Interesting article about the Psychology of Blaming the Victim

There is a phenomenon about blaming the victim.
There is also the phenomenon of blaming the accused, before there is any evidence.
There is also the phenomenon of always siding with one side (usually politically) regardless of the evidence.
There is also the phenomenon of exaggerating the crime, to make it more titillating.

And there is also the phenomenon of serial explaining everything...and using the word "Phenomenon" in every sentence.

Tim,

A good article, overall, and it helps to explain human nature and behavior which is where I believe the problem exists, if one wants to call it a problem. It's human nature at work and that's something that won't change in a long time for a variety of reasons.

I read about that 60s era experiment in a psych class back in the late 70s. I even saw some video of the people getting shocked.

If I may be so bold, not that it matters at all, I think Lerner focused on something, though while important, does not quite go to the heart of the matter. He focuses on the peoples' need to believe in a just world. I believe it goes deeper to the much more important need to feel protected and safe, and that need extends to all aspects of life.

A just world won't allow for bad things happening to good people. A corollary-type mindset is the one in which people believe all will be well in their lives if they do all the right things. But perhaps the (possible) error is in the definition, or belief, of what is right. It's subjective, however, people tend to look around them and see other people getting along reasonably well after doing certain things. Example, going to school and college, obeying laws, paying their bills and taxes, working hard, etc.

I really believe it's more of a need to have physical and psychological security. And of course the mention of need for some measure of control in one's life is of paramount importance. But then perhaps an argument can be made that the need for control also derives from the need for security. The latter coming as a result of the former.

Lastly, I can speak from some experience on this topic after having very difficult times, being homeless, etc. Years ago, just before becoming homeless, my (former) best friend asked me if I had a drug problem. We had been discussing the events happening to me and the possible (negative) consequences. He wondered if everything had stemmed from possible drug use.

I was more than a little incensed about that since I did not, and still do not, use drugs of any kind. I'm boringly straight in that I do not use drugs or drink any form of alcohol. I love caffeinated coffee and smoke cigarettes, though - so fine, they can crucify me for that.

And there have been quite a few other instances of this from people I used to know and others. I understand some of the process for this, such as mentioned in the article, but it can still be difficult.

My reaction and response has been to become estranged from them which is something I have no problem with.

Thanks for posting the article.

Ken

It is a good article. I'm not sure how accurate it is on some points, either.

One of the problems we had at the crisis center was that rape victims were treated as perpetrators in our legal system. It was bad back then (the end of the 70's).

The one example that really hits me since I worked with this woman and her case, was a woman whose friend called her in the middle of the night with a severe upset. So she tossed on a sweat shirt and pants and drove over to her. She broke down on the way over, a man stopped to "help", raped her - brutally, she was badly battered, too - and then she lost the case against him in court because she hadn't been wearing a bra, so basically had "given permission" for the attack.

This type of double victimization seems to me goes further than any psychological need to see the world as safe, or good, etc. To me it goes to a psychological propensity for a group to just plain feel better than anyone else and rightful in any actions they want to take against a group they feel is less somehow than themselves. Crime against the subordinate group, just doesn't matter. You either do as you are told or you get hurt. It's not about safety or security - it's about control.

I also think most of us are familiar with Milgram experiments that show that a large percent of people will actually perpetrate harm against another human or an animal simply because they are told to do so by an authority. No rationalizing why the other is being hurt at all. Just following orders.

I think what Dr Lerner was witnessing was not much more than self-exoneration of guilt for not doing the right thing and stopping what was going on.

In modern culture I believe that a large portion of people find it easier to find any person or lifetime event as the reason bad things happen....instead of facing the fact of personal responsibility.

You're all very kind. I think that victim-blaming can mostly be attributed to cowardice, moral impotence, and the weak-minded desire to be on the winning side whatever it entails, whoever is hurt. Another term I'd use to describe it is "selective psychopathy."

Here's another article on Victim Blaming:
SFU study examines

"The phenomenon of blaming rape victims can be influenced by how the sexual assault is defined, finds a new study out of Simon Fraser University.

Its results find that assault victims are less likely to be considered at fault when the rape is considered a “hate crime” – or the result of prejudices against women as a group."

In one of my college Human Resources classes, we had a mock trial based on an
actual case. A company wanted to fire a female employee. The real reasons had
more to do with chemistry than performance. It was a unionized setting, so they
also had those issues to contend with.

So, what the supervisors did is have her immediate supervisor threaten her with
her job if she did not perform a sexual act on him. She did it and during they had
his supervisor 'coincidentally' walk in on them. They fired her for the impropriety
and disciplined her immediate supervisor - trying to make it look as if it was
consensual fooling around, or perhaps that she started it.

She later won the case against the company.

In a class of 25 or so students, only one student vocalized that she should not
have been the victim at all. He was of the 100% personal responsibility school
of thought. He said nothing about the company's wrong doing.

<><><><><><>

I once had a dealing with a criminal. Her belief system was "Ha Ha, you're
the fool for trusting me." It's very creepy to experience those who transgress
and blame the victim.

<><><><><><>

Bad things should not happen to people, but there are bad people out there.

Random shit happens.

Other times there is an element of personal responsibility and being strong and assertive,
or fighting, or running away is needed. If I had a daughter, I would not want her to get
drunk at a frat house and prefer she not go at all. But, if she must go, then stay sober
and stay with a bunch of trusted people.

I also think there is an element of denial and rationalization. You know how it's said
that there are no guilty people in jail - if you ask the inmates anyway.

Bystanders want to make themselves feel better about not being the victim.
Like the people who laughed when Reagan got shot and we saw it on TV the first time.
Or the people who laughed at me sliding into the curb because I was on sheer ice.

Dan