Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T15:51:15.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptions of the Self and most People’s Reactions towards Innocent and Noninnocent Victims

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2013

Hélder Alves  and
Isabel Correia
Hélder Alves*
Affiliation:
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social (CIS-IUL), Lisboa (Portugal)
Isabel Correia
Affiliation:
Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social (CIS-IUL), Lisboa (Portugal)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hélder Alves. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL). Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social (CIS-IUL). Av. das Forças Armadas. 1649-026 Lisboa. (Portugal). Phone: +351-217903079. Fax: +351-217903962. E-mail: havga@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research has shown that: individuals positively distinguish themselves from most other people; being consistent is positively valued; injunctive and descriptive norms are perceived to protect victims. Joining these findings, we argue that individuals present themselves as following injunctive and descriptive norms towards victims to a higher extent and more consistently than most people. In an experimental study 273 university students of both sexes indicated what they and most other people would approve of (injunctive norm) or typically do (descriptive norm) regarding various reactions towards either an innocent or a noninnocent victim. The reactions involved secondary victimization (devaluation/derogation, avoidance, suffering minimization, blaming the victim) and non secondary victimization (valuation, contact, suffering acknowledgment, not blaming the victim). Participants perceived themselves and most people as approving of more non secondary than secondary victimization reactions, except for blaming the noninnocent victim. Participants indicated they approved of most of the normative reactions to a higher extent than most people, which is interpreted as a new instance of the Primus Inter Pares effect. Participants also indicated they would show more consistency between their injunctive and descriptive norms, especially towards the innocent victim. Results suggest that individuals perceive themselves as more immune to perverse norms than most people.

Keywords

secondary victimizationinjunctive normsdescriptive normsPrimus Inter Pares effectperverse norms.
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 16 , 2013 , E69
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The research reported in this paper was supported by grants SFRHD/BD/10816/2002 and SFRH/BPD/46357/2008 awarded to Hélder Alves by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Mauro Bianchi and Thomas Schubert from the GCIR group at CIS-IUL for their comments on a previous version of the manuscript.

References

Alves, H., & Correia, I. (2008). On the normativity of expressing the belief in a just world: Empirical evidence. Social Justice Research, 21, 106–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0060-x Google Scholar
Alves, H., & Correia, I. (2009). A first approach to social norms regarding reactions towards innocent and noninnocent victims. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 8, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, H., & Correia, I. (2010). Personal and general belief in a just world as judgment norms. International Journal of Psychology, 45, 221–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207590903281120 Google Scholar
Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V. C., Karuza, J. Jr., Coates, D., Cohn, E., & Kidder, L. (1982). Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist, 37, 368–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.37.4.368 Google Scholar
Channouf, A., & Mangard, C. (1997). Les aspects socionormatifs de la consistence cognitive [The socionormative aspects of cognitive consistence]. Les Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 36, 28–45.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60330-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Codol, J. P. (1975). On the so called “superior conformity of the self” behavior: Twenty experimental investigations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 457–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420050404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Correia, I., & Vala, J. (2003). When will a victim be secondarily victimized? The effect of the observer’s belief in a just world, victim’s innocence and persistence of suffering. Social Justice Research, 16, 379–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026313716185 Google Scholar
Correia, I., Vala, J., & Aguiar, P. (2001). The effects of belief in a just world and victim’s innocence on secondary victimization, judgments of justice and deservingness. Social Justice Research, 14, 327–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014324125095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Critcher, C. R., Huber, M., Ho, A. K., & Koleva, S. P. (2009). Political orientation and ideological inconsistencies: (Dis)comfort with value tradeoffs. Social Justice Research, 2-3, 181–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-009-0096-1 Google Scholar
Dalbert, C., Montada, L., & Schmitt, M. (1987). Glaube an die gerechte Welt als Motiv: Validierung zweier Skalen [Belief in a just world as a motive: Validation of two scales]. Psychologische Beiträge, 29, 596–615.Google Scholar
Dubois, N., & Beauvois, J. L. (2005). Normativeness and individualism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 123–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.236 Google Scholar
Félonneau, M. L., & Becker, M. (2008). Pro-environmental attitudes and behavior: Revealing perceived social desirability. Révue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 21, 25–53.Google Scholar
Fernández-Dols, J. M. (1992). Procesos escabrosos em psicología social: El concepto de norma perversa [Thorny processes in social psychology: The concept of perverse norm]. Revista de Psicologia Social, 7, 243–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göckeritz, S., Schultz, P. W., Rendón, T., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: The moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 514–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.643 Google Scholar
Hafer, C. L. (2000). Do innocent victims threaten the belief in a just world? Evidence from a modified Stroop task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 165–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.2.165 Google Scholar
Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_2 Google Scholar
Jacobson, R. P., & Mortensen, C. R. (2011). Bodies obliged and unbound: Differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 433–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021470 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum press.Google Scholar
Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 388–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_10 Google Scholar
Mohiyeddini, C., & Montada, L. (1998). BJW and self-efficacy in coping with observed victimization: Results from a study about unemployment. In Montada, L. & Lerner, M. J. (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world. New York, NY: Plenum press.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 913–923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316691 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oceja, L. V. & Fernandez-Dols, J. M. (2001). Perverse effects of unfulfilled norms: A look at the roots of favoritism. Social Justice Research, 14, 289–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014320024186 Google Scholar
Pinto, I. R., Marques, J. M., Levine, J. M., & Abrams, D. (2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 107–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018187 Google Scholar
Robbenholt, J. K. (2000). Outcome severity and judgments of “responsibility”: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2575–2609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02451.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18, 429–434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x Google Scholar
Shaver, K. G., & Drown, D. (1986). On causality, responsibility, and self-Blame: A theorical note. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 697–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.697 Google Scholar
Simons, C. W., & Piliavin, J. A. (1972). Effect of deception on reactions to a victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 56–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0031942 Google Scholar
Snyder, M. L., Kleck, R. E., Strenta, A., & Mentzer, S. J. (1979). Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2297–2306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.12.2297 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonne, J., & Pope, K. (1991). Treating victims of therapist-patient sexual involvement. Psychotherapy, 28, 174–187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.28.1.174 Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In Worchel, S. & Austin, L. W. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Bos, K., & Maas, M. (2009). On the psychology of the belief in a just world: Exploring experiential and rationalistic paths to victim blaming. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1567–1578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167209344628 Google Scholar