28.
HaidtJ.HaslamN. (2016, April10). Campuses are places for open minds–not where debate is closed down. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://gu.com/p/4t7yt/sbl
29.
HaslamN. (2016). Concept creep: Psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 1-17.
30.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
31.
KahnemanD.MillerD. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
32.
KelleyH. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In LevineD. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation and emotion (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
33.
KnobeJ. (2006). The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 130, 203-231.
LernerM. J.MillerD. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.
36.
LernerM. J.SimmonsC. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 203-210.
37.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
MalleB. F.GuglielmoS.MunroeA. E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 25, 147-186.
40.
MorganG. S.MullenE.SkitkaL. J. (2010). When values and attributions collide: Liberals and conservatives’ values motivate attributions for alleged misdeeds. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 39, 1241-1254.
41.
NiemiL. (in press). Victim-blaming. In The SAGE encyclopedia of psychology and gender.
42.
NiemiL.HartshorneJ.GerstenbergT.YoungL. (2016, August). Implicit measurement of motivated causal attribution. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA.
43.
NiemiL.YoungL. (2013). Caring across boundaries versus keeping boundaries intact: Links between moral values and interpersonal orientations. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e81605.
44.
NiemiL.YoungL. (2014). Blaming the victim in the case of rape. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 230-233.
45.
NiemiL.YoungL. (2016). Justice and the moral lexicon. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 50-54.
46.
NisbettR. E.CaputoC.LegantP.MarecekJ. (1973). Behavior as seen by the actor and as seen by the observer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 154-164.
47.
ParkerA. (2008). Mixed results: U.S. policy and international standards on the rights and interests of victims of crimes. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.
48.
PinkerS. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York, NY: Viking.
49.
PryorJ. B.ReederG. D.YeadonC.Hesson-McLnnisM. (2004). A dual-process model of reactions to perceived stigma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 436-452.
50.
QuinnD. M.ChaudoirS. R. (2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 634-651.
RoeseN. J. (1997). Counterfactual thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 133-148.
53.
ScheinC.GoransonA.GrayK. (2015). The uncensored truth about morality: Ubiquitous harm and our dyadic moral minds. The Psychologist, 28, 982-985.
54.
ScheinC.GrayK. (2015). The unifying moral dyad: Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1147-1163.
55.
StricklandB.FisherM.KeilF.KnobeJ. (2014). Syntax and intentionality: An automatic link between language and theory-of-mind. Cognition, 133, 249-261.
56.
ValdesoloP.DeStenoD. (2007). Moral hypocrisy: Social groups and the flexibility of virtue. Psychological Science, 18, 689-690.
57.
YoungL.PhillipsJ. (2011). The paradox of moral focus. Cognition, 119, 166-178.
58.
YoungM.SteinJ. (2004). The history of the crime victims’ movement in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
